HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-02-14 Board Packet 1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
July 2, 2014
3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 19, 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) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL CON-SULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ICF INTERNATIONAL IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $375,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2015,
2016, AND 2017 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2017)
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)
c) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO RBF CON-SULTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND INSPECTION SUP-
2
PORT OF THE 870-2 PUMP STATION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $853,485
d) REJECT ALL BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 624 PRES-
SURE 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
g) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 544 AMENDING SECTION 23.04, CROSS-CONNECTIONS AND BACKFLOW DEVICES, OF THE DISTRICT’S
CODE OF ORDINANCES
ACTION ITEMS
7. 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 CLOSELY ALIGN ITS LANGUAGE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OUT-
LINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53065.5
b) APPROVE A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES ON OTAY MESA
8. BOARD
a) DISCUSSION OF THE 2014 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR INFORMATIONAL ITEM
9. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATION-
AL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM:
a) FISCAL YEAR 2014 THIRD QUARTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO-
GRAM REPORT
3
REPORTS
10. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
a) SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
11. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
12. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS
13. ADJOURNMENT
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be
deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board.
The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the
District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered
at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website.
Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District
Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280.
If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to
participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at (619) 670-2280 at least
24 hours prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on June 27, 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 June 27, 2014.
/s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary
1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
May 19, 2014
1. The meeting was called to order by President Lopez at 3:20 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak and Thompson
Directors Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Attorney Richard Romero, Asst. GM German Alvarez, Chief of Information Technology
Geoff Stevens, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of
Engineering Rod Posada, Chief of Administration Rom Sarno,
Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, District Secretary Susan
Cruz and others per attached list.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Thompson and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None
Absent: None
to approve the agenda. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
No one wished to be heard.
2
WORKSHOP
6. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4235 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO APPROVE
THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET; APPROVE
FUND TRANSFERS FOR POTABLE, RECYCLED, AND SEWER; APPROVE WATER AND SEWER RATE CHANGES ON ALL BILLINGS THAT BEGIN IN
CALENDAR YEAR 2015; ADOPT THE SALARY SCHEDULE; AND ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 543 AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 53,
CONDITIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE, AND APPENDIX A WITH THE
PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER RATE CHANGES; AND DIRECT STAFF TO SEND RATE INCREASE NOTICES
Chief Financial Officer Beachem reviewed the objectives of the workshop which
included:
• Reviewing the FY 2015 - 2018 Strategic Plan
• Presenting for approval an $91.6 million Operating Budget
• Presenting for approval a $10.6 million CIP Budget
• Requesting approval of average rate increases to be effective January 1,
2015
Water: 5.8%
Sewer: 5.0%
• Requesting approval of the annual fund transfers
Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens provided a presentation on the District’s 2015-2018 Strategic Plan. He noted that the presented Strategic Plan is
for four (4) years, one (1) more year than previous plans. He presented slides
stating the District’s Mission (what the District will do), Vision (how the District will
do it), Statement of Values and Key Challenges (see attached copy of staffs’
presentation).
He indicated that the implementation of the Strategic Plan will be a two phase
approach. The first phase is to improve the foundation processes and systems
which includes:
• Identifying the key projects (building blocks) needed
o SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition): Monitors water
related equipment o Work Order / AM: Management of work for District’s assets o Water Planning
o Emergency Preparedness/NIMS (National Incident Management
System)
• Identifying key commitments and deliverables across departments
• Enterprise focus
• Limit focus to these projects first; if there is additional time, then expand
3
• Sharpen existing measurement targets already in the plan
Chief of Information Technology Stevens indicated that staff is continuing the
objectives and performance measures that are already in place. He stated that
nothing is being taken out of the plan, the District is just focusing on the plan in a different way.
Once the key building blocks are in place and the resources across all departments
are gathered, the District will move into Phase 2; implementing enhanced
performance measures. This phase includes:
• Test scenarios and approaches during Phase 1 and be ready to implement
after key projects are in place
• Identify measurement philosophy to ensure relevance
• Build a visual display (dashboard) of results
• Determine internal areas of focus; how to best contribute to overall company efficiency and effectiveness
Mr. Stevens reviewed the details of each Key Project and Objective in Phase I (see
attached copy of staffs’ presentation) for fiscal year 2015. He also noted the
Objectives from fiscal year 2014 that will continue into 2015 (see attached copy of staffs’ presentation). He stated the focus in Phase 2 is to develop better enterprise
measures. There will be critical ratios, such as employees per customer, O&M per
customer, debt coverage ratio, etc., which will provide a good view of what is going
on at the macro level with the business/District and there will be measures that
provide detailed feedback at the department level. The District’s target is to present a “dashboard” view or a consolidated metrics view for the board. He presented a
slide indicating the existing Operating Measures that will continue in the fiscal year
2015-2018 Strategic Plan (see attached copy of staffs’ presentation).
Chief Financial Officer Beachem reviewed the rate model and the process to develop the District’s budget. He stated the Strategic Plan is where the process
begins and it is what drives where the District will be focusing its efforts. With the
Strategic Plan as a guide, all items are input into the 6-year rate model which
includes the 6-year CIP Budget, Operating budget, MWD and CWA rates, beginning
year balances, the various assumptions for interest rates, inflation, growth and sales, and the District’s targets for debt coverage and reserve levels. From the
input, the District generates an Operating and CIP Budget and the water and sewer
rates to support the budgets.
As the rate model is developed, staff assures that District objectives are met. Some of the objectives include:
• Increasing the debt coverage ratio to the 152% target
• Funding the $91.6 million Operating Budget
• Funding the $10.6 million Capital Budget
4
• Maintaining all reserves at target levels
• Adhering to the Reserve Policy guidelines
He stated that staff is also requesting approval of the proposed reserve and operating budget fund transfers for FY 2015 of $8.1 million to assure all the
reserves are at target:
• Potable:
− Designated Expansion to Replacement - $4,470,000
• Recycled:
− General Fund to Designated Expansion - $1,971,100
− General fund to New Water Supply - $25,000
• Sewer:
− Designated Expansion to Replacement - $40,500
− Designated Betterment to Replacement - $530,000
− General Fund to Replacement - $1,050,300
− General Fund to Sewer State Loan - $34,000
From the Operating Budget revenues, staff is proposing transfers to the following
reserve funds:
• From Recycled transferring $2,538,900 to the Expansion Reserve
• From Potable ($2,805,000) and Recycled ($725,000) transferring a total of
$3,530,000 to the Betterment Reserve
• From Potable ($675,000), Recycled ($1,679,000) and Sewer ($961,200) transferring a total of $3,270,200 to the Replacement Reserves
• From Potable transferring $1,583,800 to the General Fund Reserve
• From Potable transferring $553,800 to the Sewer General Fund Reserve
• From Potable transferring $127,000 to the Sewer Replacement Reserve
• From Potable ($546,000), Recycled ($57,300) and Sewer ($43,800) transferring a total of $647,100 to the OPEB Trust Fund
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that staff had projected in last Fiscal
Year’s (FY) six-year budget projections water rate increases that are a little higher
than this year’s projections primarily because MWD’s proposed increases for this FY were lower than projected last fiscal year. Also, there has been an increase in labor efficiency (drop in head count from 143 to 140 FTE staff members) and the
District’s CIP has been reduced $3.2 million. Staff is proposing a 5.8% in FY 2015,
a 4.7% increase in FY 2016 and 2017, a 4.6% increase in FYs 2018 to 2019 and a
4.5% increase in FY 2020. He indicated with a reduction in the rate increase, there is a reduction in the debt coverage ratio which will bring it closer to 150%.
5
He indicated that the six-year budget projections for sewer this FY is also lower than was projected last FY. A 7.9% increase was projected from FY 2014 to 2019. This
FY, the rate increases for sewer from FY 2015 through 2020 is projected to be 5%.
The decrease is primarily due to savings in labor cost.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem also indicated that the District’s minimum required Debt Coverage Ratio, per the District’s Bond Covenant, is 125% and the target level
is 150%. He stated that the District’s Debt Coverage Ratio has not been above
150% since 2008, during the downturn in the economy. With the improving
economy and the proposed rate increases, the District’s Debt Coverage Ratio,
excluding growth revenues (connection fees, capacity fees, etc.), is projected to be back above 150% for FY 2015 at 152%. If growth revenues are included, the
District’s Debt Coverage Ratio for FY 2015 is projected to be 166%. He stated that
the District looks at both ratios, with and without growth, as the District must
maintain its target level even if there is no longer growth.
He stated that 75% of the proposed rate increase is due to the District’s suppliers
raising their rates and 25% is due to Otay WD’s internal cost increases. He
reviewed in detail the items that are putting an upward pressure on the District’s
rates:
• Water costs increase of $2,034,100
• Power cost increase of $145,400
• Salary and benefit costs net increase of $1,073,800 (while reducing
employee head count by 3 FTEs)
• Materials and Maintenance cost increases of $336,600
• Proposed Sewer State Revolving Fund debt issuance $1.96 million in FY
2016 and $1.76 million in FY 2017
He stated that with the proposed water rate increase for FY 2015, the District would
rank as the eleventh (11th) lowest cost water provider with an average residential bill of $81.66 for customers utilizing an average of 14 units of water a month. The
District’s goal is to remain under the mid-point among the local water agencies and
as the 11th lowest cost water provider, it has met this goal.
He indicated with regard to the proposed sewer rate increase of 5% in each of the next six (6) years, the typical residential customer will see a $2.82 increase per
month where $2.06 is due to the rate increase and $0.76 is due to the phase in of
the Cost of Service Study. With the proposed increases in FY 2015, the District will
be the seventh (7th) lowest cost sewer service provider with an average residential
bill of $45.16 for customers who use an average of 14 units of water a month. Again, the District’s goal is to remain under the mid-point among the local sewer
providers and as the 7th lowest cost water provider, it has met this goal.
He stated that in FY 2015 the District has a pretty substantial CIP budget to fund
totaling $17.4 million for six (6) years. He noted that potable had borrowed funds
6
from sewer to avoid some temporary borrowing and the borrowed funds are being paid back in FY 2015. The District will also need to borrow $3.7 million from the
State Revolving Funds to fund the sewer CIP. This is a low cost and low interest
rate (2.5% for 20 years) debt with no external issuance cost. He indicated that all
reserve are on target.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem introduced Mr. Gary London of the London Group.
Mr. London worked with staff to develop the growth projections for the development
of the District’s budget. He stated that Mr. London will be presenting an economic
overview for San Diego County. Mr. London noted the employment rate from
January 2002 to January 2014 and indicated that the employment level dipped to very low levels during the recessionary years and reached its lowest point in 2010.
He stated that we have since reduced the unemployment rate from double digits to
approximately 6%. He noted that while unemployment is not the only metric, it
certainly provides information on where we were and where the economy is today.
He indicated that from a baseball perspective, the economy is probably in the fourth or fifth inning of recovery. He stated that it will be a long slow continual recovery,
but that economic prosperity is in front of us and we will see an upward curve in
economic expansion over the next few years at least.
He indicated that San Diego is in a much better position economically than other parts of the Country because it has a diversified economy. He stated, however,
there are still a lot of individuals who are underemployed; those that have been
trained to be lawyers, etc., but are not working in the fields that they were trained or
are working less than 40 hours per week. He indicated that the overall health of the
economy is also affected by the job participation level which has gone down because the key demographic, those born between 1949 to 1964, are starting their
retirement years, but are not yet ready to retire and they do not have the skills to
start over again.
He reviewed job growth in San Diego from 2008 to 2013 and most of the segments have been in a growth mode since 2010 to 2013 with the exception of the
manufacturing sector. He indicated that he is not comfortable indicating that
manufacturing is ever going to come back to historical levels, however, the
construction sector has been rebounding heavily over the past year. Construction is not at its lowest levels as it has been in the early part of the century, but it is back at a reasonable pace.
Mr. London stated that in comparing the demographic growth rate for the Otay WD
and the County as a whole, the District’s growth rates are higher. The number of persons per household is larger and the average median income per household is substantially higher than the region as a whole. Since the crash of 2007, the house
resale market has been recovering from a pricing perspective, but sales have not
been near the levels that occurred before the economic downturn. He indicated that
he felt that demand exceeding supply will become a permanent state for the housing market. This will continue to bid up house prices in the region.
7
He stated that the commercial market is similar to the residential market in that
evaluations have not recovered to the levels prior to the recession. They are
climbing back up, but likely will not reach pre-recession levels. Commercial is in a
much slower growth mode than the residential sector primarily because technology
is shrinking workspace requirements. Retail is also closing more space than it is adding due to on-line shopping. This impact is mainly to mid-level retail. High-end
and low-end retail is doing fine.
Mr. London indicated that residential foreclosures have declined and we have pretty
much reached the end of that period. There is very little foreclosure inventory and distressed individuals are able to sell their homes in today’s economy. This will hold
true over the coming years. He stated in the City of Chula Vista, the number of new
permitted residential homes is much below the peak of 2004. However, we are
showing steady growth from 2009 to 2013 and he felt this current pace is likely what
will continue in the foreseeable future in this region.
He presented a slide (see attached copy of presentation) indicating the projected
new residential construction within the District’s service area from FYs 2013 to
2020. He stated that the presented numbers are going to be very accurate in terms
of the delivery of constructible units over the next few years. He stated that his firm has vetted the numbers with the City, County and with the developers themselves.
He highlighted that much of the residential construction will be apartment buildings,
which is reflective of the state of the market we are in today. He indicated the
reason is that there is not enough land to build single family homes and, thus, the
demand for single family homes is increasing which is driving prices up. Also, developers feel that condominiums are not feasible to build as they cannot price
them high enough to build them profitably. Thus, many perspective homeowners
will likely rent for a while. He noted, however, that because of the affluence and the
fact that most of the developable property is within the District’s service area, it is inevitable that the region will see more single family homes built in comparison to the remainder of the region. Over the next few years, however, it will be at a
conservative level.
Chief of Engineering Rod Posada presented the District’s projected six (6) year CIP from 2015 to 2020. He stated that staff utilized Mr. London’s and the developers’ projections to develop the District’s growth projections which is presented in slide
number 34 of staffs’ report (see attached copy of presentation). He indicated that
Single-Family homes (150 units), condominiums (50 units) and apartment units
(300) are the majority of the developments projected in FY 2015. There will also be approximately $48 million in commercial development mainly in the Otay Mesa area with some in the City of Chula Vista. He indicated that growth, thus, will remain
relatively flat in FY 2015.
He stated in the development of the CIP budget for FY 2015 this year, staff reprioritized projects based on recent requests for water availability letters, Water
8
Supply Assessment reports, and the District’s Water Facilities Master Plan, and projects that the CIP Budget requirement for FY 2015 is $10.6 million. The six-year
CIP Budget total for FY’s 2015 to 2020 is $103.6 million. Of the $103.6 million,
$56.56 million is designated for Capital Facilities Projects, $37.37 million for
Replacement/Renewal Projects, $4.90 million for Developer Reimbursements and
$4.70 million for Capital Purchases. He presented the high profile CIP projects which included:
• Campo Road Sewer Replacement, $5.5 million
• Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System, $27.4 million
• 870-2 Pump Station Replacement, $15.7 million
• Sewer System Rehabilitation, $5.5 million
• Reservoir Improvements, $5.5 million
for a total expenditure of $59.6 million.
Accounting Manager Rita Bell presented the details of the FY 2015 Operating
Budget and the how the budget was developed. She indicated that the District’s
water sales projections for FY 2015 are based on the average sales for FY 2011 to
FY 2013 . Staff did not utilize the sales figures for FY 2014, as sales were much
higher than budgeted due to the high temperatures and low rainfall. Staff also developed the growth rates based on the projections by The London Group and the
Engineering Department.
She indicated that potable water sales projected for FY 2014 was pretty level with
earlier years and because of higher temperatures and low rainfall, potable sales this FY is more than 6% over budget. Based on the average potable sales for FY 2011
to FY 2013, staff is projecting FY 2015 water sales of 12,716,000 units. Staff feels
this is a reasonable level, especially if the drought continues and customers are
asked to conserve more.
She stated that potable water sales revenues are increasing $4.9 million (7.3%)
budget to budget. Of the $4.9 million, $3.1 million is due to the FY 2014 rate
increases and to increased sales because of higher temperatures and low rainfall;
and $1.7 million is due to the FY 2015 proposed rate increases. Potable water
sales will increase 0.7% based on average sales from FY 2011 to FY 2013 and the added growth factor. She also noted that when staff sets the potable rate, the fixed
fees are set at no more than 30% of the total revenues based on Best Management
Practice 1.4.
Accounting Manager Bell indicated with regard to recycled water sales that staff sees a similar picture. Staff also utilized the average sales from FY 2011 to FY
2013 to project recycled water sales in FY 2015 and leveled it off. It is projected
that FY 2015 recycled water sales will be 1.7 million units which is slightly lower
than last FY. She stated recycled water sales revenues are increasing $486,500
(5.8%). She noted that of the $486,500 increase in recycled water revenues,
9
$315,700 is due to the FY 2014 rate increase and increased sales due to higher temperatures and low rainfall; and $170,800 is due to the FY 2015 rate increases.
Recycled water sales will decrease 4,100 units or -0.2% in FY 2015.
She also reviewed the sewer sales revenues and indicated that sewer revenues will
increase $318,200 (11.8%) in FY 2015. Of the $318,200 increase in sewer revenues, $74,700 is due to the FY 2014 rate increase, $222,200 is due to rate
structure changes from the FY 2014 rate structure change implemented last year
based on the Sewer Cost of Service Study (COSS), and $21,300 is due to the
board approved phase-in of the residential system fee.
The District receives revenues from other sources which include:
• Capacity Fee Revenues will decrease $140,600 (10.9%) due to a decrease
in developer activity and the completion of the Sewer Master Plan.
• Betterment Fee Revenues will decrease $474,900 (61.1%) due to the
expiration of betterment fee revenues (betterment fees are being shifted to
water rates); this is revenue neutral
• Property Tax will increase $167,900 (5.8%)
• Rents and Leases will increase $22,800 (1.8%)
• Miscellaneous Revenues will decrease $78,000 due to an increase in billable work order activity
She stated that the District’s water cost is increasing $2,034,100 or 4%. She
reviewed the reasons for the water cost increases which included:
• Variable Cost Increase:
− Potable costs increase of $1,492,600 or 4.5%
− Recycle costs decrease of $3,400 or -0.3%
• Fixed Cost Increase:
− Potable costs increase of $539,500 or 5.2% due to a rate increase from the District’s water suppliers (CWA and MWD)
− There is no change in the recycled water costs
• Take or Pay
− Recycled cost increase of $5,400 or 1.0% due to the inflator in the
contractual agreement
She indicated that sewer costs will decrease $3,100 or -0.3% in FY 2015 due to a O&M cost decrease in the same amount of $3,100 from the City of San Diego Metro
Commission. The Spring Valley Sanitation District’s O&M charges will remain the
same in FY 2015.
Accounting Manager Bell stated that power cost from SDG&E is estimated to increase $145,100 or 5.4%. The reasons for the increase include:
• Water demand increase of 0.7% for potable and 0.2% for recycled
10
• SDG&E had planned four (4) separate 2.5% rate increases which did not
happen. They did implement, effective May 1, rate increases between 4%
and 7% depending on meter size (the District has small, medium and large
meters) and extended their summer peak for the month of October
Assistant Chief of Administration and Information Technology Adolfo Segura
reviewed the staffing changes. He indicated that each year the Senior Team
members conduct an analysis of staff workload requirements and existing
vacancies. Based on the review, three (3) vacant positions were deleted reducing
the fulltime equivalent (FTE)/headcount from 143 to 140 in FY 2015. He stated that the District has reduced the number of staff members from 174.75 in 2007 to 140 in
2015; a reduction of 34.75 employees or 19.9%. The cumulative cost savings from
the reduction in staffing is approximately $19,288,600 from 2007 to 2015. From an
efficiency standpoint, the customer to employee ratio has increased from 301
customers serviced per employee in 2007 to 389 customers serviced per employee in 2015 or an increase of 29.2%.
He indicated that salaries and benefits have increased $1,073,800. The items
increasing salary and benefits include:
• Increase in pension costs of $500,700
• Increase in Operating budget caused by decrease in CIP charges of
$409,900
• Increase in in-range adjustments per the MOU of $127,000 (no COLA
increase)
• Increase in OPEB of $165,00
• Increase in temporary position wages of $86,500
Offsetting the increases in salaries and benefits are a:
• Decrease in the staffing level of ($263,200)
• Decrease in Overtime of ($24,600)
Staff is also requesting that the board approve the salary schedule which is
attached as Exhibit 2 to staffs’ report.
In response to an inquiry from Director Croucher, Accounting Manager Bell
indicated that cost savings realized by outsourcing workload is netted against the cost saved by eliminating positions. She stated that the numbers presented do
reflect this net savings.
Chief of Operations Pedro Porras reviewed changes in the District’s materials and
maintenance costs and indicated that the District has an overall increase in costs of $86,900 and the increase is attributed to:
• Increase in Safety Equipment & Supplies of $17,900 or 68.1%
11
• Increase in Contracted Services of $123,900 or 26.7%
− $100,000 of this amount is for the Operations Department for potential
major water main breaks
• Increase in Infrastructure Equipment & Supplies of $26,000 or 5.2%
The increase in materials and maintenance costs was offset by the following
savings:
• Decrease in Chemicals of $29,000 or 6.8%
− District will no longer be required to pay sales taxes for sodium
hypochlorite.
• Decrease in Other Materials & Supplies of $24,400 or 15.6%
• Decrease in meter and materials of $21,100 or 15.3%
The District will also see a reduction in fuel cost due to:
• The implementation of the Automated Meter Reading (AMR) program there
was a reduction in the number of vehicles for meter reading
• In 2007 the District began utilizing more fuel efficient vehicles
• In 2009 SR125 opened which reduced fuel cost
Additionally, in correlation with the reduction in staffing, the District was able to
reduce the number of vehicles needed in the field. Further savings were realized
when the Department of Environmental Health (DEH), in FY 2012, allowed the
District to perform recycled water system inspections without their being present.
This has reduced the inspections fees paid to the DEH.
Accounting Manager Bell indicated that the overall administrative expenses
increased $336,600 or 6.6%. She reviewed the reasons for the increase:
• Increase in Equipment Cost of $232,700 (this is a one-time cost for the
purchase of equipment)
• Increase in Property Liability Insurance of $35,200 related to the increase in
the number of facilities and property that must be insured
• Increase in the allocation to work orders of $98,500
There were also some decreases in administrative costs which included:
• Decrease in postage and printing of $36,100
− Eliminated the printing and mailing of Proposition 218 notices in FY
2015. The District will instead be printing 30 day notices and bill inserts.
• Decrease in outside services for the removal of the one-time cost for a Salary
Survey Study of $40,000 and Actuarial Services of $10,000 from the FY 2015
12
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that staff is proposing a balanced budget which meets the water and sewer needs of our customers and support the District’s
Strategic Plan. The budget is supported by a 5.8% average rate increase for water
and a 5.0% average rate increase for sewer. Staff is recommending that the board
adopt Resolution No. 4235 approving the FY 2015 Operating Budget of $91.6
million, the FY 2015 – 2020 CIP Budget of $10.3 million, and the listing of job classifications and salary schedule. Staff is also requesting that the Board adopt
Ordinance No. 543 to implement the rate increase of 5.8% for water and 5.0% for
sewer effective January 1, 2015, approve the fund transfers, and direct staff to send
rate increase notices to the District’s customers.
Director Thompson left the dias at 4:25 p.m.
Director Croucher indicated that CWA had requested that MWD not raise their rates
(0% increase) due to the fact that they are significantly over their reserve target
levels. MWD denied CWA’s request. He noted that the District will see an increase from CWA, but the increase will support increased water supply and storage
reliability.
Director Croucher also complimented Mr. London on his presentation on the
economy. He inquired if there is anything overall in the County for agriculture. Mr. London indicated that he has not done any studies specific to agriculture, but his
sense is that it is not growing.
Director Thompson returned to the dias at 4:29 p.m.
In response to an inquiry from President Lopez, Mr. London indicated that he felt
that the city is more bullish with their projections. He stated that he is very
comfortable with the projections that his firm has provided. He indicated that they
had put a lot of work into the projections and he feels they are accurate. Director Croucher stepped off the dias at 4:31 p.m.
Director Thompson inquired what the projection differentiation would be between
condos and apartments. Chief of Engineering Posada indicated that there is not a differentiation in the meters between apartments and condominiums. Both would utilize master meters with sub-meters, which is reflected in the District’s meter sales
projections. It was noted that there is a meter count and an EDU (Equivalent
Dwelling Units) count. The meter size is based on the type of use. There was a
differentiation in our revenues in that the number of meters that we projected to be sold was less than the actual sales.
Director Croucher returned to the dias at 4:34 p.m.
In response to an inquiry from Director Robak, staff indicated that the increase from MWD is 1.5% and CWA advertised their increase as 2.6%, but this does not include
13
IAC (Infrastructure Access Charge) or MWD’s (readiness to serve or capacity reservation charge) numbers. When you add these numbers in and cost it to Otay
WD, the rate increase is actually 3.6%. Part of the rate increase is the shifting of
$474,000 in betterment fees to the general water rate and SDG&E’s increase of
approximately $1 million. The increase after the shift is $1,453,000. It was
indicated that the 75% ($1,095,000) of the increase is due to the potable water rate increase and SDG&E’s increase. The shift of the betterment fees of $474,000 to
the general water rate is not a rate increase as it is revenue neutral and it is
basically a shift in where the fees are collected. Staff explained that if there were no
increases from the District’s providers, 75% of 5.8%, the District’s proposed water
rate increase, would go away. The 25% is made up of some internal cost increases and for funding the reserves.
In response to another inquiry from Director Robak, Accounting Manager Bell
indicated that the 11.8% ($318,200) increase in sewer revenues is the increase in
the FY 2015 sewer budget over the FY 2014 budget. She stated that 5% or $74,700 is due to the proposed sewer rate increase and the balance of $222,200 is
due to the rate structure change implemented in FY 2014. Additionally, $21,300 is
due to the Board approved phase-in of the residential system fee. In response to
anther inquiry from Director Robak, staff indicated that the 5% increase would not
be universal to all sewer customers. Single-family residential customers will see a larger increase and multi-residential and commercial will see a lower increase.
Also, the District had a base fee for 3/4” and 1” residential meter customers. This
base fee no longer exists and has been combined into one fee for both meter sizes.
Thus, 1” meter customers will receive a small decrease. She also noted that
individual customer bills are dependent upon their winter use.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated in response to an additional inquiry from
Director Robak that the rate increase is complex and customer service staff do
receive calls with regard to the rate increase notices. The customer service staff responds to their questions and explains the increases. Staff indicated that they can review the sewer notice and see if there is additional language that can be
added to clearly explain the proposed increase.
Director Robak also indicated with regard to a comparison of the District’s sewer rate with other local sewer service providers, and in particular the County of San Diego, the District’s sewer rate was lower than the County of San Diego in the past.
Currently, residents who live across the street from one another, the resident
receiving service from the District is 35% higher than the resident receiving service
from the County of San Diego. He inquired what is keeping the County of San Diego’s rate consistently lower that the District’s. Accounting Manager Bell indicated that the County had merged all their individual sanitation districts (Pine
Valley, Lake Forrest, etc.) and they were using up some of their excess reserves,
which has kept their rate down. She indicated that the County of San Diego is
currently doing a Cost of Service Study and that she could check with them on how the outcome for their sewer service costs.
14
In response to another inquiry from Director Robak, Chief of Engineering Posada
indicated that the District is in conversation with the County of San Diego with
regard to their possibly treating the District’s sewage or in their taking over the
District’s Ralph Chapman Water Reclamation Plant. This would reduce the
District’s costs. At this time, a study is being done and there is no certainty of the outcome.
General Manager Watton indicated in response to an inquiry from Director Robak
that more employee salary costs are being shifted from the CIP to the Operating
budget. Also, the increase in PERS cost is due to having less employees due to the District’s reduction of FTE’s over the years. The District is still paying charges for its
retirees, but have fewer employees to spread the cost over. He indicated that the
State did pass new statutes that provides for a different retirement system which will
reduce costs, but it will take some time before the District sees the impact to costs
from to the new system.
Director Robak indicated that at some point customers will get to a point where they
cannot get more efficient with their water use and if this was taken into
consideration. Accounting Manager Bell indicated that for the six-year model, staff
took the average of the three (3) years and added the projected growth for six (6) years. She agreed that at some point customers will get to a point where they
cannot do more to conserve, but that would be very far out in the future.
Director Robak suggested that staff make the water conservation message on the
Rate Notices more prominent so it is more eye-catching. Staff indicated that it certainly can be done.
Director Croucher also inquired with regard to the Rate Notices, if there is a way to
make it very clear that the rate increase can impact water consumed as early as December 2014. Staff responded that they would try to make that information more prominent as well.
Director Thompson commented that the District has a 5.7% increase in labor and
benefits costs, while at the same time it has reduced the FTE count by 2%. He stated that this indicates that the District’s labor and benefit costs are increasing per employee by about 7.7%. He stated that he also understands that labor is also
charged to the CIP budget which is not included in the operating budget. The labor
cost is one area that he has concerns with and would like to understand the reasons
in why it is going up. Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that when the District does its projections for labor, each department is asked to identify how much labor is being charged to the Operating versus CIP budget. He stated that
this year there is less being charged to the CIP budget and more is being charged
in the Operating Budget. Staff noted that the driver of the CIP budget is
construction. The personnel labor used in construction is substantially less than the amount of labor used in design. During slow construction periods, the District
15
handles construction management in house. When construction is very busy, the District does not want to hire staff, instead the District utilizes construction
management consultants to handle the peak periods. It was further discussed that
over a million was for labor cost, approximately $400,000 was charged to the CIP
budget, and $120,000 was allocated to step increases.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that part of the rate increase is tied to the
District’s debt coverage ratio and due to a portion of the increase, the District’s debt
coverage ratio will increase from 130% to 152%. The District’s target is to be above
150%.
Director Thompson also commented that he felt that the District should get more
aggressive with the Water Conservation programs. He indicated that CWA will be
doubling the turf rebate program and he felt that the program can be utilized within
the District’s jurisdiction. General Manager Watton indicated that the District did
carry the programs over and does have various conservation programs. Director Croucher suggested that the District could possibly have a staff member go to
customers’ homes and share with them the various conservation programs.
General Manager Watton indicated that the District does have an audit program
where a staff member would visit the customer and advise them on how they can
redo their yard with water conserving plants.
Director Gonzalez complimented staff for their work on the budget and indicated he
appreciated staff providing the information to the board’s questions.
President Lopez inquired if 2014 was another dry year, what would the District reference for water sales to develop the budget for FY 2016. Chief Financial Officer
Beachem indicated if this year turns out to be an El Nino year and the District’s
sales drop, staff would typically reference a normal year and budget for a normal
rainfall year unless the District hears differently. Director Thompson indicated that last year part of the discussion was on the
Carlsbad Desalination Project and that the District had built into its rate increase the
anticipated increase from CWA related to the cost of water from the Carlsbad
Desalination Plant. He inquired if staff had a different perspective on the impact of the cost of the Carlsbad Desalination Project (CDP) on the District’s rate increase this year versus last year. Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that staff feels
that it will be the same impact as last year. CWA, however, did not include the
impact of the CDP in their rate increase last year. They did include the cost of the
CDP in their rate increase this year and, thus, staff backed it out of the District’s rate increase for this year.
A motion was made by Director Robak, seconded by Director Croucher and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak and Thompson
16
Noes: None Abstain: None
Absent: None
to approve the FY 2015 Operating and Capital Budget; approve the fund transfers
for potable, recycled and sewer; approve water and sewer rate changes on all billings that begin in calendar year 2015; adopt the salary schedule; adopt the
amendments to the code of Ordinances Section 53, Conditions for Sewer Service,
and Appendix A with the proposed water and sewer rate changes; and direct staff to
send rate increase notices.
7. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board, President Lopez adjourned the
meeting at 5:24 p.m.
___________________________________
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance
Specialist
Bob Kennedy
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Professional As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement for Professional Services for As-Needed Environmental Consulting
Services with ICF International for an amount not to exceed $375,000 during Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (ending June 30, 2017).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a Professional As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services Agreement with ICF International in an amount not-to-exceed $375,000 for
Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (ending June 30, 2017).
2
ANALYSIS:
The District often requires the expertise of environmental consultants for small tasks on its Capital Improvement and Operations projects. These tasks typically are valued between $1,000 and $40,000 and, as such, they are small enough that formal proposals from consultants are not cost-effective to process.
Because of this, the District began using an As-Needed Environmental Consultant during Fiscal Year 2006 to perform such tasks. This has proven to be a very effective and efficient way to address the environmental issues that come up as projects develop.
The District will issue task orders to the As-Needed Environmental Consultant for specific projects during the contract period. The
Consultant will then prepare a detailed scope of work, schedule, and cost estimate for each task order assigned under the contract. Upon written task order authorization from the District, the Consultant
shall then proceed with the project as described in the Scope of Work.
The District has used an As-Needed Environmental Consultant for the past eight Fiscal Years and during this period, the costs for all
projects during any given fiscal year have averaged between $100,000 and $125,000. For example, a partial list of tasks that were
authorized under the as-needed contract during Fiscal Year 2014 are listed below:
CIP DESCRIPTION
AUTHORIZED
AMOUNT
P2083 MND for 870-2 Pump Station $34,770
P2515 Technical Studies to support 870-1 Res. Paving Project $11,993
P2519 832-2 Reservoir Drainage Bio. Assessment & Monitoring $7,815
P1253 Hwy 94 Pipeline Break Bio. Assessment &
Monitoring
$9,497
P1253 Cuyamaca College Dr. Pipeline Break Bio. Assessment, Monitoring & Mitigation $15,625
P1253 Caltrans Encroachment Permit WPCP preparation $5,630
The current As-Needed Environmental Consultant Services contract will be complete and the entire budget expended at the end of FY 2014. The District solicited as-needed environmental services by placing an advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website on
March 12, 2014 and with various other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript. Twenty-two (22) consulting firms expressed
3
interest and received the RFP. On April 3, 2014, twelve (12) proposals were received from the following firms:
• AMEC
• BRG
• Chambers Group
• Dudek
• Enviro Applications
• ECORP Consulting
• ESA
• HDR
• Helix Environmental
• ICF International
• Lilburn
• RECON
Ten (10) firms (Adanta, ADV-SOC, Bloom Biological, Cardno-Tec, Phoenix Consulting, RBF, Stantec, Tierra Data, Ultra Systems, and URS) chose not to propose.
In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, Staff evaluated and scored all written proposals and interviewed the five top-rated firms (AMEC, HDR, Helix Environmental, ICF International, and RECON). After holding the interviews, the panel completed the consultant ranking process and concluded that ICF International was
the most qualified consultant. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B. ICF International submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as required by the RFP and staff did not find any significant issues.
In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the references to be
excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search.
This Professional As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services contract will be a three-year contract. The District will evaluate
the performance of the As-Needed Consultant at the end of each fiscal year and has the option to terminate the agreement if it concludes that the As-Needed Consultant has not performed
effectively. If the District is satisfied with the performance of the As-Needed Consultant, the contract will continue through to the
next fiscal year. This As-Needed Environmental Services contract does not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to perform work. The District does not guarantee work
to the As-needed Consultant, nor does the District guarantee that it will utilize the entire $375,000 budgeted for this contract.
4
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The funds for this contract will be expended from a variety of projects, as previously noted above. The fees for professional services requested herein are available in the authorized CIP
project budgets. This contract is for as-needed professional services based on the District's need and schedule, and expenditures will not be made until a task order is approved by the District for the consultant's services on a specific CIP project.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets will be sufficient to support the
professional as-needed consulting services required for the CIP projects noted above.
The Finance Department has determined that the funds to cover this contract are available as budgeted for these projects.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the
Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the District’s Vision, “A District that is innovative in providing water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for
outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: None.
LCB/BK:jf
P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Environmental\FY 2015-2017\Staff Report\BD_07-02-14_Staff Report_Award of As-Needed Environmental Services (LCB-BK).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various
Award of a Professional As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017 COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on June 17, 2014 and the following
comments were made:
• Staff recommended that the Board authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement for Professional Services for As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services with ICF International for an
amount not to exceed $375,000 during Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (ending June 30, 2017).
• Staff indicated that the District often requires the expertise of consultants for smaller environmental tasks associated with its CIP
and Operations projects. Examples of these environmental tasks might be a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the construction of a pump station or reservoir, or biological monitoring for a pipeline repair project.
• It was noted that the District began using an as-needed environmental consultant approximately nine years ago and it has proven to be an efficient and effective way to address environmental
issues, particularly those that are time-sensitive.
• Staff discussed the selection process which is detailed on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report and noted that Attachment B provides a summary of the complete evaluation process.
• Staff indicated that ICF International received the highest score and recommended that they be awarded the as-needed environmental contract.
• Staff has previously worked with ICF International on environmental projects and they have consistently done excellent work. Their references were checked and were also found to be excellent.
• In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that the District also contracts with RECON and Helix Environmental for other
projects that require environmental services. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation
and presentation of this item to the full board on the consent calendar.
ATTACHMENT B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award of a Professional As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017
Qualifications of
Team
Responsiveness, Project Understanding
Technical and Management Approach
INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN
AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Proposed Fee*Consultant's Commitment to DBE
AVERAGE TOTAL WRITTEN
Additional Creativity and Insight
Strength of
Project Manager
Presentation, Communication Skills
Quality of Response to Questions
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL - ORAL
AVERAGE
TOTAL ORAL
30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 15 15 10 10 50 50 150
Steve Beppler 26 21 25 72 13 14 8 9 44
Kevin Cameron 27 24 27 78 13 14 9 9 45
Bob Kennedy 26 22 25 73 12 13 8 8 41
Dan Martin 25 22 25 72 13 14 9 8 44
Gary Stalker 25 22 25 72 14 13 9 9 45
Steve Beppler 21 16 22 59
Kevin Cameron 26 19 25 70
Bob Kennedy 25 22 25 72
Dan Martin 25 22 25 72
Gary Stalker 22 19 20 61
Steve Beppler 20 16 21 57
Kevin Cameron 23 16 18 57
Bob Kennedy 25 22 25 72
Dan Martin 25 20 24 69
Gary Stalker 23 20 24 67
Steve Beppler 23 18 23 64
Kevin Cameron 26 21 25 72
Bob Kennedy 25 21 26 72
Dan Martin 25 20 24 69
Gary Stalker 23 21 21 65
Steve Beppler 18 14 18 50
Kevin Cameron 21 15 15 51
Bob Kennedy 24 21 23 68
Dan Martin 21 18 21 60
Gary Stalker 20 18 20 58
Steve Beppler 20 16 20 56
Kevin Cameron 22 16 17 55
Bob Kennedy 24 21 23 68
Dan Martin 24 20 24 68
Gary Stalker 22 20 22 64
Steve Beppler 24 19 24 67
Kevin Cameron 24 20 20 64
Bob Kennedy 26 22 26 74
Dan Martin 26 20 23 69
Gary Stalker 21 18 20 59
Steve Beppler 26 23 28 77 12 12 8 7 39
Kevin Cameron 27 23 26 76 12 12 8 7 39
Bob Kennedy 26 23 26 75 11 11 7 6 35
Dan Martin 28 24 28 80 13 12 8 7 40
Gary Stalker 24 22 25 71 12 13 8 7 40
Steve Beppler 27 23 28 78 13 14 7 8 42
Kevin Cameron 29 25 28 82 14 15 9 9 47
Bob Kennedy 27 23 27 77 12 13 8 7 40
Dan Martin 28 24 28 80 13 14 8 8 43
Gary Stalker 25 23 26 74 12 14 8 7 41
Steve Beppler 28 24 28 80 14 14 9 9 46
Kevin Cameron 28 25 29 82 14 15 10 8 47
Bob Kennedy 26 23 27 76 12 12 8 7 39
Dan Martin 29 24 28 81 14 14 9 8 45
Gary Stalker 27 23 27 77 13 13 9 8 43
Steve Beppler 19 15 19 53
Kevin Cameron 22 15 16 53
Bob Kennedy 24 21 23 68
Dan Martin 22 20 23 65
Gary Stalker 19 17 20 56
Steve Beppler 27 23 27 77 13 13 8 8 42
Kevin Cameron 28 24 28 80 14 14 10 9 47
Bob Kennedy 27 23 27 77 13 13 8 8 42
Dan Martin 27 23 27 77 13 13 9 7 42
Gary Stalker 24 22 26 72 13 12 8 8 41
Review Panel does not see or consider fee when scoring other categories. Fee is scored by the PM, who is not on Review Panel.
Consultant Rate Position Score Consultant Rate Position Score Consultant Rate Position Score
AMEC $700 10 ECORP $602 highest 15 Helix $660 12
BRG $728 9 Enviro App $598 highest 15 ICF $670 12
Chambers Group $735 9 ESA $790 6 Lilburn $770 7
Dudek $900 1 HDR $880 2 RECON $765 7
Review Panel does not see or consider fee when scoring other categories. Fee is scored by the PM, who is not on Review Panel.
NOT INTERVIEWED
NOT INTERVIEWED
NOT INTERVIEWED
NOT INTERVIEWED
NOT INTERVIEWED
NOT INTERVIEWED
NOT INTERVIEWED
RATES SCORING CHART
57EnviroApp
64Chambers Group
REFERENCES
10
WRITTEN
127
67
Y
TOTAL SCORE
64
83
67
68
ORAL
44
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
As-needed Environmental Services FY2015-2017
BRG
AMEC
68
MAXIMUM POINTS
Dudek
73
ECORP 62 62
68
62
ESA 67 67 67
HDR 76 2 Y 78 39
44
117
Helix 78 12 Y 90 43 133
Lilburn 59
135 ExcellentICF7912Y
59
RECON 77 7 Y 84 43 127
59
64
67
91
5757
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Stephen Beppler Senior Civil Engineer
Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Engineering Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a professional As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services contract
to Water Systems Consulting Inc. (WSC) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with WSC in an amount not-to-exceed
$175,000 for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016 (ending June 30, 2016). COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a professional As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services contract with
WSC in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016. The termination date for the professional services agreement will be June 30, 2016.
2
ANALYSIS:
The District will require the professional services of a hydraulic modeling consultant on an as-needed basis in support of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, developer funded studies, engineering planning studies, and Information Technology studies for
Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016. These services will also be used to integrate GIS updates into the existing model and support Operations in the field. The As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services contract will provide the District with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and efficient manner and on an as-needed basis.
The District will require the expertise of a hydraulic modeling
consultant to maintain the current potable water, recycled water, and sanitary sewer hydraulic models already developed or in the process of being updated under the Water Resources Master Plan.
This will include integrating new facilities or GIS updates into the model and performing planning studies for the Engineering,
Operations, and Information Technology departments. The consultant will perform fire flow calculations in support of new or existing developments and prepare developer funded studies.
It is more efficient and cost effective to issue a contract on an
as-needed basis. This concept has also been used in the past for other disciplines like civil engineering design, geotechnical, electrical, and environmental services.
The District will issue task orders to the consultant for specific
projects during the contract period. The consultant will prepare a detailed scope of work, schedule, and cost estimate for each task order assigned under the contract. Upon written task order authorization from the District, the consultant shall then proceed with the project as described in the scope of work.
The CIP projects that are estimated to require hydraulic modeling services for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, at this time, are listed below: CIP DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST
P1210 Water Facilities Master Plan $30,000
P2083 PS 870-2 Pump Station Replacement $15,000 P2318 PL- 20-inch 657 Zone Summit Cross-Tie and 36-inch Main Connection $10,000
P2451 Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System $20,000
R2116 14-inch Recycled Water Pipeline Assessment
and Repair $10,000
S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement $5,000
S2033 Sewer System Rehabilitation $10,000
TOTAL: $100,000
3
The hydraulic modeling services scopes for the above projects are estimated from preliminary information and past projects. Therefore, staff believes that a $175,000 cap on the As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services contract is adequate, while still
providing a buffer. The contract is not-to-exceed $175,000 for all task orders. Fees for professional services will be charged to the CIP projects or to the Fiscal Year Operations budget.
This As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Engineering Services contract does
not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to perform work. The District does not guarantee work to the consultant, nor does the District guarantee to the consultant
that it will expend all of the funds authorized by the contract on professional services.
The District solicited hydraulic modeling services by placing an advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website on March 14, 2014
and with various other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript. Nine (9) firms submitted a letter of interest and a
statement of qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Hydraulic Modeling Services was sent to all nine (9) firms resulting in six (6) proposals received on April 23, 2014. They are as
follows:
• Arcadis
• Dudek
• HDR
• Mission Consulting Services
• RMC
• WSC
One firm, IDModeling, received the RFP, but elected not to propose. Two (2) firms that submitted letters of interest, but did not
propose, were Atkins and NCS.
In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, Staff evaluated and scored all written proposals. WSC received the highest score based on their experience in hydraulic modeling, understanding of the scope of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, ability to provide an independent assessment of the Water Resources Master Plan
models, and their composite hourly rate. WSC was the most qualified consultant with the best overall proposal. The District has not previously worked with WSC on any project, but they are a highly rated company, provide similar services to over a dozen water agencies in California, and are readily available to provide the
4
services required. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in
Attachment B. WSC submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as required by the RFP and staff did not find any significant issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet search on
the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The funds for this contract will be expended from a variety of projects, as previously noted above. The fees for professional services requested herein are available in the authorized CIP project budgets. This contract is for as-needed professional services based on the District's need and schedule, and expenditures
will not be made until a task order is approved by the District for the consultant's services on a specific CIP project.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets will be sufficient to support the
professional as-needed consulting services required for the CIP projects noted above.
The Finance Department has determined that the funds to cover this contract are available as budgeted for these projects.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the District’s Vision, “A District that is innovative in
providing water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
SB/BK:jf
P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Hydraulic Modeling\Fiscal Year 15-16\Staff Report\BD_07-02-14_Staff Report_Award of As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services (SB-BK).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Various
Award of As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services Contract for
Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016
COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on June 17, 2014, and the following comments were made:
• Staff recommended that the Board award a professional As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services contract to Water Systems Consulting
Inc. (WSC) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with WSC in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 for Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016 (ending June 30, 2016).
• Staff indicated that the Consultant will prepare developer funded
studies, fire flow calculations, engineering planning studies, information technology studies, integrate GIS updates into the existing model and support Operations in the field. The Consultant will also support the District’s CIP projects and provide reviews of the Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP). A list of the proposed CIP
projects is included with the staff report. Staff noted that a buffer of approximately $75,000 is included in the contract amount.
• Staff discussed the selection process which is detailed on page 3 of the staff report. A summary of the complete evaluation is provided
in Attachment B.
• WSC received the highest overall score based on their experience,
proposed method to accomplish the work, their ability to provide an independent assessment of the WRMP, and their composite hourly rate.
• Staff stated that the fees were evaluated by comparing billing rates for a Principal Project Manager, Hydraulic Modeling, GIS Technician,
and Office Support.
• It was noted that the District has not worked with WSC on any project, but they are a highly rated company who provides similar services to over a dozen water agencies in California and are
readily available to provide the services required.
Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation of this item to the full board on the consent calendar.
ATTACHMENT B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award of As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services Contract for
Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016
WRITTEN
REFER-ENCES 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
MAXIMUM POINTS 30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 Poor/Good/ Excellent
Arcadis
Ming Zhao 25 23 26 74
72 15 Y 87
Bob Kennedy 25 23 25 73
Dan Martin 26 23 26 75
Kevin Cameron 25 22 25 72
Jake Vaclavek 25 21 22 68
Dudek
Ming Zhao 25 22 25 72
71 7 Y 78
Bob Kennedy 25 22 25 72
Dan Martin 24 22 24 70
Kevin Cameron 26 22 26 74
Jake Vaclavek 24 20 22 66
HDR
Ming Zhao 25 23 26 74
73 14 Y 87
Bob Kennedy 26 23 26 75
Dan Martin 25 22 25 72
Kevin Cameron 27 23 26 76
Jake Vaclavek 25 22 22 69
MCS
Ming Zhao 25 22 25 72
72 15 Y 87
Bob Kennedy 25 22 24 71
Dan Martin 25 21 25 71
Kevin Cameron 26 23 26 75
Jake Vaclavek 24 24 25 73
RMC
Ming Zhao 25 20 25 70
70 1 Y 71
Bob Kennedy 25 22 25 72
Dan Martin 24 21 23 68
Kevin Cameron 25 20 24 69
Jake Vaclavek 25 23 25 73
WSC
Ming Zhao 27 23 27 77
78 11 Y 89 E
Bob Kennedy 28 24 28 80
Dan Martin 27 23 27 77
Kevin Cameron 27 24 28 79
Jake Vaclavek 28 22 26 76
RATES SCORING CHART
Firm Arcadis Dudek HDR MCS RMC WSC
Fee $650 $850 $685 $658 $994 $745
Score 15 7 14 15 1 11
*Note: Review Panel does not see or consider proposed fee when scoring other categories. The proposed fee is scored by the PM, who is not on the Review Panel.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Dan Martin
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: P2083-
001103
DIV. NO. 2
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Professional Engineering Services Contract for Construction Manager and Inspection Support of the 870-2 Pump
Station Project to RBF Consulting
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a professional services contract to RBF Consulting (RBF) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with RBF for Construction Manager and Inspection support of the 870-2 Pump Station
Project in an amount not-to-exceed $853,457 (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 engineering services contract with RBF for Construction Manager and Inspection support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project in
an amount not-to-exceed $853,457.
2
ANALYSIS:
The 870-2 Pump Station Project (Project) includes a new pump station to replace the District’s existing Low Head Pump Station (571-1 Pump Station) and High Head Pump Station (870-1 Pump Station). Exhibit A shows the location of the Low and High Head Pump Stations relative to the Roll (570-1) Reservoir. The two existing pump stations are
reaching the end of their useful lives. The District has secured Carollo Engineer’s, Inc. to provide a range of professional engineering services, including hydraulic and surge modeling, potholing, ground survey, demolition, grading & drainage,
structural, mechanical, HVAC, electrical, instrumentation & control, process, Cathodic protection, coatings, and prepare plans and
specifications required to move the Project to construction. The District also requires the services of a construction management
and inspection firm for the Project to perform: pre-construction services including value engineering and constructability reviews;
Construction Manager services; Resident Engineering services; and Inspection services.
In accordance with the Board of Directors Policy Number 21, the District initiated the consultant selection process on March 13,
2014, by placing an advertisement in the San Diego Daily Transcript, and posting the Project on the District’s website for Professional Engineering Services. The advertisements attracted Letters of
Interest and Statements of Qualifications from eleven (11) consulting firms. A Pre-Proposal Meeting was held on April 9, 2014. Eleven
(11) people representing ten (10) prime consulting firms attended the meeting.
On April 23, 2014, proposals were received from the following five (5) consulting firms:
1. DUDEK 2. Leidos Engineering 3. RBF Consulting 4. Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc. 5. Valley Construction Management
Among the potential firms that submitted letters of interest, but did not propose, were Construction Management Inspection, Harris & Associates, KEH & Associates Inc., Nuera Contracting and Consulting, PMA Consultants, and Vanir Construction Management Inc.
After the written proposals were evaluated and ranked by a five-
member review panel consisting of District Engineering, Operations,
3
and Administration/IT staff, it was determined that the five (5) proposals ranked sufficiently to warrant being invited to make an
oral presentation and respond to questions from the panel. After conducting the interviews on May 22, 2014, the panel completed the consultant ranking process and concluded that RBF 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.
Scope and fee negotiations with RBF Consulting concluded on June 6, 2014 which resulted in the addition of scope to incorporate the development of a commissioning plan in the Project specifications for bidding purposes and the performance of constructability reviews
using a 3D model. The negotiations resulted in no increase to the original proposed fee submitted for the Project. RBF’s proposed fee including the additional scope described above is $853,457. RBF Consulting submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as
required by the RFP and staff did not find any significant issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet
search on the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. The District has experience with RBF Consulting in the construction of
large water facilities including but not limited to the 680-1 Recycled Water Reservoir/944-1 Recycled Water Pump Station in the
City of Chula Vista. The District has found RBF Consulting’s work in support of construction to be excellent. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The Fiscal Year 2015 budget for CIP P2083 is $16,500,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including
this contract, are $2,494,755. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that the budget for CIP P2083 is sufficient to support the Project.
Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP P2083. 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
4
forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
DM/RP:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement\Staff Reports\BD-07-02-14\BD-07-02-14, Staff Report Award CM_Inspection Contract to RBF (DM-RP).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 Award of a Professional Engineering Services Contract for
Construction Manager and Inspection Support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project to RBF Consulting
COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on June 17, 2014, and the following comments were made:
• Staff recommended that the Board award a professional services contract to RBF Consulting (RBF) and authorize the General
Manager to execute an agreement with RBF for Construction Manager and Inspection support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project
in an amount not-to-exceed $853,457.
• Staff stated that the Project was originally constructed in 1961
and that the Low Head Pump Station was constructed in 1965 to improve hydraulics (boost suction head to the High Head Pump
Station). Both pump stations are reaching the end of their useful lives. Exhibit A provides the location of the pump stations.
• Staff indicated that the District secured Carollo Engineer’s Inc. to design the replacement of the 870-2 Pump Station and provide a range of services that support the design.
• It was noted that the District requires the services of a construction management and inspection firm for the Project to perform pre-construction services including values engineering,
constructability reviews, construction management services, resident engineering services, and inspection services.
• Staff discussed the selection process that is detailed on page 2 and 3 of the staff report. A summary of the complete evaluation
is provided in Exhibit B.
• Staff indicated that RBF Consulting received the highest score. Staff checked RBF’s references, reviewed their Company Background Questionnaire form and performed an internet search
on the company and did not find any significant issues.
• Staff discussed that the District has successfully worked with
RBF staff previously on the construction of large water facilities including but not limited to the 680-1 Recycled Water Reservoir/944-1 Recycled Water Pump Station in the City of Chula
Vista. The District has found RBF consulting’s work in support of construction to be excellent.
• Staff concluded scope and fee negotiations with RBF Consulting on June 6, 2014 which resulted in the addition of scope to
incorporate the development of a detailed commissioning plan in the Project specifications for bidding purposes and the
performance of constructability reviews using a 3D model. No original scope was deleted. The negotiations resulted in no increase to the original proposed fee submitted for the Project.
RBF’s proposed fee, including the additional scope described above, is $853,457.
• In response to a question from the Committee regarding the creativity and insight scoring shown in Exhibit B of the staff
report, RBF had a team member who was creative in bringing forward a specific plan within the contract’s specifications for
commissioning a project. Usually the District provides a scope of work to candidates; however, during the evaluation process for this Project, candidates were asked to provide a scope of
work so that the interview panel could get a general idea of their thought process. Staff noted that RBF was very familiar
with the Project location and was able to present an insight of the overall Project.
• The Committee had several questions about turnovers of Project Managers prior to projects being completed. Staff stated that
while interviewing candidates, staff also looked at the Strength of Project Manager (Scores shown in Exhibit B) which included the consideration of possible turnovers of Project Managers.
Staff stated that there is no guarantee that there will not be a change in Project Managers prior to the completion of a project;
however, there is a clause in the District’s contracts that requires consultants to negotiate any changes concerning Project Managers.
Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation
and presentation of this item to the full board on the consent calendar.
ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2083-001103 Award of a Professional Engineering Services Contract for
Construction Manager and Inspection Support of the 870-2 Pump Station Project to RBF Consulting
Date Updated: 5/30/2014
Budget
16,500,000
Planning `
Conversion Cost Type 580,444 580,444 -$ 580,444 EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO 2004
Consultant Contracts 11,784 11,784 - 11,784 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
Service Contracts 164 164 - 164 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Standard Salaries 53,842 53,842 - 53,842
34,770 34,770 34,770 INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
Total Planning 681,004 646,234 34,770 681,004
Design 001102
Consultant Contracts 504,677 114,206 390,471 504,677 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC
3,637 3,637 - 3,637 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
Service Contracts 1,300 1,300 - 1,300 INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS INC
Standard Salaries 250,000 91,030 158,970 250,000
20,000 20,000 20,000 BID DOC DISTRIBUTION
Total Design 759,615 210,174 549,441 759,615
Construction
Consultant Contracts 120,233 - - - CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC
Consultant Contracts 853,457 853,457 853,457 RBF
Service Contracts 119 119 - 119 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Standard Salaries 80,000 7,421 72,579 80,000
Total Construction 1,053,808 7,539 926,036 933,575
Grand Total 2,614,987 929,738 1,530,247 2,494,755
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
p2083-PS - 870-2 Pump Station (28,000 GPM)
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
(570-1)
Firearms
TrainingFacility
Alta Rd
PROJECT SITE
ROLLRESERVOIR
LOW HEADPUMP STATION
HIGH HEADPUMPSTATION
OWD PROPERTY LINE(APPROX)
ACCESS FROMALTA RD
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTS
;&s
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
?p
?ò
Aä
?Ë
;&s
?p
!\
P:
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
C
I
P
P
2
0
8
3
8
7
0
-
2
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
\
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
,
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-2 PUMP STATIONLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A
CIP P2083
0 250125
Feet
F
F
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
Steve Beppler 25 20 25 70 11 11 7 6 35
Brandon DiPietro 25 23 27 75 11 10 7 7 35
Bob Kennedy 25 21 24 70 11 11 6 6 34
Jose Martinez 26 22 27 75 13 12 8 7 40
Adolfo Sequra 27 22 25 74 10 9 8 7 34
Steve Beppler 27 21 26 74 12 13 7 7 39
Brandon DiPietro 25 20 23 68 12 13 6 7 38
Bob Kennedy 25 21 25 71 12 13 7 7 39
Jose Martinez 28 20 26 74 13 14 8 8 43
Adolfo Sequra 24 21 23 68 12 12 8 8 40
Steve Beppler 28 23 28 79 13 12 8 8 41
Brandon DiPietro 27 22 25 74 13 15 9 9 46
Bob Kennedy 28 23 27 78 14 14 9 9 46
Jose Martinez 26 23 27 76 13 14 9 9 45
Adolfo Sequra 27 24 26 77 14 14 9 9 46
Steve Beppler 24 19 23 66 10 11 6 6 33
Brandon DiPietro 24 19 22 65 11 10 6 6 33
Bob Kennedy 23 20 23 66 12 12 7 7 38
Jose Martinez 23 20 23 66 12 11 7 7 37
Adolfo Sequra 24 20 23 67 10 10 7 6 33
Steve Beppler 25 22 24 71 12 12 7 7 38
Brandon DiPietro 24 21 23 68 14 13 8 8 43
Bob Kennedy 23 20 23 66 12 12 7 7 38
Jose Martinez 24 23 24 71 13 13 8 7 41
Adolfo Sequra 23 20 23 66 12 11 8 8 39
Firm DUDEK LEIDOS RBF VALI COOPER VALLEY CM *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.
Fee $1,075,100 $755,559 $853,485 $995,745 $759,840
Score 1 15 11 4 15
73 Y 36
MAXIMUM POINTS
DUDEK
40
74
Y7115LEIDOS
Y
77 11
VALI COOPER
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project
WRITTEN ORAL
4
1
86 126
RATES SCORING CHART
VALLEY CM 68 15
Y 133
35Y
1238340
RBF
70
REFERENCES
Excellent45
110
66 105
88
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2015\BD 07-02-14\Award a Construction Management and Inspection Services Contract (DM-RP)\Exhibit B - 140522_Summary of Proposal Rankings_VE-CM-Inspection.xls
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Jeff Marchioro
Senior Civil Engineer
Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager
PROJECT: P2541-
001102
DIV. NO. 2
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Reject all Construction Bids for the 624 Pressure Zone Pressure Reducing Stations Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) reject all bids for the construction of the 624 Pressure Zone
Pressure Reducing Stations (PRS) Project (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to reject all
bids for the construction of the 624 Pressure Zone PRS Project and to rebid the Project. ANALYSIS:
The 624 Pressure Zone PRS project (CIP P2541) will provide two PRSs feeding the 485 Pressure Zone and 458 Pressure Zones from the 624 Pressure Zone (Terra Nova Drive 624/485 PRS and Sequoia Street
2
624/458 PRS, respectively) to improve fire flow and enhance system reliability. Since both PRSs are intended to be used during
emergencies, or to facilitate shut down of watermains, neither PRS will be fitted with SCADA for remote operation or remote monitoring. Both PRSs will be manually operated. The Terra Nova Drive 624/485 PRS will be needed in the event that an 18-inch watermain in H Street will be shut down. The Sequoia Street 624/458 PRS will be needed in
the event that a 12-inch watermain in Brandywine Avenue between Sequoia Street and the Olympic Parkway will be shut down. The Terra Nova Drive 624/485 PRS was originally designed by Rick Engineering Company in 1990 as part of Chula Vista Tract No. 89-5,
Ranch del Rey SPA II, Phase 2, Unit 3, and associated record drawings were filed by the District in 1995; however, the pressure reducing
station was never built. Rick Engineering’s design included two (2) pressure reducing valves in an underground vault. However, only the isolation valves and 12-inch stubouts to the PRS site were installed
as part of the development.
District staff prepared the bid documents in-house. Mayer Reprographics (Mayer) distributed the bid documents electronically through Mayer’s online planroom.
The Project was advertised for bid on April 28, 2014. Even though
staff notified several contractors during the bid process to encourage them to submit a bid, no contractors attended the Pre-bid Meeting that was held on Thursday, May 8, 2014. One addenda was sent
out to all bidders and plan houses on May 12, 2014 to address a single question asked during the bidding period.
Five (5) bids were received on May 22, 2014. The table below provides the bid results.
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT
1. Blue Pacific Engineering & Construction (Blue Pacific) $379,054
2. Piperin Corporation $385,715
3. Transtar Pipeline, Inc. $399,220
4. Cora Constructors, Inc. $498,870
5. Wier Construction Corporation $529,401
The Engineer's Estimate is $300,000.
3
Several contractors that have successfully completed similar work for the District in the past (e.g., Arietta, Basile, Cass, CCL, LH Woods,
NEWest, TC) mentioned they were too busy to submit a bid. Since there was little interest during the bidding process, and the project budget would need to be increased to award the higher than anticipated contract amount, staff recommends rebidding the Project to provide an opportunity to solicit additional interest and receive
lower bids. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
None. 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 P2541 - 624 Pressure Zone PRSs\Staff Reports\BD-07-02-14, Staff Report, 624 Pressure Zone PRSs Const Reject Bids, (JM-BK) - ver2.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Exhibit A – Location Map
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2541-001102 Reject all Construction Bids for the 624 Pressure Zone
Pressure Reducing Stations Project
COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on June 17, 2014, and the following comments were made:
• Staff recommended that the Board reject all bids for the construction of the 624 Pressure Zone Pressure Reducing Stations
(PRS) Project.
• Staff stated that the Project would provide two (2) Pressure Reducing Stations or PRSs to feed the 485 and 458 Pressure Zones and are intended to be used during emergencies or to help during
a shut down. Both PRSs will be manually operated.
• Staff discussed the solicitation process and indicated that five (5) bids were received ranging from $379,000 to $529,000. Details of the solicitation results are provided on page 2 or
the staff report. It was noted that the Engineer’s Estimate was $300,000.
• Staff noted that several contractors that have successfully completed work for the District in the past were contacted, but
mentioned that they were too busy to submit a bid at this time.
• Staff recommends rebidding the Project with a larger project
like the 870-2 pump station to provide an opportunity to solicit additional interest and possibly receive lower bids.
• The PRSs will be back up stations so there is no immediate need for them. Staff stated that the system can still operate while
rebidding the Project.
• The Committee expressed concern for the ability of smaller businesses to take on a larger Project. Staff stated that the District has a better chance at receiving additional interest
from firms, if bid with a larger project.
5
• Staff believes that in light of the Committee comment, staff
will consider the total project scope and ability of smaller firms to submit a successful bid.
• Staff also believes that the District may get better bid proposals that are more aligned with the Engineer’s Estimate by going back out to the market. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation
and presentation of this item to the full board on the consent calendar.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Jeanette Ziomek, Senior Accountant
Rita Bell, Finance Manager
PROJECT: DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4236 to Establish the Tax Rate for Improvement District No. 27 (ID 27) for Fiscal Year 2014-2015
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board adopt Resolution No. 4236 to establish the tax rate for Improvement District No. 27 (ID 27) at $0.005 for Fiscal Year
2014-2015. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
Improvement District No. 27 has outstanding general obligation bonds which mature in Fiscal Year 2023 and is the only improvement district
with general obligation debt service.
At the beginning of each fiscal year staff must provide the County of San Diego Property Tax Services with the tax rate to be charged upon all property within ID 27 to ensure the amount of tax collections will support the annual debt service requirement.
2
BACKGROUND:
In December 1992, the District sold $11,500,000 of general obligation bonds in ID 27 for the construction of the 30mg reservoir. At the time of the formation of ID 27, the District intended to have a maximum tax rate of $0.10 per $100 of assessed valuation. The tax rate has remained well below the intended maximum rate.
The District refinanced the bonds in fiscal year 1998 and again in fiscal year 2010 which resulted in a reduction in the annual debt schedule. Property valuations continued to increase and reached its peak in fiscal year 2008 at $12.5 billion and have been approximately
$10 billion from 2010 to present. The combination of the reduced debt service requirement and the increased assessed values resulted
in the District’s reserve levels to exceed the target. Since 2009, the tax rate has been $.005. The subsequent drop in
assessed valuations has caused the tax collection to decline below the annual debt service. The District has intentionally covered this
shortfall with ID 27 reserves to bring down the prior build up in that reserve.
For Fiscal Year 2015, staff proposes to maintain the tax rate at $.005 and to continue to cover the tax collection shortfall from the
ID 27 reserves. Staff projects that a $.005 tax rate will maintain reserve levels above the target until it is time to wind down the reserve for the expiration of the debt.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The tax proceeds are legally restricted for the sole purpose of the
repayment of this debt. These proceeds will be collected until the debt obligation is fully paid, at which time the fund will have a zero balance. The $0.005 tax rate is projected to generate $626,558 in revenue in fiscal year 2015. The projected revenue, given the recommended tax rate combined with the current fund balance, will
meet the annual ID 27 debt service payment of $754,163. This action lowers the fund balance, bringing it closer to the target level of six months of bond payments while maintaining a positive cash balance for the foreseeable future. STRATEGIC GOAL:
Through well-established financial policies and wise management of funds, the District will continue to guarantee fiscal responsibility to its ratepayers and the community at large.
3
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments: A) Committee Action
B) Resolution No. 4236 C) ID 27 Tables
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Adopt Resolution No. 4236 to Establish the Tax Rate for Improvement District No. 27 (ID 27) for Fiscal Year
2014-2015
COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance, Administration, and Communications Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on June 18, 2014 and the following comments were made:
• In December 1992, the District sold $11.5 million of General Obligation Bonds (GO) in Improvement District 27 (ID 27) for the
construction of the 30 mg reservoir. ID 27 is the last improvement district with outstanding GO bond debt. The bonds are scheduled to
mature in FY 2023.
• At the beginning of each fiscal year, the District must provide the
County of San Diego Property Tax Services with the tax rate to be charged upon all property within ID 27. Proposed Resolution No.
4236 will authorize the County to collect the tax onto the tax rolls.
• The District refinanced the bonds in FY 1998 and again in FY 2010. This resulted in a reduction of the annual debt service requirements. In addition, property values continued to increase and reached its peak in FY 2008. With the combination of reduced debt service and increase assessed values, the District’s reserve
levels for ID 27 exceeded the target. Since 2009, the District has intentionally set the tax rate at $.005 creating a shortfall in ID
27 net revenues in order to draw down the prior build-up of the reserve balance.
• For FY 2014-2015, staff proposes to maintain the tax rate at $.005 which will continue the desired drawdown of the reserve. This tax rate is projected to generate $626,558 in revenue and the annual debt service payment is $754,163. The projected shortfall of $127,605 will be covered with ID 27’s reserve funds. Staff projects
that the reserve levels will remain above the target level for the next 4 years and then wind down until the debt matures in FY 2023.
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended information;
being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors; accurately presenting calculated values and numerical references; and being internally consistent, legible and uniform in its presentation style.
• Staff is requesting that the board adopt resolution No 4236 to
establish the tax rate of $.005 for ID 27 for FY 2014-2015 and authorize the county to collect the tax on the tax rolls.
• The committee inquired what amount is left of the outstanding debt and why the District does not pay down the debt with the excess
collections to close it out. The committee suggested that if the debt can be prepaid, that the District do so unless it will affect reserves. Staff indicated that there may be issues related to
repaying the debt early. Staff will verify and advise the committee of their findings. Staff verified that the bonds current
outstanding balance of $5.7 million are not callable and must remain outstanding until they mature.
Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent
calendar.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 4236
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
OTAY WATER DISTRICT FIXING TAX RATES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 FOR PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (GF 1600)
WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 72091 authorizes the
Otay Water District, as a municipal water district, to levy an ad
valorem property tax which is equal to the amount required to
make annual payments for principal and interest on general
obligation bonds approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Otay Water
District resolves, determines and orders as follows:
1. Findings. It is necessary that this Board of Directors
cause taxes to be levied in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 for Improvement
District No. 27 of the Otay Water District to pay the amount of
the principal and interest on the bonded debt of such improvement
district.
2. Amounts to be Raised by Taxes. The amount required to
be raised by taxation during Fiscal Year 2014-2015 for the
principal and interest on the bonded debt of Improvement District
No. 27 is as follows:
Improvement District No. 27 $626,558
3. Tax Rates. The tax rates per one hundred dollars ($100)
of the full value of all taxable property within said improvement
district necessary to pay the aforesaid amounts of principal and
interest on the bonded debt of said improvement district for
Fiscal Year 2014-2015 is hereby determined and fixed as follows:
Improvement District No. 27 $0.005
Attachment B
2
4. Certification of Tax Rates. Pursuant to Water Code
Section 72094, this Board of Directors hereby certifies to the
Board of Supervisors and the County Auditor of the County of San
Diego the tax rates hereinbefore fixed, and said County Auditor
shall, pursuant to Section 72095 of said Code, compute and enter
in the County assessment roll the respective sums to be paid as
tax on the property in Improvement District No. 27, using the
rate of levy hereinabove fixed for such improvement district and
the full value as found on the assessment roll for the property
therein, and the Secretary of this Board of Directors is hereby
authorized and directed to transmit certified copies of this
resolution, Attachment B, and made a part hereof, to said Board
of Supervisors and said Auditor.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay
Water District at a regular meeting held this 2nd day of July,
2014.
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
____________________________
President
ATTEST:
________________________________
Secretary
Attachment C
History
1989 Improvement District 27 was formed with $100,000,000 bonding authorized.
1992 District issued $11,500,000 in General Obligation Bonds primarily for the constructionof a 30 million gallon storage reservoir.
1998 District refinanced outstanding debt of $10,900,000.
2009 District refinanced again outstanding debt of $7,780,000.
TAXES DEBT TAX ASSESSED
COLLECTED SERVICE NET RATE VALUATION INC%
FY03 $725,085 $848,600 ($123,515) $0.01500 $3,837,693,353 37%
FY04 $829,036 $848,700 ($19,664) $0.01400 $5,047,625,296 32%
FY05 $994,501 $840,800 $153,701 $0.01200 $6,454,909,846 28%
FY06 $1,081,991 $840,385 $241,606 $0.01000 $8,579,576,581 33%
FY 07 $862,795 $837,936 $24,859 $0.00700 $10,348,663,242 21%
FY 08 $917,168 $835,017 $82,151 $0.00600 $12,518,643,676 21%
FY 09 $747,175 $830,823 ($83,648) $0.00500 $12,308,043,285 -2%
FY 10 $605,405 $934,674 ($329,269) $0.00500 $10,378,404,507 -16%
FY 11 $606,966 $781,144 ($174,178) $0.00500 $10,131,397,697 -2.4%
FY 12 $597,799 $752,976 ($155,177) $0.00500 $9,941,622,812 -1.9%
FY 13 $650,587 $773,863 ($123,276) $0.00500 $9,869,377,173 -0.7%
FY 14(1)$641,372 $755,438 ($114,066) $0.00500 $10,226,148,004 3.6%
(1) Due to timing of the report, taxes collected is an estimate.
TAXES DEBT TAX ASSESSEDCOLLECTED SERVICE NET RATE VALUATION INC%
Est Fund Balance 6/30/14 $818,955
FY15 $626,558 $754,163 ($127,605) $0.00500 $10,532,932,444 3.0%
Interest $1,905
Est Fund Balance 6/30/15 $693,255
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 27
Historical Data
Change in Fund Balance
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
Bi
l
l
i
o
n
s
ASSESSED VALUATION10 Year History
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Alicia Mendez-Schomer,
Customer Service Manager
PROJECT: DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: 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
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board 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. COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A. PURPOSE:
That the Board consider the adoption of 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. ANALYSIS:
State Water Code Section 71630-71637 authorizes the District to access such availability charges. The District levies availability charges each year on property in both developed and undeveloped
2
areas. In order to place these charges on the tax roll, the County of San Diego requires the District to provide a resolution
authorizing the charges. Each year, the District provides a resolution along with the listing of charges by parcel. Current legislation provides that any amount up to $10 per parcel (one acre or less) is for general use and any amount over $10 per parcel ($30 per acre for parcels over one acre) is restricted, to be expended in
and for that Improvement District. The District uses amounts over $10 per parcel to develop water and sewer systems within the Improvement Districts where the funds are collected. In accordance with legislation, the District places amounts up to $10 per parcel in the General Fund.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The availability charges, as budgeted will generate approximately
$1.2 million in revenue. STRATEGIC GOAL:
This revenue source will help the District meet its fiscal
responsibility to its ratepayers. LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Form Attachment B – Resolution No. 4237
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
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
COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance, Administration, and Communications Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on June 18, 2014 and the following comments were made:
• Staff is requesting that the Board adopt Resolution No. 4237 to continue water and sewer availability fees in Fiscal Year 2014-2015.
• The availability fees are collected through property tax bills and are authorized through the State Water Code.
• In order to place these fees on the property tax bills, the County
of San Diego requires that the District’s Board adopt a resolution annually authorizing the fees.
• The fees collected are $10/acre for parcels one acre or less and $30/acre for parcels larger than one acre. These fees have not
changed for many years.
• The District collects approximately $1.2 million each year through
this assessment.
• In response to an inquiry from the committee, staff indicated that there is a $3 fee for parcels that are within a mile of District facilities, but not currently utilizing the District’s services.
Upon completion of the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the board as a consent item.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 4237 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT CONTINUING PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015; REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO COLLECT SUCH AVAILABILITY CHARGES ON THE 2014-2015 SECURED TAX ROLL AND TAKING OTHER RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the Otay Water District (herein "District") is a
member of the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California and, as a member, the
District is entitled to purchase water for distribution within the
District and water so purchased is available to property in the
District that is also within the San Diego County Water Authority
and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, without
further need for annexation to any agency; and
WHEREAS, Improvement Districts No. 14 and 18 and Assessment
District No. 4 (Hillsdale) have been formed within the Otay Water
District (herein "District") and sanitary sewers have been
constructed and sewer service is available to land within each of
the said districts; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the benefit that water
availability confers upon property within the District, and in
further consideration of the need for revenue to pay the cost of
water storage and transmission facilities which directly and
specially benefit property within the District, the District has
previously determined that water availability charges be fixed and
established under applicable provisions of law; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the benefit which sewer
availability confers upon property within Improvement Districts No.
Attachment B
2
14 and 18 and within Assessment District No. 4 (Hillsdale), and in
further consideration of the need to pay the cost of sanitary
sewers which directly and specifically benefit those properties,
the District has previously determined that sewer availability
charges be fixed and established for Improvement Districts No. 14
and 18 and Assessment District No. 4 (Hillsdale), all as provided
under applicable provisions of law; and
WHEREAS, the District desires to continue the collection of
such water and sewer availability charges without increases or
revisions in methodology or application.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Otay Water
District resolves, determines and orders as follows:
1. SCHEDULE OF WATER CHARGES
(A) The water availability charges previously fixed and
established are hereby continued for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 at the
existing rates, as follows:
(1) In Improvement Districts No. 5 and La Presa No. 1 the
charge shall be $10.00 per acre of land and $10.00
per parcel of land less than one acre.
(2) In Improvement Districts No. 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 19, 20,
22, 25 and 27 the charge shall be $30.00 per acre of
land and $10.00 per parcel of land less than one
acre.
(3) For land located outside an improvement district and
within one mile of a District water line, the charge
shall be $10.00 per acre of land and $10.00 for each
parcel less than one acre.
3
(4) For land located outside an improvement district and
greater than one mile from District facilities, the
charge shall be $3.00 per acre of land and $3.00 for
each parcel less than one acre.
(B) Modifications The charges provided for in subparagraphs
(1) through (4) in (A) above shall be modified upon petition by the
property owner where the property does not receive water from the
District as follows:
(1) where a parcel of land or a portion thereof is within
an open space easement approved by San Diego County,
the charge for such parcel or portion thereof shall
be fifty percent (50%) of the charge determined
pursuant to paragraph (A), provided the owner files
with the District proof, satisfactory to the
District, that said parcel of land or portion thereof
is within such a designated permanent open space
area;
(2) where a parcel of land or portion thereof is in an
agricultural reserve under a Land Conservation
Contract with the County of San Diego, pursuant to
the Land Conservation Act of 1965 as amended, the
charge for such parcel shall be $3.00 per acre,
provided the owner files with the District proof,
satisfactory to the District, that said parcel of
land or portion thereof is within such an
agricultural preserve;
4
(3) where a parcel of land or a portion thereof is within
an area designated as a floodplain by the County of
San Diego, the charge for such a parcel or portion
thereof shall be $3.00 per acre, provided the owner
files with the District proof, satisfactory to the
District, that said parcel of land or portion thereof
is within such designated floodplain; and
(4) where a parcel of land or portion thereof exceeds a
30% slope, and where such is not within a legal
subdivision, lot-split or planned residential
development, the charge for the slope portion shall
be $3.00 per acre, or if such a parcel is less than
one acre and more than one-half of the area exceeds
30% slope, $3.00 for the parcel, provided the owner
files with the District proof, satisfactory to the
District, that said parcel of land or portion thereof
meets or exceeds the slope.
(C) Exceptions The charges provided for in (A) and (B) above
shall not apply, upon petition by the property owner, to the
following:
(1) land located within an area designated as a floodway
by the County of San Diego;
(2) land designated as a vernal pool area by a govern-
mental agency authorized to make such a designation
and which designation prohibits use of such area for
any purpose;
5
(3) land owned by non-profit, tax-exempt conservation
organizations specializing in identifying and
protecting the natural habitat of rare species; or
(4) land that is located within the boundaries of the
Otay Water District but not within the boundaries of
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California and the San Diego County Water Authority.
2. SCHEDULE OF SEWER CHARGES
(A) Sewer standby assessment or availability charges are
hereby fixed and established for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 as follows:
(1) In Improvement Districts No. 14, 18 and Assessment
District No. 4 (Hillsdale), the charges shall be
$30.00 per acre of land and $10.00 per parcel of land
less than one acre. The preceding charges shall not
apply, upon petition by the property owner, to the
following:
(a) any portion of a parcel which is undeveloped
and maintained in its natural state within an
Open Space Area as a requirement under the San
Diego County General Plan, provided the owner
of such parcel files proof, satisfactory to the
District, of such designed Open Space Area;
(b) any portion of a parcel located within an area
designated by the County of San Diego as a
floodway or floodplain; or
(c) any portion of a parcel of land which exceeds a
slope of 30% and which is not within a legal
6
subdivision, lot split or planned lot split or
planned residential development.
3. DEFERRALS
(A) Deferral of Charge, Purpose Situations may arise when an
owner of a parcel of land does not use and has no present intention
of using water and/or sewer provided by the District on a parcel of
land, as defined in Section 4. The purpose of this section is to
permit an evaluation by the District, on a case-by-case basis, of
the circumstances which pertain to such situations to determine
whether a deferral of charges should be approved according to the
terms and conditions herein provided.
Any owner of a parcel of land who believes that the amount of
the water and/or sewer availability charges fixed against such
parcel should be deferred may file an application with the District
for deferral of the charge, as follows:
(a) Application The application shall include a
statement describing the circumstances and factual
elements which support the request for deferral.
(b) The General Manager shall consider the request
within sixty (60) days after the filing of a
completed application. If the application for
deferral meets the established criteria, the General
Manager may decide whether to approve the request
and order the charge deferred accordingly. If the
request is denied, the applicant shall be notified
in writing stating the reasons for the denial.
7
(B) Appeal to Board of Directors If the General Manager
denies a request, the owner may file an appeal with the Board of
Directors within sixty (60) days after such denial. No new
application for deferral need be considered by the General Manager
until expiration of twelve (12) months from the date of a denial,
unless differently directed by the Board of Directors.
(C) Deferred Charges on Restricted Parcels, Criteria The
levy of the charge may be deferred annually as to any parcel of
land which meets each of the following criteria:
(a) The owner of such parcel makes a timely application
requesting deferral of the charge.
(b) The parcel, which is the subject of the request,
will become subject to enforceable restrictions
which prohibits the connection to the District sewer
system or use of water on the parcel, except by
means of natural precipitation or runoff; provided,
however, if considered appropriate by the General
Manager, local water may be used for limited
domestic stock watering and irrigation uses.
(c) The owner executed a recordable agreement which
includes provisions that:
(1) set forth the enforceable restrictions
pertinent to the subject parcel;
(2) the agreement may be terminated upon written
request by the owner and payment of all
deferred water and/or sewer availability
charges, plus interest thereon, compounded
8
annually, and accruing at the legal rate from
the date such charges would have been otherwise
due and payable;
(3) no water and/or sewer service from the District
shall be provided to such parcel for a period
of ten (10) years after the total amount due
for the charges deferred, plus annually
compounded interest, is paid in full to the
District, unless a surcharge penalty as
described below is paid to the District prior
to connection of any water and/or sewer
service;
(4) if the surcharge is not paid, during the ten
(10) year period, while water and/or sewer
service is not available to the subject land,
the owner shall pay all annual water or
availability charges as fixed; and
(5) contains such other provisions considered by
the General Manager to be appropriate.
(D) Surcharge Upon termination of the deferral
agreement, an owner may elect to receive water and/or sewer
service prior to the expiration of the ten (10) year penalty
period upon payment of a surcharge. The surcharge shall be
equal to the amount of the annual water and/or sewer
availability charges fixed for the parcel(s) of land in the
year of election to receive water and/or sewer service
multiplied by the number of years remaining of the ten (10)
9
year penalty period. This surcharge shall also apply if a
property owner develops a parcel that is subject to a deferral
agreement without termination of said agreement.
(E) Enforcement Procedures In order to insure that
terms and conditions of the recordable agreement are being
met, the General Manager shall:
(1) Maintain a record of all parcels approved for
deferral of the water assessments or availability
charges.
(2) Report to the Board of Directors any instances where
the terms of the agreement are being violated.
(3) Take such other actions or procedures considered
appropriate.
4. DEFINITION OF PARCEL The term "parcel" as used herein shall
mean a parcel of land as shown on the assessment rolls of the
County Assessor of San Diego County as of March, 2014.
5. NOTICE AND REQUEST TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND AUDITOR As
provided in Sections 71634 to 71637, on or before the third Monday
in August, 2013, the Secretary of this District shall furnish, in
writing to the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County and to the
County Auditor, a description of the land within the District upon
which availability charges are to be levied and collected for
Fiscal Year 2014-2015 together with the amount of the assessments
or charges. At the time and in the manner required by law for the
levying of taxes for county purposes, the Board of Supervisors of
San Diego County shall levy, in addition to taxes it levies, water
and/or sewer availability charges in the amounts fixed by this
10
Resolution for the respective parcels of land described in Section
1 of this Resolution. All County officers charged with the duty of
collecting taxes shall collect the charges with the regular
property tax payments in the same form and manner as County taxes
are collected. Such availability charges are a lien on the property
with respect to which they are fixed. Collection of the charges
may be enforced by the same means as provided for the enforcement
of liens for state and county taxes.
6. CERTIFICATION TO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The District
certifies that this Resolution complies with the provisions of
Article XIIID of the California Constitution in that the
availability charges are existing charges first set by the Board of
Directors of the District prior to November 6, 1996. At the time
the availability charges were initially established, the District
followed the applicable provisions of law then in effect, and the
District has continued to comply with such provisions, including
any requirements for notices or hearings, as from time to time in
effect. Therefore, pursuant to Section 71632 and Section 71638 of
the California Water Code, as currently in effect, the District may
continue the availability charges in successive years at the same
rate. The District further certifies that the charge is not
increased hereby and the methodology for the rate is the same as in
previous years. The charge is imposed exclusively to finance the
capital costs, maintenance and operating expenses of the water or
sewer system of the District, as applicable.
7. CERTIFIED COPIES The Secretary of this District shall deliver
certified copies of this Resolution to the Board of Supervisors and
11
to the Auditor of San Diego County with the list of charges
described in Section 4 above.
8. CORRECTIONS; OTHER ACTIONS The General Manager of the
District is hereby authorized to correct any clerical error made in
any assessment or charge pursuant to this Resolution and to make an
appropriate adjustment in any assessment or charge made in error.
Furthermore, the General Manager and the Secretary of this District
are hereby directed to take any further actions and deliver such
documents and certificates as necessary to carry out the purpose of
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the
Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 2nd day of
July, 2014.
___________________________ President ATTEST: ______________________________ Secretary
12
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 4237 was duly adopted by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the OTAY WATER DISTRICT at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of July, 2014 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Alicia Mendez-Schomer,
Customer Service Manager
PROJECT: DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance No. 544 Amending Section 23.04, Cross-Connections and Backflow Devices, of the District’s Code of
Ordinances.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board adopt Ordinance No. 544 amending Section 23.04,Cross-
Connections and Backflow Devices, which incorporates key portions of California Department of Health, Title 17 of the California Administrative Code (Title 17).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A. PURPOSE:
To clarify the language in Section 23.04 and incorporate essential portions from Title 17, which govern the implementation and provisions of a cross-connection program. ANALYSIS:
The purpose of Title 17 is to protect the public water supply from contamination by the implementation of a cross connection control
program.
The proposed amendment to Section 23.04, Cross Connection and Backflow Devices is taken from Title 17. The amendment includes all of the following summarized items, A-G:
A. The adoption of operating rules and ordinances to effectively implement and manage the cross-connection program.
B. The authority to conduct surveys to identify situations where cross-connections are likely to occur. C. The provisions of backflow protection types required, based on degree of hazard, and listing of approved backflow types. D. The establishment of a procedure or system for testing
backflow preventers. E. The provision for the inclusion of at least one person trained in cross connection control to carry out the cross-connection program. F. Customer responsibility.
G. The maintenance of records of locations, tests, and repairs of backflow preventers.
The inclusion of sections from Title 17 will ensure the cross-connection program is part of the District’s systematic approach to
managing the District and is found in one single document, the District’s Code of Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
None. LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
A) Committee Action Form B) Ordinance No. 544
Exhibit 1 - Strike-through Section 23.04 C) Proposed Section 23.04
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Adopt Ordinance No. 544 Amending Section 23.04, Cross-Connections and Backflow Devices, of the District’s Code of
Ordinances.
COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance, Administration, and Communications Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on June 18, 2014 and the following comments were made:
• Staff is recommending that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 544 amending Section 23.04, Cross Connections and Backflow Devices,
which incorporates key portions of the California Department of Health’s (CDH) Title 17 of the California Administrative Code.
• The amendment clarifies the language in Section 23.04 and incorporates essential portions of Title 17 into this section.
Title 17 governs the implementation and provisions of a cross-connection program, which ensures the safety of the District’s
water systems.
• Staff noted seven fundamental items that have been incorporated
into the District’s Code under Section 23.04. Please reference page 2 of staffs’ report.
• In response to an inquiry from the committee, staff indicated that by including the essential portions of Title 17 into the
District’s Code, it would provide more clarity. Customers have inquired about the backflow maintenance mandates and rather than refer customers to the California Administrative Code, the key
provisions of Title 17 would be included in the District’s Code.
• The committee inquired if incorporating provisions of Title 17 into the District’s code provides a greater ability to fine violators. Staff indicated that the provisions for fining a
violator is included in Section 71, Violations and Prohibited Practices. Penalties and Damages are identified in Section 72 of
the District’s Code allowing for the ability to prosecute and fine violators. The proposed amendments just lay out the provisions of Title 17, which governs the implementation and
requirements of a cross-connection program.
• Staff indicated in response to another inquiry from the committee
that some residential sites may need backflow devices. Such sites are generally on well water. However, most backflow devices are used on irrigation systems and commercial sites.
Backflow devices protect the potable system from backflow should the system experience negative pressure. The provisions cover
cross connections as well.
• It was discussed that Title 17 has been in place since the
1980’s. When a customer applies for a permit, the District’s Public Services staff will advise them at that time should a
backflow prevention device be required or if a survey will be required at the time of connection.
• The committee inquired the reason the fee schedule is included in the Code as it requires that the Code be amended each time a fee
changes. The committee suggested that the fee schedule be segregated, if allowed by statute, for efficiency of operations. It was indicated that there may be a statutory
requirement that the District’s fees be published. Staff was advised by the District’s Attorney that there is no requirement
to include fees in the Code of Ordinances. While the District’s Attorney indicates that the fees are not required to be published in the Code of Ordinances, the District’s practice is to bring
all changes to fees for the board’s approval.
Upon completion of the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the board as a consent item.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 544
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT
AMENDING SECTION 23, 23.04, CROSS-CONNECTIONS AND BACKFLOW
DEVICES OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of Otay Water
District that the District’s Code of Ordinances Section 23.04,
Cross-Connections and Backflow Devices, be amended as per
Exhibit 1 (attached).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the new proposed
Section 23.04, Cross-Connections and Backflow Devices,
(Attachment C) of the Code of Ordinances shall become effective
July 2, 2014.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 2nd
day of July 2014, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
District Secretary
Attachment B
23-1
SECTION 23 NON-RESPONSIBILITY OF DISTRICT
23.01 INTERRUPTIONS OF WATER SERVICE
District does not guarantee continuous delivery of water
on demand. From time to time it may be necessary for the
District to shut off the flow of water in any of its water systems. Except in emergencies, such stoppages will not be made without prior notice to the customers involved. District shall not assume any responsibility for loss or damages which may occur due to interruption of water service.
23.02 PRIVATELY-OWNED WATER LINES
The District assumes no responsibility for the delivery
of water through privately-owned pipelines or systems, nor
shall it assume any responsibility for damages resulting from the operation of any such system even though water may be received from a district water distribution system. 23.03 WATER PRESSURE REGULATION
A. Customer Responsibility. The District shall
assume no responsibility for water pressure
regulation within a customer's service area. The
customer shall be responsible for providing adequate
safeguard measures for the customer's water system wherever pressure regulation is necessary. B. Requirement for Installation in New Construction. Customers making application for water service for new construction for residential, commercial or
industrial use shall be required to install an
appropriate pressure regulation device for such
service.
23.04 CROSS-CONNECTIONS AND BACKFLOW DEVICES State Regulations for Cross-Connections The California Department of Public Health has issued Regulations Relating to Cross-Connections (Calif. Adm. Code,
Title 17 - Public Health) for the purpose of safeguarding
drinking water supplies by preventing backflow into public
water systems.
It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation at
any time to make or maintain or cause to be made or main-
tained, temporarily or permanently, for any period of time
whatsoever, any cross-connection between plumbing pipes or
water fixtures being served with water by the District water
department and any other source of water supply or to maintain
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
23-2
any sanitary fixture or other appurtenances or fixtures which
by reason of their construction may cause or allow back-flow
of water or other substances into the water supply system of
the District and/or the service of water pipes or fixtures of
any consumer of the District.
The District has adopted Rules, Regulations, and Fees
Regarding Cross-Connections as uncodified Ordinance No. 386
which is available in the Operations and Engineering
Departments. A. Definitions: For a complete listing see California Administrative Code, Title 17, Public Health. 1. Air-Gap Separation (AG): The term "air-gap separation" means a physical break between a supply
pipe and a receiving vessel. The air-gap shall be
at least double the diameter of the supply pipe
measured vertically above the top rim of the vessel,
in no case less than one inch.
2. Approved Backflow Prevention Device: The term "approved backflow prevention device" shall mean devices which have passed laboratory and field evaluation tests performed by a recognized testing organization which has demonstrated their competency
to perform such test to the California Department of
Health Services and the Otay Water District.
3. AWWA Standard: The term "AWWA Standard" means an
official standard developed and approved by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). 4. Backflow: The term "backflow" shall mean a flow condition, caused by a differential in pressure, that causes the flow of water or other liquids,
gases, mixtures or substances into the distributing
pipes of a potable supply of water from any source
or sources other than an approved water supply
source. Back-siphonage is one cause of backflow.
Back pressure is the other cause. 5. Cross-Connection: The term "cross-connection" as used in this Ordinance means any unprotected actual or potential connection between a potable water
system used to supply water for drinking purposes
and any source or system containing unapproved water
or a substance that is not or cannot be approved as
safe, wholesome, and potable. Bypass arrangements,
jumper connections, removable sections, swivel or
changeover devices, or other devices through which backflow could occur, shall be considered to be cross-connections.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 12 pt
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B,C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" +
Indent at: 0.75"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75"
23-3
6. Double Check Valve Assembly: The term "double check
valve assembly" means an assembly of at least two
independently acting check valves, including tightly
closing shut-off valves, on each side of the check
valve assembly and test cocks available for testing
the water tightness of each check valve.
7. Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention
Device (RP): The term "reduced pressure principle
backflow prevention device" means a device
incorporating two or more check valves and an
automatically operating differential relief valve
located between the two check valves, a tightly
closing shut-off valve on each side of the check
valve assembly, and equipped with necessary test
cocks for testing.
8. Reduced Pressure Detection Assembly (RPDA): Same as
RP except as approved for fire services.
9. Service Connection: The term "service connection"
refers to the point of connection of a user's piping
to the Otay Water District facilities.
B. General Provisions
1. Unprotected cross-connections with the public
water supply are prohibited.
2. Whenever backflow protection has been found
necessary, the District will require the water
user to install an approved backflow prevention
device by and at his/her expense for continued
services or before a new service will be granted.
3. Wherever backflow protection, has been found
necessary on a water supply line entering a water
user's premises, then any and all water supply
lines from the District's mains entering such
premises, buildings, or structures shall be
protected by an approved backflow prevention
device. The type of device to be installed will
be in accordance with the requirements of this
ordinance.
C. Where Protection is Required
1. Each service connection from the District water
system for supplying water to premises having an
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25", Tab stops: 1.13", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
23-4
auxiliary water supply shall be protected against
backflow of water from the premises into the
public water system.
2. Each service connection from the District water
system for supplying water to any premises on
which any substance is handled in such fashion as
may allow its entry into the water system shall
be protected against backflow of the water from
the premises into the public system. This shall
include commercial accounts, irrigation accounts,
multifamily dwellings, multi-story buildings,
complex piping and locations where the handling
of process waters and waters originating from the
District water system may be subjected to
deterioration in sanitary quality.
D. Type of Protection Required
1. The type of protection that shall be provided to
prevent backflow into the approved water supply
shall be commensurate to the degree of hazard
that exists on the consumer's premises. The type
of protective device that may be required (listed
in an increasing level of protection) includes:
Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention
Device (RP), and an Air-gap separation (AG). The
water user may choose a higher level of pro-
tection than that required by the District. The
minimum types of backflow protection required to
protect the approved water supply at the user's
water connection to premises with varying degrees
of hazard, are given in Table 1 of the California
Administrative Code, Title 17, Public Health. Situations which are not covered in Table 1 shall
be evaluated on a case by case basis and the
appropriate backflow protection shall be
determined by the District.
E. Approved Backflow Prevention Devices
1. Only backflow prevention devices which have been
approved by the District shall be acceptable for
installation by a water user connected to the
District's potable water system.
2. The District will provide to any affected cus-
tomer, upon their request, a list of approved
backflow prevention devices.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
23-5
F. Backflow Prevention Device Installation
1. Backflow prevention devices shall be installed in
a manner prescribed in Section 7603, Title 17 of
the California Administrative Code. Location of
the devices should be as close as practical to
the user's connection. The District shall have
the final authority in determining the required
location of a backflow prevention device.
a. Air-gap separation (AG) - The air-gap
separation shall be located on the user's
side of and as close to the service
connection as is practical. All piping
from the service connection to the
receiving tank shall be above grade and be
entirely visible. No water use shall be
provided from any point between the
service connection and the air-gap separa-
tion. The water inlet piping shall
terminate a distance of at least two (2)
pipe diameters of the supply inlet, but in
no case less than one inch above the
overflow rim of the receiving tank.
b. Reduced Pressure principle backflow
prevention device (RP) - The approved
reduced pressure principle backflow
prevention device shall be installed on
the user's side of the service connection
at a distance consistent with the
District's Standard Drawings and
Specifications. The device shall be
installed a minimum of twelve inches (12")
but not more than eighteen inches (18")
above grade measured from the bottom of
the relief valve and with a minimum of
twelve inches (12") side clearance. The
device shall be installed so that it is
readily accessible for maintenance and
testing. Water supplied from any point
between the service connection and the RP
device shall be protected in a manner
approved by the District. Additionally,
materials and installation shall at all
times conform to water agency standards as
outlined in www.sdwas.com.
G. Backflow Prevention Device Testing and Maintenance
23-6
1. The owners of any premises on which, or on
account of which, backflow prevention devices
are installed, shall have the devices tested by
a person who has demonstrated their competency
in testing of these devices to the District and
has been approved by the District. Backflow
prevention devices must be tested at least
annually and immediately after installation,
relocation or repair. The District may require
a more frequent testing schedule -if it is
determined to be necessary. No device shall be
placed back in service unless it is functioning
as required. A report in a form acceptable to
the District shall be filed with the District
each time a device is tested, relocated or
repaired. These devices shall be serviced,
overhauled, or replaced whenever they are found
to be defective and all costs of testing,
repair, and maintenance shall be borne by the
water user.
2. Initial testing after installation and subse-
quent retesting shall at all times conform to
water agency standards as outlined in
www.sdwas.com.
3. The District will supply affected water users
with a list of persons acceptable to the
District to test backflow prevention devices.
The District will notify affected customers by
mail when annual testing of a device is needed
and also supply users with the necessary forms
which must be filled out each time a device is
tested or repaired.
4. Existing double check valves and pressure vacuum
breakers on median strip irrigation areas which
function adequately may remain in place,
however, as the District no longer recognizes
such devices to be commensurate with the degree
of potential hazard, failures of these devices
will necessitate their replacement with a
reduced pressure principal backflow prevention
device (RP).
H. Backflow Prevention Device Removal
1. Written approval must be obtained from the
District before a backflow prevention device is
removed, relocated, repaired or replaced.
23-7
a. Removal: The use of a device may be
discontinued and device removed from
service upon presentation of sufficient
evidence to the District to verify that a
hazard no longer exists or is not likely
to be created in the future;
b. Relocation: A device may be relocated
following confirmation by the District
that the relocation will continue to
provide the required protection and
satisfy installation requirements. A
retest will be required following the
relocation of the device;
c. Repair: A device may be removed for
repair, provided the water use is either
discontinued until repair is completed and
the device is returned to service, or the
service connection is equipped with other
backflow protection approved by the
District. A retest will be required
following the repair of the device; and
d. Replacement: A device may be removed and
replaced provided the water use is
discontinued until the replacement device
is installed and tested. All replacement
devices must be approved by the District
and must be commensurate with the degree
of hazard involved.
I. User Supervisor
1. At each premise where it is necessary, in the
opinion of the District, a user supervisor shall
be designated by and at the expense of the water
user. This user supervisor shall be responsible
for the monitoring of the backflow prevention
devices and for avoidance of cross connections.
In the event of contamination or pollution of
the drinking water system due to a cross-
connection on the premises, the District shall
be promptly notified by the user supervisor so
that appropriate measures may be taken to
overcome the contamination. The water user
shall inform the District of the user
supervisor's identity on, as a minimum, an
annual basis and whenever a change occurs.
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
23-8
J. Administrative Procedures
Water System Survey
1. The District shall review all requests for new
services to determine if backflow protection is
needed. Plans and specifications must be
submitted to the District upon request for
review of possible cross-connection hazards as a
condition of service for new service
connections. If it is determined that a
backflow prevention device is necessary to
protect the public water system, the required
device must be installed before service will be
activated.
2. The District may require an on-premise
inspection to evaluate cross-connection hazards.
The District will transmit a written notice
requesting an inspection appointment to each
affected water user. Any customer which cannot
or will not allow an on-premise inspection of
their piping system shall be required to install
the backflow prevention device the District
considers necessary.
3. The District may, at it's discretion, require a
reinspection for cross-connection hazards of
any premise to which it serves water. The
District will transmit a written notice
requesting an inspection appointment to each
affected water user. Any customer which cannot
or will not allow an on-premise inspection of
their piping system shall be required to
install the backflow prevention device the
District considers necessary.
K. Customer Notification - Device Installation and/or
Repair (Corrective Action)
1. The District will notify the water user of the
survey findings, listing corrective action to
be taken if required. A period of 30 days will
be given to complete all corrective action
required including installation of backflow
prevention devices.
2. A second notice will be sent to each water user
who does not take the required corrective
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Tab stops: 0.75", Left+ 0.81", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 0.88", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.38", Hanging: 0.38", Numbered
+ Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 11 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
23-9
action prescribed in the first notice within
the 30 day period allowed. The second notice
will give the water user a 14 day period to
take the required corrective action and will
generate the assessment of a fee in accordance
with Schedule A. If no action is taken within
the 14 day period, the District may terminate
water service to the affected water user until
the required corrective actions are taken.
3. A third and final notice will be sent to each
water user who fails to take the requisite
corrective action detailed in the second notice
within the 14 day period allowed. The third
notice will indicate the date of service
termination and will generate the assessment of
a fee in accordance with Schedule A.
4. Only written verification from a certified and
District-approved tester/installer received in
the District office within the allotted time
period will constitute compliance with the
above requirements.
L. Customer Notification - Testing
1. The District will notify each affected water
user when it is time for the backflow preven-
tion device installed on their service
connections to be tested. This written notice
shall give the water user 30 days to have the
device tested and supply the water user with
the necessary form(s) to be completed and
submitted to the District.
2. A second notice shall be sent to each water
user who does not have their backflow preven-
tion device tested as prescribed in the first
notice within the 30 day period allowed. The
second notice will give the water user a 14 day
period to have their backflow prevention device
tested and will generate the assessment of a
fee in accordance with Schedule A of this
Ordinance. If no action is taken within the 14
day period, the District may terminate water
service to the affected water user until the
subject device is tested.
3. A third and final notice will be sent to each
water user who fails to have their backflow
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 0.5", Left
23-10
prevention device(s) tested as required in the
second notice within the 14 day period allowed.
The third notice will indicate the date of
service termination and will generate the
assessment of a fee in accordance with Schedule
A of this Ordinance.
4. Submittal of verification of testing by a
District approved tester on the appropriate
form(s) received in the District office within
the allotted time period will constitute
compliance with the above requirements.
M. Water Service Termination
A. General
When the District encounters water uses that rep-
resent a clear and immediate hazard to the potable
water supply that cannot be immediately abated, the
District shall institute the procedure for
discontinuing the District water service. A
reconnection fee will be assessed in accordance with
Schedule A.
B. Basis for Termination
Conditions or water uses that create a basis for
water service termination shall include, but are not
limited to, the following items:
1. Refusal to install a required backflow pre-
vention device;
2. Refusal to test a backflow prevention device;
3. Refusal to repair a faulty backflow prevention
device;
4. Refusal to replace a faulty backflow prevention
device;
5. Direct or indirect connection between the
public water system and a sewer line;
6. Unprotected direct or indirect connection
between the public water system and a system or
equipment containing contaminants;
23-11
7. Unprotected direct or indirect connection
between the public water system and an auxil-
iary water system; and/or
8. Any situation which presents an immediate
health hazard to the public water system.
Additional remedies for failure to comply with Cross
Connection requirements are referenced in Section 72 of The
Code Of Ordinance and may be prosecuted as set forth in
Section 73.01 of this Code.
N. Water Service Termination Procedures
The District has absolute discretion to determine
the corrective action required and referenced in
Sections 72 and 73 of this Code.
1. For conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4, the District will
terminate service to a customer's premise after
2 written notices have been sent specifying the
corrective action needed and the time period in
which it must be done. If no action is taken
within the allowed time period water service
may be terminated.
2. For conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, the District
will take the following steps:
a. Make reasonable effort to advise the water
user of intent to terminate water service;
b. Terminate water supply and lock service
valve. The water service will remain
inactive until correction of violations
has been approved by the District.
O. Requirements for addition to or renewal on the Otay
Water District list of approved backflow prevention
device testers
A. Each applicant desiring initial addition to or
annual renewal on the District List of Approved
Backflow Prevention Device Testers shall submit
a fee in accordance with Section A. of this
Ordinance. Fees must be made in an acceptable
form of payment to the District. With the fee,
a current address and phone number must be
furnished. Those applicants not meeting all
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Tab stops: 1",Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
23-12
qualifications specified herein will have
current fees returned.
B. Applicants shall hold a valid and current
certification from the American Water Works
Association (AWWA), American Backflow
Prevention Association (ABPA), American Society
of Sanitary Engineering (ASSE), or University
of Southern California Test Procedures (current
edition). California Nevada Section or from a
certification program recognized by the San
Diego County Health Department. Evidence of
said certification shall be furnished the
District at the time of application, at time of
renewal and at any time the District requests
verification. Certification alone does not
constitute District approval.
C. Each applicant shall furnish evidence to show
the availability of the necessary tools and
equipment to properly test and/or repair such
devices. Test kits shall be recalibrated
annually and evidence of this shall also be
provided with both initial application and
subsequent renewals.
D. The tester shall be solely responsible for the
competency and accuracy of all tests and
reports prepared and submitted to the District.
The list of approved testers will be furnished
upon request to any District customer requiring
such service.
The testers listed will remain listed for a
period of one year at which time they are
subject to application for renewal. At the
beginning of each year a grace period not to
exceed ninety (90) days will be allowed for
this process. Failure to renew within the
grace period will constitute removal from the
list. The District reserves the authority to
revoke, suspend, or remove any tester from the
list of authorized testers for improper
conduct, testing, repairs, and/or reporting.
FEES
23-13
A. A second notice for required corrective action
will result in a service fee, per backflow
device as outlined in Schedule A.
B. A third notice (termination of service notice)
will result in a service, per backflow device
followed by the assessment of a reconnection
fee if such action is required as outlined in
Schedule A.
C. A reconnection fee, per service, is required
for service to be resumed as outlined in
Schedule A
D. Applicants for addition to the list of approved
backflow prevention device testers in the Otay
Water District will submit an initial filing
fee and a renewal fee of ten dollars annually
thereafter as outlined in Schedule A.
23.05 WATER SERVICE FOR STEAM BOILERS
Customers using District water to supply steam boilers
are required to provide adequate storage of water for boiler
use for a minimum period of 12 hours.
23.06 ELECTRICAL GROUND CONNECTIONS The connection of electrical ground wire to water pipes is prohibited. The District shall assume no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from such a connection.
23-1
SECTION 23 NON-RESPONSIBILITY OF DISTRICT
23.01 INTERRUPTIONS OF WATER SERVICE
District does not guarantee continuous delivery of water
on demand. From time to time it may be necessary for the
District to shut off the flow of water in any of its water
systems. Except in emergencies, such stoppages will not be
made without prior notice to the customers involved. District
shall not assume any responsibility for loss or damages which
may occur due to interruption of water service.
23.02 PRIVATELY-OWNED WATER LINES
The District assumes no responsibility for the delivery
of water through privately-owned pipelines or systems, nor
shall it assume any responsibility for damages resulting from
the operation of any such system even though water may be
received from a district water distribution system.
23.03 WATER PRESSURE REGULATION
A. Customer Responsibility. The District shall
assume no responsibility for water pressure
regulation within a customer's service area. The
customer shall be responsible for providing adequate
safeguard measures for the customer's water system
wherever pressure regulation is necessary.
B. Requirement for Installation in New Construction.
Customers making application for water service for
new construction for residential, commercial or
industrial use shall be required to install an
appropriate pressure regulation device for such
service.
23.04 CROSS-CONNECTIONS AND BACKFLOW DEVICES
State Regulations for Cross-Connections
The California Department of Public Health has issued
Regulations Relating to Cross-Connections (Calif. Adm. Code,
Title 17 - Public Health) for the purpose of safeguarding
drinking water supplies by preventing backflow into public
water systems.
It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation at
any time to make or maintain or cause to be made or main-
tained, temporarily or permanently, for any period of time
whatsoever, any cross-connection between plumbing pipes or
water fixtures being served with water by the District water
department and any other source of water supply or to maintain
23-2
any sanitary fixture or other appurtenances or fixtures which
by reason of their construction may cause or allow back-flow
of water or other substances into the water supply system of
the District and/or the service of water pipes or fixtures of
any consumer of the District.
A. Definitions: For a complete listing see California
Administrative Code, Title 17, Public Health.
1. Air-Gap Separation (AG): The term "air-gap
separation" means a physical break between a supply
pipe and a receiving vessel. The air-gap shall be
at least double the diameter of the supply pipe
measured vertically above the top rim of the vessel,
in no case less than one inch.
2. Approved Backflow Prevention Device: The term
"approved backflow prevention device" shall mean
devices which have passed laboratory and field
evaluation tests performed by a recognized testing
organization which has demonstrated their competency
to perform such test to the California Department of
Health Services and the Otay Water District.
3. AWWA Standard: The term "AWWA Standard" means an
official standard developed and approved by the
American Water Works Association (AWWA).
4. Backflow: The term "backflow" shall mean a flow
condition, caused by a differential in pressure,
that causes the flow of water or other liquids,
gases, mixtures or substances into the distributing
pipes of a potable supply of water from any source
or sources other than an approved water supply
source. Back-siphonage is one cause of backflow.
Back pressure is the other cause.
5. Cross-Connection: The term "cross-connection" as
used in this Ordinance means any unprotected actual
or potential connection between a potable water
system used to supply water for drinking purposes
and any source or system containing unapproved water
or a substance that is not or cannot be approved as
safe, wholesome, and potable. Bypass arrangements,
jumper connections, removable sections, swivel or
changeover devices, or other devices through which
backflow could occur, shall be considered to be
cross-connections.
6. Double Check Valve Assembly: The term "double check
valve assembly" means an assembly of at least two
independently acting check valves, including tightly
23-3
closing shut-off valves, on each side of the check
valve assembly and test cocks available for testing
the water tightness of each check valve.
7. Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention
Device (RP): The term "reduced pressure principle
backflow prevention device" means a device
incorporating two or more check valves and an
automatically operating differential relief valve
located between the two check valves, a tightly
closing shut-off valve on each side of the check
valve assembly, and equipped with necessary test
cocks for testing.
8. Reduced Pressure Detection Assembly (RPDA): Same as
RP except as approved for fire services.
9. Service Connection: The term "service connection"
refers to the point of connection of a user's piping
to the Otay Water District facilities.
B. General Provisions
1. Unprotected cross-connections with the public
water supply are prohibited.
2. Whenever backflow protection has been found
necessary, the District will require the water
user to install an approved backflow prevention
device by and at his/her expense for continued
services or before a new service will be granted.
3. Wherever backflow protection, has been found
necessary on a water supply line entering a water
user's premises, then any and all water supply
lines from the District's mains entering such
premises, buildings, or structures shall be
protected by an approved backflow prevention
device. The type of device to be installed will
be in accordance with the requirements of this
ordinance.
C. Where Protection is Required
1. Each service connection from the District water
system for supplying water to premises having an
auxiliary water supply shall be protected against
backflow of water from the premises into the
public water system.
23-4
2. Each service connection from the District water
system for supplying water to any premises on
which any substance is handled in such fashion as
may allow its entry into the water system shall
be protected against backflow of the water from
the premises into the public system. This shall
include commercial accounts, irrigation accounts,
multifamily dwellings, multi-story buildings,
complex piping and locations where the handling
of process waters and waters originating from the
District water system may be subjected to
deterioration in sanitary quality.
D. Type of Protection Required
1. The type of protection that shall be provided to
prevent backflow into the approved water supply
shall be commensurate to the degree of hazard
that exists on the consumer's premises. The type
of protective device that may be required (listed
in an increasing level of protection) includes:
Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention
Device (RP), and an Air-gap separation (AG). The
water user may choose a higher level of pro-
tection than that required by the District. The
minimum types of backflow protection required to
protect the approved water supply at the user's
water connection to premises with varying degrees
of hazard, are given in Table 1 of the California
Administrative Code, Title 17, Public Health.
Situations which are not covered in Table 1 shall
be evaluated on a case by case basis and the
appropriate backflow protection shall be
determined by the District.
E. Approved Backflow Prevention Devices
1. Only backflow prevention devices which have been
approved by the District shall be acceptable for
installation by a water user connected to the
District's potable water system.
2. The District will provide to any affected cus-
tomer, upon their request, a list of approved
backflow prevention devices.
F. Backflow Prevention Device Installation
1. Backflow prevention devices shall be installed in
a manner prescribed in Section 7603, Title 17 of
23-5
the California Administrative Code. Location of
the devices should be as close as practical to
the user's connection. The District shall have
the final authority in determining the required
location of a backflow prevention device.
a. Air-gap separation (AG) - The air-gap
separation shall be located on the user's
side of and as close to the service
connection as is practical. All piping
from the service connection to the
receiving tank shall be above grade and be
entirely visible. No water use shall be
provided from any point between the
service connection and the air-gap separa-
tion. The water inlet piping shall
terminate a distance of at least two (2)
pipe diameters of the supply inlet, but in
no case less than one inch above the
overflow rim of the receiving tank.
b. Reduced Pressure principle backflow
prevention device (RP) - The approved
reduced pressure principle backflow
prevention device shall be installed on
the user's side of the service connection
at a distance consistent with the
District's Standard Drawings and
Specifications. The device shall be
installed a minimum of twelve inches (12")
but not more than eighteen inches (18")
above grade measured from the bottom of
the relief valve and with a minimum of
twelve inches (12") side clearance. The
device shall be installed so that it is
readily accessible for maintenance and
testing. Water supplied from any point
between the service connection and the RP
device shall be protected in a manner
approved by the District. Additionally,
materials and installation shall at all
times conform to water agency standards as
outlined in www.sdwas.com.
G. Backflow Prevention Device Testing and Maintenance
1. The owners of any premises on which, or on
account of which, backflow prevention devices
are installed, shall have the devices tested by
a person who has demonstrated their competency
23-6
in testing of these devices to the District and
has been approved by the District. Backflow
prevention devices must be tested at least
annually and immediately after installation,
relocation or repair. The District may require
a more frequent testing schedule -if it is
determined to be necessary. No device shall be
placed back in service unless it is functioning
as required. A report in a form acceptable to
the District shall be filed with the District
each time a device is tested, relocated or
repaired. These devices shall be serviced,
overhauled, or replaced whenever they are found
to be defective and all costs of testing,
repair, and maintenance shall be borne by the
water user.
2. Initial testing after installation and subse-
quent retesting shall at all times conform to
water agency standards as outlined in
www.sdwas.com.
3. The District will supply affected water users
with a list of persons acceptable to the
District to test backflow prevention devices.
The District will notify affected customers by
mail when annual testing of a device is needed
and also supply users with the necessary forms
which must be filled out each time a device is
tested or repaired.
4. Existing double check valves and pressure vacuum
breakers on median strip irrigation areas which
function adequately may remain in place,
however, as the District no longer recognizes
such devices to be commensurate with the degree
of potential hazard, failures of these devices
will necessitate their replacement with a
reduced pressure principal backflow prevention
device (RP).
H. Backflow Prevention Device Removal
1. Written approval must be obtained from the
District before a backflow prevention device is
removed, relocated, repaired or replaced.
a. Removal: The use of a device may be
discontinued and device removed from
service upon presentation of sufficient
23-7
evidence to the District to verify that a
hazard no longer exists or is not likely
to be created in the future;
b. Relocation: A device may be relocated
following confirmation by the District
that the relocation will continue to
provide the required protection and
satisfy installation requirements. A
retest will be required following the
relocation of the device;
c. Repair: A device may be removed for
repair, provided the water use is either
discontinued until repair is completed and
the device is returned to service, or the
service connection is equipped with other
backflow protection approved by the
District. A retest will be required
following the repair of the device; and
d. Replacement: A device may be removed and
replaced provided the water use is
discontinued until the replacement device
is installed and tested. All replacement
devices must be approved by the District
and must be commensurate with the degree
of hazard involved.
I. User Supervisor
1. At each premise where it is necessary, in the
opinion of the District, a user supervisor shall
be designated by and at the expense of the water
user. This user supervisor shall be responsible
for the monitoring of the backflow prevention
devices and for avoidance of cross connections.
In the event of contamination or pollution of
the drinking water system due to a cross-
connection on the premises, the District shall
be promptly notified by the user supervisor so
that appropriate measures may be taken to
overcome the contamination. The water user
shall inform the District of the user
supervisor's identity on, as a minimum, an
annual basis and whenever a change occurs.
J. Administrative Procedures
Water System Survey
23-8
1. The District shall review all requests for new
services to determine if backflow protection is
needed. Plans and specifications must be
submitted to the District upon request for
review of possible cross-connection hazards as a
condition of service for new service
connections. If it is determined that a
backflow prevention device is necessary to
protect the public water system, the required
device must be installed before service will be
activated.
2. The District may require an on-premise
inspection to evaluate cross-connection hazards.
The District will transmit a written notice
requesting an inspection appointment to each
affected water user. Any customer which cannot
or will not allow an on-premise inspection of
their piping system shall be required to install
the backflow prevention device the District
considers necessary.
3. The District may, at it's discretion, require a
reinspection for cross-connection hazards of
any premise to which it serves water. The
District will transmit a written notice
requesting an inspection appointment to each
affected water user. Any customer which cannot
or will not allow an on-premise inspection of
their piping system shall be required to
install the backflow prevention device the
District considers necessary.
K. Customer Notification - Device Installation and/or
Repair (Corrective Action)
1. The District will notify the water user of the
survey findings, listing corrective action to
be taken if required. A period of 30 days will
be given to complete all corrective action
required including installation of backflow
prevention devices.
2. A second notice will be sent to each water user
who does not take the required corrective
action prescribed in the first notice within
the 30 day period allowed. The second notice
will give the water user a 14 day period to
take the required corrective action and will
23-9
generate the assessment of a fee in accordance
with Schedule A. If no action is taken within
the 14 day period, the District may terminate
water service to the affected water user until
the required corrective actions are taken.
3. A third and final notice will be sent to each
water user who fails to take the requisite
corrective action detailed in the second notice
within the 14 day period allowed. The third
notice will indicate the date of service
termination and will generate the assessment of
a fee in accordance with Schedule A.
4. Only written verification from a certified and
District-approved tester/installer received in
the District office within the allotted time
period will constitute compliance with the
above requirements.
L. Customer Notification - Testing
1. The District will notify each affected water
user when it is time for the backflow preven-
tion device installed on their service
connections to be tested. This written notice
shall give the water user 30 days to have the
device tested and supply the water user with
the necessary form(s) to be completed and
submitted to the District.
2. A second notice shall be sent to each water
user who does not have their backflow preven-
tion device tested as prescribed in the first
notice within the 30 day period allowed. The
second notice will give the water user a 14 day
period to have their backflow prevention device
tested and will generate the assessment of a
fee in accordance with Schedule A of this
Ordinance. If no action is taken within the 14
day period, the District may terminate water
service to the affected water user until the
subject device is tested.
3. A third and final notice will be sent to each
water user who fails to have their backflow
prevention device(s) tested as required in the
second notice within the 14 day period allowed.
The third notice will indicate the date of
service termination and will generate the
23-10
assessment of a fee in accordance with Schedule
A of this Ordinance.
4. Submittal of verification of testing by a
District approved tester on the appropriate
form(s) received in the District office within
the allotted time period will constitute
compliance with the above requirements.
M. Water Service Termination
A. General
When the District encounters water uses that rep-
resent a clear and immediate hazard to the potable
water supply that cannot be immediately abated, the
District shall institute the procedure for
discontinuing the District water service. A
reconnection fee will be assessed in accordance with
Schedule A.
B. Basis for Termination
Conditions or water uses that create a basis for
water service termination shall include, but are not
limited to, the following items:
1. Refusal to install a required backflow pre-
vention device;
2. Refusal to test a backflow prevention device;
3. Refusal to repair a faulty backflow prevention
device;
4. Refusal to replace a faulty backflow prevention
device;
5. Direct or indirect connection between the
public water system and a sewer line;
6. Unprotected direct or indirect connection
between the public water system and a system or
equipment containing contaminants;
7. Unprotected direct or indirect connection
between the public water system and an auxil-
iary water system; and/or
23-11
8. Any situation which presents an immediate
health hazard to the public water system.
Additional remedies for failure to comply with Cross
Connection requirements are referenced in Section 72 of The
Code Of Ordinance and may be prosecuted as set forth in
Section 73.01 of this Code.
N. Water Service Termination Procedures
The District has absolute discretion to determine
the corrective action required and referenced in
Sections 72 and 73 of this Code.
1. For conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4, the District will
terminate service to a customer's premise after
2 written notices have been sent specifying the
corrective action needed and the time period in
which it must be done. If no action is taken
within the allowed time period water service
may be terminated.
2. For conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, the District
will take the following steps:
a. Make reasonable effort to advise the water
user of intent to terminate water service;
b. Terminate water supply and lock service
valve. The water service will remain
inactive until correction of violations
has been approved by the District.
O. Requirements for addition to or renewal on the Otay
Water District list of approved backflow prevention
device testers
A. Each applicant desiring initial addition to or
annual renewal on the District List of Approved
Backflow Prevention Device Testers shall submit
a fee in accordance with Section A. of this
Ordinance. Fees must be made in an acceptable
form of payment to the District. With the fee,
a current address and phone number must be
furnished. Those applicants not meeting all
qualifications specified herein will have
current fees returned.
B. Applicants shall hold a valid and current
certification from the American Water Works
23-12
Association (AWWA), American Backflow
Prevention Association (ABPA), American Society
of Sanitary Engineering (ASSE), or University
of Southern California Test Procedures (current
edition). California Nevada Section or from a
certification program recognized by the San
Diego County Health Department. Evidence of
said certification shall be furnished the
District at the time of application, at time of
renewal and at any time the District requests
verification. Certification alone does not
constitute District approval.
C. Each applicant shall furnish evidence to show
the availability of the necessary tools and
equipment to properly test and/or repair such
devices. Test kits shall be recalibrated
annually and evidence of this shall also be
provided with both initial application and
subsequent renewals.
D. The tester shall be solely responsible for the
competency and accuracy of all tests and
reports prepared and submitted to the District.
The list of approved testers will be furnished
upon request to any District customer requiring
such service.
The testers listed will remain listed for a
period of one year at which time they are
subject to application for renewal. At the
beginning of each year a grace period not to
exceed ninety (90) days will be allowed for
this process. Failure to renew within the
grace period will constitute removal from the
list. The District reserves the authority to
revoke, suspend, or remove any tester from the
list of authorized testers for improper
conduct, testing, repairs, and/or reporting.
FEES
A. A second notice for required corrective action
will result in a service fee, per backflow
device as outlined in Schedule A.
B. A third notice (termination of service notice)
will result in a service, per backflow device
23-13
followed by the assessment of a reconnection
fee if such action is required as outlined in
Schedule A.
C. A reconnection fee, per service, is required
for service to be resumed as outlined in
Schedule A
D. Applicants for addition to the list of approved
backflow prevention device testers in the Otay
Water District will submit an initial filing
fee and a renewal fee of ten dollars annually
thereafter as outlined in Schedule A.
23.05 WATER SERVICE FOR STEAM BOILERS
Customers using District water to supply steam boilers
are required to provide adequate storage of water for boiler
use for a minimum period of 12 hours.
23.06 ELECTRICAL GROUND CONNECTIONS
The connection of electrical ground wire to water pipes
is prohibited. The District shall assume no responsibility
for any loss or damage resulting from such a connection.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Wales Benham Senior Accountant
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY:
Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Update of Section (C)(6)(e) of Otay Water District Board of
Director’s Policy 8
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No.4238 amending Section (C)(6)(e) of Otay Water
District Board of Director’s Policy 8 to provide more efficient and streamlined reporting and more closely align its language with the requirements outlined in Government Code Section 53065.5. COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A for copy of revised Section (C)(6)(e) of Otay Water District Board of Director’s Policy 8. PURPOSE:
The ensure that the District meets the specific disclosure requirements in Government Code Section 53065.5 and to provide a more efficient and streamlined format to inform the Board of the Director’s expenses at quarterly interims.
ANALYSIS: California Government Code Section 53065.5 requires special districts to disclose any reimbursement to any member of its governing body of
at least $100 paid by a district within the immediately preceding fiscal year. The disclosure requirement shall be fulfilled by
including the reimbursement information in a document published or
printed, at least annually by a date determined by that district, and shall be made available for public inspection.
Currently the District meets that requirement by providing detailed quarterly reports of the director’s expenses. This report includes such expenses as stipends, mileage, seminar, airline or ground travel, meals, and telephone use, along with the Director’s name and
date the expenses were incurred. The new proposed quarterly summary report of Directors’ Expenses will be included in the General Manager’s report and provide the past quarter and year-to-date amounts paid for each Director. To meet the
requirements of California Government Code Section 53065.5, a detailed report, similar to the current quarterly report, will be
provided annually. Upon review of Policy 8, staff identified language that required
updating. In an effort to minimize the use of paper documents and to improve communications, the District is now providing computerized
equipment for Director’s use for District business. FISCAL IMPACT:
This more efficient and streamlined format for the quarterly reports will provide an incremental savings to the District. STRATEGIC GOAL:
Prudently manage District funds. LEGAL IMPACT:
Compliance with California Government Code Section 53065.5.
Attachments: A) Committee Action
B) Resolution No. 4238 Exhibit 1 – Strike-through Policy 8 C) Proposed Quarterly Board of Directors’
Expense Report D) Proposed Policy 8
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Update of Section (C)(6)(e) of Otay Water District Board of Director’s Policy 8
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance, Administration, and Communications Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on June 18, 2014 and the following comments were made:
• Staff is requesting that the Board 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 align its language with Government Code Section 53065.5.
• The amendments to Policy 8 proposes that the District report a summary of Director’s expenses quarterly within the General Manager’s monthly report, and provide a detailed report annually, similar to what is currently provided quarterly. This will comply with Government Code requirements and streamline the current
reporting process.
• Staff is also proposing to update Section (E) of Policy 8, to align
it with current practice. It was proposed in April 2014 that the District move to providing electronic copies (paperless) of the
Board and Committee meeting materials to Members of the Board to streamline the board packet production and delivery process. By moving to electronic copies, staff projected that the District would save approximately $6,000 per year through the reduced use of paper, toner, copier, staff time, delivery costs, etc.
Upon completion of the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the board as an action item.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 4238
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
OTAY WATER DISTRICT AMENDING POLICY 8,
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS, WITH
REGARD TO THE REPORTING OF BOARD EXPENSES
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Government
Code, the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District
wish to amend Policy 8 with regard to reporting of Board
Member expenses; and
WHEREAS, the board wishes to provide more efficient
and streamlined reporting; and
WHEREAS, the board wishes that the language within
Policy 8 be more closely aligned to the language of that of
California Government Code Section 53065.5; and
WHEREAS, the board wishes that the policy be amended
as per attached copy (Exhibit 1).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution shall
take effect upon adoption by the Board of Directors of the Otay
Water District.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
Otay Water District at a regular meeting held this 2nd day of
July, 2014.
Attachment B
2
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
________________________
President
ATTEST:
____________________________
District Secretary
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/1/097/
2/14
Page 1 of 7
Purpose
To provide guidelines for payment of compensation and reimbursement of
expenses to Directors in connection with their attendance at meetings
or the performance of other authorized business, and for group insurance
benefits for Directors.
Background
Members of the Board of Directors (“Directors”) attend regular, adjourned
or special meetings of the Board of Directors (“Board”). In addition,
Directors attend other District meetings, committee meetings,
association meetings, and educational seminars on behalf of the District.
These meetings and seminars are related to District business, water and
water related issues, and California special districts. State statutes
authorize District payments for meetings, reimbursements of expenses.
State law also authorizes the District to provide health and welfare
benefits for active Directors and, in limited circumstances, retired
Directors if they served 12 years and were first elected prior to January
1, 1995. The District is also authorized to offer health and welfare
benefits for retired Directors who commenced office on or after January
1, 1995, if the recipient participates on a self-pay basis.
Policy
The District will compensate Directors on a per diem basis for attendance
at authorized meetings or functions and will reimburse Directors for
reasonable expenses incurred while traveling on District business to
include, lodging, dining, transportation and related incidentals.
A. Directors Per Diem
As provided in Section 1.01 C. of the District Code of Ordinances,
each Director shall receive a per diem in the amount of $100 for
each day of attendance at meetings of the Board or for each day of
service rendered as a Director by request or authorization of the
Board, not to exceed a total of ten (10) days in any calendar
month. Attendance at any meeting shown on Exhibit A to this Policy
shall be deemed a meeting requested or authorized by the Board.
Attendance of meetings shall be in accordance with Exhibit A. The
President of the Board or the Board may authorize a Director to
attend meetings not listed in Exhibit A when the President or the
Board determine that it is in the interest of the District that a
Director attend, and that such attendance be compensated and
expenses reimbursed. Director’s claims for per diem amounts shall
be made on a “Board of Directors Per Diem and Mileage Claim Form”
(Exhibit B). The President of the Board or the Board may approve
reimbursement of expenses outside the per diem limit for a
Director, if the Director submits receipts for all of the related
District business expenses.
Exhibit 1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/1/097/
2/14
Page 2 of 7
Attendance at a meeting that is not authorized by this policy (pre-
approved meetings) or pre-approved by the President may be approved
by the Board for per diem. Director’s seeking per diem amounts
for these meetings shall request that the item be presented to the
Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for consideration.
The decision of the Board shall be final.
When travel arrangements require a day earlier arrival or a day
later departure, Directors will not be eligible for the $100 per
diem, however, reasonable expenses associated with the extended
stay will be reimbursed as specified below.
B. Pre-payment of Otherwise Reimbursable Expenses
The Director may request pre-payment of registration,
transportation, and lodging, using the “Board of Directors Travel
Request Form” (Exhibit C). Pre-payments shall be limited to the
Director’s expenses only. No advances shall be made on travel
expenses.
C. Reimbursement of Expenses
Each Director shall be reimbursed for travel expenses to and from
the meetings described in Exhibit A or for any other authorized
District business as follows:
1. Authorization
Travel associated with the attendance of meetings or
functions for Directors shall be approved in advance by the
Otay Water District Board President. To request approval of
travel, the Director should complete a “Board of Directors
Travel Request Form” (Exhibit B) in order to be eligible for
compensation and/or reimbursement. Travel requests will be
reviewed and approved by the Board President or the Board.
2. Transportation
a. Air Transportation
The District will endeavor to purchase airline tickets
in advance taking advantage of discounts and low
airfares.
b. Automobile
1. Personal Auto: Directors may use their personal
vehicle. The District will reimburse Directors at
the current rate/mile as established by the IRS,
plus tolls, parking, etc., provided, however, if
air transportation is available, the total amount
of expense paid shall be limited to the cost of
coach air travel between points traveled by
personal vehicle. Gasoline, collision and
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/1/097/
2/14
Page 3 of 7
liability insurance, and maintenance will be
provided by the Director and is deemed covered in
the rate/mileage reimbursement.
Directors using personal vehicles on District
business must maintain a valid California driver’s
license and the automobile insurance coverage
required by the State of California, or make
arrangements for a driver who meets the above
requirements. The General Manager’s Staff will
verify that Directors have a valid driver’s
license. Directors will also be required to
maintain automobile insurance coverage. Proof of
such insurance will be submitted two times per
year, in January and July, and is required to be
eligible for mileage reimbursement.
2. Rental Cars: The District will provide a rental
car when needed. Such rental car shall be a
compact or mid-size class, unless upgrades are
offered at no additional cost to the District.
c. Miscellaneous Transportation
Whenever practicable, bus, taxi, rail, shuttle, etc.
transportation may be used in lieu of, or in conjunction
with, modes above.
3. Meals and Lodging
a. Meals and Beverages
Whenever travel requires meals, the meals, excluding
gratuity, shall be reimbursable, provided the Director
presents a receipt along with the “Board of Directors
Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D) for all meals.
Reimbursements for expense items where a receipt has
been lost will not be paid until the President or the
Board has reviewed and approved the expense item. Meals
are reimbursable based on the Meals and Incidental
Expenses (M&IE) as updated by the U.S. General Services
Administration:
1. Full Day Reimbursement
When a Director is traveling for a full day and no
meals are provided for by other sources, such as
pre-paid registration, the Director may be
reimbursed for meal expenses at the rate provided
by the M&IE per day. This amount is exclusive of
any gratuities.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/1/097/
2/14
Page 4 of 7
2. Single Meal Reimbursement
When a Director requires reimbursement for a
single meal while traveling, the maximum meal
reimbursement amount shall be at a rate provided
by the M&IEfor Breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner,
or amounts determined by the President or the Board
to be reasonable for the occasion or
circumstances. These amounts and any amount
approved by the President or Board shall exclude
gratuities.
3. Partial Day Reimbursement
When a director will be traveling for a partial day
or where a single meal is provided for by other
sources such as pre-paid registration, the maximum
reimbursement amount shall be at the rate provided
by the M&IE per meal, or such other amounts as may
be determined by the President or the Board to be
reasonable for the occasion or circumstances. In
any event all amounts to be reimbursed shall exclude
any gratuities.
4. Taxes
The maximum meal reimbursement amounts are
inclusive of and assume expenses for taxes. The
maximum meal reimbursements shall exclude any and
all gratuities.
b. Lodging
The District will reimburse Directors or pre-pay
accommodations in single rooms at conference facilities
or in close proximity when applicable. Or, in the
absence of conference accommodations, normal single-
room business, government or commercial class
accommodation may be obtained. Under normal
circumstances, lodging will not be reimbursed for the
night before a conference starts and the night after it
ends. However, in situations where available travel
schedules would require the Director to leave home
before 6:00 AM or return to home after 12:00 AM, lodging
for the night before or the night after will be
reimbursable.
4. Entertainment
The District shall not cover any expenses incurred for
recreation or entertainment.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/1/097/
2/14
Page 5 of 7
5. Incidental Expenses
Unavoidable, necessary and reasonable authorized expenses
will be fully reimbursed by the District. Some examples of
allowable expenses are:
a. Telephone Calls (Business): Calls placed by the
Director, to the District office, or for the purpose of
conducting District business. Business related calls
should be itemized on the Director’s “Board of Directors
Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D).
b. Telephone Calls (Personal): One (1) brief personal call
each day away from home, up to a $10 maximum per day.
c. Telephone Calls (Local): Charges for local calls, for
meal or transportation reservations, or for area
information related to travel.
d. Reasonable transportation to local restaurants and to
optional functions that are a part of conference events.
e. Parking fees.
f. The following expenses are not reimbursable:
1. Alcoholic beverages
2. Parking or traffic violations
3. In-room movies or laundry services
6. Director's Responsibility
a. Directors must submit a detailed “Board of Directors
Expense Claim Form” for reimbursement. Claim forms
should be supported by vouchers and itemized receipts
of expenditures for which reimbursement is being
requested. Receipts must be attached for all expenses.
If a receipt is lost, the lost receipt must be noted on
the “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D)
and approved by the President or the Board before any
payment can be made. Claim forms shall be submitted
within 45 calendar days after the expense was incurred.
Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District,
which are not reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall
be deducted from the next month’s reimbursement.
b. Expenses will not be reimbursed for meetings that have
been pre-paid and not attended. The President or the
Board may excuse an absence for a meeting. The absent
Director shall provide a verbal or written report at
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/1/097/
2/14
Page 6 of 7
the next regularly scheduled Board meeting stating the
reason for the absence and, if appropriate, request that
it be excused. Directors will be required to reimburse
the district for any pre-paid expenses for any unexcused
absence. This reimbursement will be made by deduction
from future expenditures.
c. When two (2) or more Directors combine an expense on
one receipt, the Director requesting reimbursement
should indicate, on or attached to the Director’s “Board
of Directors Expense Claim Form” the identity of the
other persons sharing expenses. This will facilitate
appropriate allocation of expenses to each participant.
d. Except where the District sponsors a table at an event,
expenses incurred by spouses, family members, or guests
are the responsibility of the Director.
e. The District shall, at least annually, provide a report to
disclose any reimbursement paid by the district within the
immediately preceding fiscal year of at least $100 for each
individual charge for services or product received.
“Individual charge” (as defined in California Government
Code Section 53065.5) includes, but is not limited to, one
meal, lodging for one day, transportation, or a
registration fee.Staff will create a quarterly report
showing in detail all expenses for the Directors The report
will include all expenses, for example, stipend, mileage,
seminar, airline or ground travel, meals, telephone use,
the date incurred, and the Director's name. To the extent
that Directors report meetings for which they did not
receive reimbursement or per diem, those meetings shall be
noted on the report. All payments will be listed whether
the payment was a reimbursement or direct payment made on
behalf of the Director to a vendor. The reports will be
presented to the Board of Directors at public meetings.
D. District Group Insurance Benefits
1. Each Director, while serving as a member of the Board of
Directors, shall be entitled to the health and welfare and
life insurance benefits set forth in the Schedule of Benefits
in the District Group Insurance Plan Booklet, which benefits
are furnished by the District at District cost, with
applicable contributions, for active District employees and
Directors. Each active Director shall also be entitled to a
$65,000 term life and accidental death and dismemberment
insurance policy (subject to policy requirements and any
standard age reduction schedule), a $50,000 travel accidental
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/1/097/
2/14
Page 7 of 7
death and dismemberment policy. In addition to the foregoing,
the District will pay premiums for additional individual life
insurance coverage in an amount of up to $250,000 for a 20
year term for those active Directors who apply for such
coverage with the District’s provider and meet the provider’s
standard underwriting guidelines and policy requirements. If
coverage at higher amounts or for a longer term is made
available by the provider, each Director may purchase such
additional coverage on a self-pay basis.
2. Each former member of the Board of Directors, who served in
office after January 1, 1981, who was elected to a term of
office that began before January 1, 1995, who is at least
60 years of age, and whose total service at the time of
termination is not less than 12 years, shall be entitled to
the health and welfare and life insurance benefits set
forth in the District Group Insurance Plan Booklet, which
benefits are furnished by the District, at District cost,
for retired Directors.
E.Miscellaneous
Cell Phone expenses are not considered a reimbuseable expense
1. The following are not reimbursable expenses:
a. Cell phone expenses
b. Service fees for internet access
2. The District does not provide equipment, such as fax
machines, computers and laptops to board members for
District business use.
Attachments
Exhibit A: Approved Function List
Exhibit B: “Board of Directors Per Diem and Mileage Claim Form”
Exhibit C: “Board of Directors Travel Request Form”
Exhibit D: “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form”
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
EXHIBIT A
Approved Functions List
Board Policy for payment of per diems and expenses for Director
attendance at District meetings:
The Board reviews its authorization and policy for payment of per
diems (pre-approved meetings) annually, in January following
reorganization of the Board and election of a new President. Below
is the current Board policy:
1. The following meetings are pre-approved for all Directors
to attend and receive a per diem and expense reimbursement:
Otay Water District Regular and Special Board Meetings
Otay committee meetings for committee members only
Otay business meetings called by the General Manager
and authorized by the President of the Board where
individual Directors are requested to attend
Except as otherwise specifically excluded in this
policy, official District functions that take place
during normal business hours where Directors are
requested to attend by either the Board President or
the Board
Semi-annual conference of the Association of California
Water Agencies
Regular quarterly meetings of the Water Agencies
Association of San Diego County
Regularly monthly meeting of Council of Water Utilities
Business meetings and conferences of the California
Special District Association held in San Diego County
All other meetings not listed here require pre-
approval by the President or Board.
2. The following meetings are pre-approved for designated Otay Director representatives or designated alternate. The
District Secretary will maintain an updated list of designated Director representatives. Any other Director who
wishes to attend these meetings and receive a per diem must
have approval from the President or Board prior to the event or be designated by the President or Board, as an alternate.
The pre-approval shall include the attendance of the
Director at the commission, committee, board or meeting and
any committee, subcommittee or other official or posted
meeting of the agencies, commissions, committees or boards
listed below:
Planning Group and City Commission meetings that fall
within the boundaries of each directors district (when
issues impacting OWD are discussed)
EXHIBIT A
Inter-Agency Committee Meeting
METRO (TAC/AFFORD) Commission
ACWA or CSDA meetings/conferences
Water Conservation Garden
3. The Board President or his designee is pre-authorized to attend District business meetings with cities and other
agencies to represent Otay Water District, and may claim a per diem and expenses. Any other Director desiring to attend
the same meeting of this nature would require approval to attend from the President or the Board in order to receive
a per diem and expense reimbursement.
4. When the President or the Board appoints a director(s) to a committee, the meeting(s) shall be considered pre-approved for per diem and expense reimbursement.
5. The following meetings are not eligible for pre-approved per
diem claims: a) Attending other Districts’ Board meetings
b) Otay employee appreciation breakfast, luncheons or
dinners
c) Retirement receptions
d) Otay picnics or dinner-dances or other purely social
events
e) CWA meeting attendance (by Otay Water District appointed
CWA Board Member(s))
f) Chamber of Commerce events
g) First Friday Breakfasts unless presenting Otay official
business to the assembly
h) Any political campaign event or function
6. In order to submit a per diem/travel reimbursement the
member must attend at least 50% of the meeting (per day) and the reimbursement request must be submitted within 45 days
of the occurrence, otherwise it may be considered attended without per diem. The President of the Board will make the
final determination.
7. All other meetings/conferences/tours/seminars/ workshops/functions not listed in this policy must be pre-
approved by the Board President or the Board.
EXHIBIT B
(Director’s Signature)
GM Receipt: Date:
FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Pay To: Period Covered:
Employee Number: From: To:
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES
DISCUSSED MILEAGE
HOME to OWD OWD to HOME
MILEAGE
OTHER LOCATIONS
Total Meeting Per Diem:
$
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed: miles
EXHIBIT B
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
EXHIBIT B
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER DIEM CLAIM FORM
1. Record the date, and name or purpose/issues discussed of meeting
attended on behalf of the District.
Note: The District will pay Director's per-diem for one meeting/
function per day and the maximum of 10 meetings/functions per month.
If a Director attends more than 10 meetings/functions (10 days), the
District will reimburse for the mileage and any reimbursable out-of-
pocket expenses incurred for these additional meetings.
2. Record number of miles (round trip) driven to attend meeting/ function.
The use of personal vehicles in the conduct of official District business
shall be reimbursed at the current Internal Revenue Service rate. The
Director's expense claim should indicate the nature of the trip. If a trip
begins at home, the District will reimburse the mileage from home to
destination and return mileage. District insurance does not cover personal
vehicles while they are being driven on District business. The reimbursement
rate is inclusive of an allowance for insurance costs. The District will
reimburse Directors for the deductible under their personal insurance policy
should they be involved in an accident while on District business. To be
eligible for reimbursement, each Director shall maintain a current California
driver’s license and at least the minimum vehicle liability insurance
required by State law or shall arrange for a driver who meets said standards.
The District will not reimburse the cost of travel of a personal nature taken
in conjunction with travel on official business.
Claim forms shall be submitted within 45 calendar days after the meeting
date. Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District which are not
reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall be deducted from the next month’s
reimbursement.
No information on the Per Diem Claim Form may be designated as confidential
in nature. All expenses must be fully disclosed on the form.
EXHIBIT C
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
TRAVEL REQUEST FORM
Director: Date of Request:
Name and Location of Function:
Date(s) function to be held: -
Sponsoring Organization:
Request for Prepayment of Fees Related to the Function:
Expense Type Not Needed Pre-Payment
Requested
Registration
Airline
Auto Rental
Mileage N/A
Taxi/Shuttle N/A
Lodging
Meals N/A
Other Expenses – Explain Below
Lodging Preference:
Explanation of Other
Expenses:
Signature of Director Date of Request
For Office Use Only Below This Line
Date of Board
Approval:
Expense Type Description Amount Pre-
Paid
Registration
Airline
Auto Rental
Mileage N/A
Taxi/Shuttle N/A
Lodging
Meals N/A
Other Expenses
District Secretary Date Processed
EXHIBIT D
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXPENSE CLAIM FORM
Pay To: Period Covered:
Employee Number: From: To:
ITEMIZED REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMED
Date
Type of Reimbursement
Amount
TOTAL Reimbursement Claimed: $
Director Signature: Date:
GM Receipt: Date:
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
EXHIBIT D
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSE CLAIM FORM
The necessary expenses incurred while traveling on District business including
common carrier fares (economy class), automobile rental charges, District business
telephone calls, one personal telephone call home each day ($10 maximum per day),
lodging, baggage handling, parking fees, meals, etc. will be reimbursed when
documented on the Director's Per Diem and Expense Claim Forms. Receipts must be
attached for all meal expenses. If a receipt is lost, the lost receipt should be
noted next to the expense and submitted to the President before any reimbursement
can be made. Receipts are required for the reimbursement of all expenses.
All receipts must have the nature of the expense and the business purpose
noted on the receipt.
The District will not reimburse the cost of travel of a personal nature taken
in conjunction with travel on official business.
Meals shall be reimbursed up to $46 per day, or an amount determined by the
President of the Board of Directors to be reasonable for occasion or
circumstances, exclusive of any gratuities. Partial days shall be reimbursable
at a rate of $8 for breakfast, $13, for lunch and $25 for dinner, or amounts
determined by the President of the Board of Directors to be reasonable for
the occasion or circumstances, excluding any gratuities. The above amounts
may be combined if travel status requires two (2) or more meals. The meal
reimbursement amounts are inclusive of and assume expenses for taxes only.
Gratuities are not reimbursable and are excluded. Where pre-paid registration
includes meals, only meals that are not included in the registration will be
reimbursable.
Any receipts that include costs of personal travel (e.g., hotel receipt for
employee and spouse) should identify what the cost would have been without
personal travel (e.g., single room rate as opposed to double room rate).
Claim forms shall be submitted within 45 calendar days after the expense was
incurred. Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District which are
not reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall be deducted from the next month’s
reimbursement.
No information on the Expense Claim Form may be designated as confidential in
nature. All expenses must be fully disclosed on the form.
The following expenses are not reimbursable:
a. Alcoholic Beverages d. Laundry service
b. Parking or traffic violations e. Entertainment or recreation
c. In-room movies f. Expenses incurred by spouses,
family members, or guests.
ND: 4840-9653-1715, v. 2
FY 2014 Board of Directors’ Expenses
3rd Quarter
(1/1/14 -3/31/14)
YTD
(7/1/13 -3/31/14)
CROUCHER, GARY $ 400.00 $ 1,000.00
GONZALEZ, DAVID 600.00 5,161.17
LOPEZ, JOSE 1,928.64 5,823.15
ROBAK, MARK 420.16 1,086.58
THOMPSON, MITCHELL 1,469.64 4,231.82
$ 4,818.44 $ 17,302.72
Attachment C
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/2/14
Page 1 of 7
Purpose
To provide guidelines for payment of compensation and reimbursement of
expenses to Directors in connection with their attendance at meetings
or the performance of other authorized business, and for group insurance
benefits for Directors.
Background
Members of the Board of Directors (“Directors”) attend regular, adjourned
or special meetings of the Board of Directors (“Board”). In addition,
Directors attend other District meetings, committee meetings,
association meetings, and educational seminars on behalf of the District.
These meetings and seminars are related to District business, water and
water related issues, and California special districts. State statutes
authorize District payments for meetings, reimbursements of expenses.
State law also authorizes the District to provide health and welfare
benefits for active Directors and, in limited circumstances, retired
Directors if they served 12 years and were first elected prior to January
1, 1995. The District is also authorized to offer health and welfare
benefits for retired Directors who commenced office on or after January
1, 1995, if the recipient participates on a self-pay basis.
Policy
The District will compensate Directors on a per diem basis for attendance
at authorized meetings or functions and will reimburse Directors for
reasonable expenses incurred while traveling on District business to
include, lodging, dining, transportation and related incidentals.
A. Directors Per Diem
As provided in Section 1.01 C. of the District Code of Ordinances,
each Director shall receive a per diem in the amount of $100 for
each day of attendance at meetings of the Board or for each day of
service rendered as a Director by request or authorization of the
Board, not to exceed a total of ten (10) days in any calendar
month. Attendance at any meeting shown on Exhibit A to this Policy
shall be deemed a meeting requested or authorized by the Board.
Attendance of meetings shall be in accordance with Exhibit A. The
President of the Board or the Board may authorize a Director to
attend meetings not listed in Exhibit A when the President or the
Board determine that it is in the interest of the District that a
Director attend, and that such attendance be compensated and
expenses reimbursed. Director’s claims for per diem amounts shall
be made on a “Board of Directors Per Diem and Mileage Claim Form”
(Exhibit B). The President of the Board or the Board may approve
reimbursement of expenses outside the per diem limit for a
Director, if the Director submits receipts for all of the related
District business expenses.
Attachment D
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/2/14
Page 2 of 7
Attendance at a meeting that is not authorized by this policy (pre-
approved meetings) or pre-approved by the President may be approved
by the Board for per diem. Director’s seeking per diem amounts
for these meetings shall request that the item be presented to the
Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for consideration.
The decision of the Board shall be final.
When travel arrangements require a day earlier arrival or a day
later departure, Directors will not be eligible for the $100 per
diem, however, reasonable expenses associated with the extended
stay will be reimbursed as specified below.
B. Pre-payment of Otherwise Reimbursable Expenses
The Director may request pre-payment of registration,
transportation, and lodging, using the “Board of Directors Travel
Request Form” (Exhibit C). Pre-payments shall be limited to the
Director’s expenses only. No advances shall be made on travel
expenses.
C. Reimbursement of Expenses
Each Director shall be reimbursed for travel expenses to and from
the meetings described in Exhibit A or for any other authorized
District business as follows:
1. Authorization
Travel associated with the attendance of meetings or
functions for Directors shall be approved in advance by the
Otay Water District Board President. To request approval of
travel, the Director should complete a “Board of Directors
Travel Request Form” (Exhibit B) in order to be eligible for
compensation and/or reimbursement. Travel requests will be
reviewed and approved by the Board President or the Board.
2. Transportation
a. Air Transportation
The District will endeavor to purchase airline tickets
in advance taking advantage of discounts and low
airfares.
b. Automobile
1. Personal Auto: Directors may use their personal
vehicle. The District will reimburse Directors at
the current rate/mile as established by the IRS,
plus tolls, parking, etc., provided, however, if
air transportation is available, the total amount
of expense paid shall be limited to the cost of
coach air travel between points traveled by
personal vehicle. Gasoline, collision and
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/2/14
Page 3 of 7
liability insurance, and maintenance will be
provided by the Director and is deemed covered in
the rate/mileage reimbursement.
Directors using personal vehicles on District
business must maintain a valid California driver’s
license and the automobile insurance coverage
required by the State of California, or make
arrangements for a driver who meets the above
requirements. The General Manager’s Staff will
verify that Directors have a valid driver’s
license. Directors will also be required to
maintain automobile insurance coverage. Proof of
such insurance will be submitted two times per
year, in January and July, and is required to be
eligible for mileage reimbursement.
2. Rental Cars: The District will provide a rental
car when needed. Such rental car shall be a
compact or mid-size class, unless upgrades are
offered at no additional cost to the District.
c. Miscellaneous Transportation
Whenever practicable, bus, taxi, rail, shuttle, etc.
transportation may be used in lieu of, or in conjunction
with, modes above.
3. Meals and Lodging
a. Meals and Beverages
Whenever travel requires meals, the meals, excluding
gratuity, shall be reimbursable, provided the Director
presents a receipt along with the “Board of Directors
Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D) for all meals.
Reimbursements for expense items where a receipt has
been lost will not be paid until the President or the
Board has reviewed and approved the expense item. Meals
are reimbursable based on the Meals and Incidental
Expenses (M&IE) as updated by the U.S. General Services
Administration:
1. Full Day Reimbursement
When a Director is traveling for a full day and no
meals are provided for by other sources, such as
pre-paid registration, the Director may be
reimbursed for meal expenses at the rate provided
by the M&IE per day. This amount is exclusive of
any gratuities.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/2/14
Page 4 of 7
2. Single Meal Reimbursement
When a Director requires reimbursement for a
single meal while traveling, the maximum meal
reimbursement amount shall be at a rate provided
by the M&IEfor Breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner,
or amounts determined by the President or the Board
to be reasonable for the occasion or
circumstances. These amounts and any amount
approved by the President or Board shall exclude
gratuities.
3. Partial Day Reimbursement
When a director will be traveling for a partial day
or where a single meal is provided for by other
sources such as pre-paid registration, the maximum
reimbursement amount shall be at the rate provided
by the M&IE per meal, or such other amounts as may
be determined by the President or the Board to be
reasonable for the occasion or circumstances. In
any event all amounts to be reimbursed shall exclude
any gratuities.
4. Taxes
The maximum meal reimbursement amounts are
inclusive of and assume expenses for taxes. The
maximum meal reimbursements shall exclude any and
all gratuities.
b. Lodging
The District will reimburse Directors or pre-pay
accommodations in single rooms at conference facilities
or in close proximity when applicable. Or, in the
absence of conference accommodations, normal single-
room business, government or commercial class
accommodation may be obtained. Under normal
circumstances, lodging will not be reimbursed for the
night before a conference starts and the night after it
ends. However, in situations where available travel
schedules would require the Director to leave home
before 6:00 AM or return to home after 12:00 AM, lodging
for the night before or the night after will be
reimbursable.
4. Entertainment
The District shall not cover any expenses incurred for
recreation or entertainment.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/2/14
Page 5 of 7
5. Incidental Expenses
Unavoidable, necessary and reasonable authorized expenses
will be fully reimbursed by the District. Some examples of
allowable expenses are:
a. Telephone Calls (Business): Calls placed by the
Director, to the District office, or for the purpose of
conducting District business. Business related calls
should be itemized on the Director’s “Board of Directors
Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D).
b. Telephone Calls (Personal): One (1) brief personal call
each day away from home, up to a $10 maximum per day.
c. Telephone Calls (Local): Charges for local calls, for
meal or transportation reservations, or for area
information related to travel.
d. Reasonable transportation to local restaurants and to
optional functions that are a part of conference events.
e. Parking fees.
f. The following expenses are not reimbursable:
1. Alcoholic beverages
2. Parking or traffic violations
3. In-room movies or laundry services
6. Director's Responsibility
a. Directors must submit a detailed “Board of Directors
Expense Claim Form” for reimbursement. Claim forms
should be supported by vouchers and itemized receipts
of expenditures for which reimbursement is being
requested. Receipts must be attached for all expenses.
If a receipt is lost, the lost receipt must be noted on
the “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D)
and approved by the President or the Board before any
payment can be made. Claim forms shall be submitted
within 45 calendar days after the expense was incurred.
Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District,
which are not reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall
be deducted from the next month’s reimbursement.
b. Expenses will not be reimbursed for meetings that have
been pre-paid and not attended. The President or the
Board may excuse an absence for a meeting. The absent
Director shall provide a verbal or written report at
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/2/14
Page 6 of 7
the next regularly scheduled Board meeting stating the
reason for the absence and, if appropriate, request that
it be excused. Directors will be required to reimburse
the district for any pre-paid expenses for any unexcused
absence. This reimbursement will be made by deduction
from future expenditures.
c. When two (2) or more Directors combine an expense on
one receipt, the Director requesting reimbursement
should indicate, on or attached to the Director’s “Board
of Directors Expense Claim Form” the identity of the
other persons sharing expenses. This will facilitate
appropriate allocation of expenses to each participant.
d. Except where the District sponsors a table at an event,
expenses incurred by spouses, family members, or guests
are the responsibility of the Director.
e. The District shall, at least annually, provide a report to
disclose any reimbursement paid by the district within the
immediately preceding fiscal year of at least $100 for each
individual charge for services or product received.
“Individual charge” (as defined in California Government
Code Section 53065.5) includes, but is not limited to, one
meal, lodging for one day, transportation, or a
registration fee.
D. District Group Insurance Benefits
1. Each Director, while serving as a member of the Board of
Directors, shall be entitled to the health and welfare and
life insurance benefits set forth in the Schedule of Benefits
in the District Group Insurance Plan Booklet, which benefits
are furnished by the District at District cost, with
applicable contributions, for active District employees and
Directors. Each active Director shall also be entitled to a
$65,000 term life and accidental death and dismemberment
insurance policy (subject to policy requirements and any
standard age reduction schedule), a $50,000 travel accidental
death and dismemberment policy. In addition to the foregoing,
the District will pay premiums for additional individual life
insurance coverage in an amount of up to $250,000 for a 20
year term for those active Directors who apply for such
coverage with the District’s provider and meet the provider’s
standard underwriting guidelines and policy requirements. If
coverage at higher amounts or for a longer term is made
available by the provider, each Director may purchase such
additional coverage on a self-pay basis.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY
Subject Policy
Number
Date
Adopted
Date
Revised
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS
08 2/20/91 7/2/14
Page 7 of 7
2. Each former member of the Board of Directors, who served in
office after January 1, 1981, who was elected to a term of
office that began before January 1, 1995, who is at least
60 years of age, and whose total service at the time of
termination is not less than 12 years, shall be entitled to
the health and welfare and life insurance benefits set
forth in the District Group Insurance Plan Booklet, which
benefits are furnished by the District, at District cost,
for retired Directors.
E.Miscellaneous
Cell Phone expenses are not considered a reimbuseable expense
Attachments
Exhibit A: Approved Function List
Exhibit B: “Board of Directors Per Diem and Mileage Claim Form”
Exhibit C: “Board of Directors Travel Request Form”
Exhibit D: “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form”
EXHIBIT A
Approved Functions List
Board Policy for payment of per diems and expenses for Director
attendance at District meetings:
The Board reviews its authorization and policy for payment of per
diems (pre-approved meetings) annually, in January following
reorganization of the Board and election of a new President. Below
is the current Board policy:
1. The following meetings are pre-approved for all Directors to attend and receive a per diem and expense reimbursement:
Otay Water District Regular and Special Board Meetings
Otay committee meetings for committee members only
Otay business meetings called by the General Manager
and authorized by the President of the Board where
individual Directors are requested to attend
Except as otherwise specifically excluded in this
policy, official District functions that take place
during normal business hours where Directors are
requested to attend by either the Board President or
the Board
Semi-annual conference of the Association of California
Water Agencies
Regular quarterly meetings of the Water Agencies
Association of San Diego County
Regularly monthly meeting of Council of Water Utilities
Business meetings and conferences of the California
Special District Association held in San Diego County
All other meetings not listed here require pre-
approval by the President or Board.
2. The following meetings are pre-approved for designated Otay
Director representatives or designated alternate. The
District Secretary will maintain an updated list of
designated Director representatives. Any other Director who
wishes to attend these meetings and receive a per diem must
have approval from the President or Board prior to the event
or be designated by the President or Board, as an alternate.
The pre-approval shall include the attendance of the
Director at the commission, committee, board or meeting and
any committee, subcommittee or other official or posted
meeting of the agencies, commissions, committees or boards
listed below:
Planning Group and City Commission meetings that fall
within the boundaries of each directors district (when
issues impacting OWD are discussed)
EXHIBIT A
Inter-Agency Committee Meeting
METRO (TAC/AFFORD) Commission
ACWA or CSDA meetings/conferences
Water Conservation Garden
3. The Board President or his designee is pre-authorized to
attend District business meetings with cities and other
agencies to represent Otay Water District, and may claim a
per diem and expenses. Any other Director desiring to attend
the same meeting of this nature would require approval to
attend from the President or the Board in order to receive
a per diem and expense reimbursement.
4. When the President or the Board appoints a director(s) to a
committee, the meeting(s) shall be considered pre-approved
for per diem and expense reimbursement.
5. The following meetings are not eligible for pre-approved per
diem claims:
a) Attending other Districts’ Board meetings
b) Otay employee appreciation breakfast, luncheons or
dinners
c) Retirement receptions
d) Otay picnics or dinner-dances or other purely social
events
e) CWA meeting attendance (by Otay Water District appointed
CWA Board Member(s))
f) Chamber of Commerce events
g) First Friday Breakfasts unless presenting Otay official
business to the assembly
h) Any political campaign event or function
6. In order to submit a per diem/travel reimbursement the
member must attend at least 50% of the meeting (per day) and
the reimbursement request must be submitted within 45 days
of the occurrence, otherwise it may be considered attended
without per diem. The President of the Board will make the
final determination.
7. All other meetings/conferences/tours/seminars/
workshops/functions not listed in this policy must be pre-
approved by the Board President or the Board.
EXHIBIT B
(Director’s Signature)
GM Receipt: Date:
FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Pay To: Period Covered:
Employee Number: From: To:
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES
DISCUSSED
MILEAGE
HOME to OWD OWD to HOME
MILEAGE
OTHER LOCATIONS
Total Meeting Per Diem:
$
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed: miles
EXHIBIT B
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
EXHIBIT B
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER DIEM CLAIM FORM
1. Record the date, and name or purpose/issues discussed of meeting
attended on behalf of the District.
Note: The District will pay Director's per-diem for one meeting/
function per day and the maximum of 10 meetings/functions per month.
If a Director attends more than 10 meetings/functions (10 days), the
District will reimburse for the mileage and any reimbursable out-of-
pocket expenses incurred for these additional meetings.
2. Record number of miles (round trip) driven to attend meeting/ function.
The use of personal vehicles in the conduct of official District business
shall be reimbursed at the current Internal Revenue Service rate. The
Director's expense claim should indicate the nature of the trip. If a trip
begins at home, the District will reimburse the mileage from home to
destination and return mileage. District insurance does not cover personal
vehicles while they are being driven on District business. The reimbursement
rate is inclusive of an allowance for insurance costs. The District will
reimburse Directors for the deductible under their personal insurance policy
should they be involved in an accident while on District business. To be
eligible for reimbursement, each Director shall maintain a current California
driver’s license and at least the minimum vehicle liability insurance
required by State law or shall arrange for a driver who meets said standards.
The District will not reimburse the cost of travel of a personal nature taken
in conjunction with travel on official business.
Claim forms shall be submitted within 45 calendar days after the meeting
date. Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District which are not
reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall be deducted from the next month’s
reimbursement.
No information on the Per Diem Claim Form may be designated as confidential
in nature. All expenses must be fully disclosed on the form.
EXHIBIT C
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
TRAVEL REQUEST FORM
Director: Date of Request:
Name and Location of Function:
Date(s) function to be held: -
Sponsoring Organization:
Request for Prepayment of Fees Related to the Function:
Expense Type Not Needed Pre-Payment
Requested
Registration
Airline
Auto Rental
Mileage N/A
Taxi/Shuttle N/A
Lodging
Meals N/A
Other Expenses – Explain Below
Lodging Preference:
Explanation of Other
Expenses:
Signature of Director Date of Request
For Office Use Only Below This Line
Date of Board
Approval:
Expense Type Description Amount Pre-
Paid
Registration
Airline
Auto Rental
Mileage N/A
Taxi/Shuttle N/A
Lodging
Meals N/A
Other Expenses
District Secretary Date Processed
EXHIBIT D
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXPENSE CLAIM FORM
Pay To: Period Covered:
Employee Number: From: To:
ITEMIZED REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMED
Date
Type of Reimbursement
Amount
TOTAL Reimbursement Claimed: $
Director Signature: Date:
GM Receipt: Date:
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
EXHIBIT D
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSE CLAIM FORM
The necessary expenses incurred while traveling on District business including
common carrier fares (economy class), automobile rental charges, District business
telephone calls, one personal telephone call home each day ($10 maximum per day),
lodging, baggage handling, parking fees, meals, etc. will be reimbursed when
documented on the Director's Per Diem and Expense Claim Forms. Receipts must be
attached for all meal expenses. If a receipt is lost, the lost receipt should be
noted next to the expense and submitted to the President before any reimbursement
can be made. Receipts are required for the reimbursement of all expenses.
All receipts must have the nature of the expense and the business purpose
noted on the receipt.
The District will not reimburse the cost of travel of a personal nature taken
in conjunction with travel on official business.
Meals shall be reimbursed up to $46 per day, or an amount determined by the
President of the Board of Directors to be reasonable for occasion or
circumstances, exclusive of any gratuities. Partial days shall be reimbursable
at a rate of $8 for breakfast, $13, for lunch and $25 for dinner, or amounts
determined by the President of the Board of Directors to be reasonable for
the occasion or circumstances, excluding any gratuities. The above amounts
may be combined if travel status requires two (2) or more meals. The meal
reimbursement amounts are inclusive of and assume expenses for taxes only.
Gratuities are not reimbursable and are excluded. Where pre-paid registration
includes meals, only meals that are not included in the registration will be
reimbursable.
Any receipts that include costs of personal travel (e.g., hotel receipt for
employee and spouse) should identify what the cost would have been without
personal travel (e.g., single room rate as opposed to double room rate).
Claim forms shall be submitted within 45 calendar days after the expense was
incurred. Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District which are
not reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall be deducted from the next month’s
reimbursement.
No information on the Expense Claim Form may be designated as confidential in
nature. All expenses must be fully disclosed on the form.
The following expenses are not reimbursable:
a. Alcoholic Beverages d. Laundry service
b. Parking or traffic violations e. Entertainment or recreation
c. In-room movies f. Expenses incurred by spouses,
family members, or guests.
ND: 4840-9653-1715, v. 2
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Dan Martin Engineering Manager
Bob Kennedy
Engineering Manager Kevin Koeppen
Finance Manager
PROJECT: R2087-001101
DIV. NO. 2
APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of New Recycled Water Facilities on Otay Mesa
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) place a temporary moratorium on the installation of new recycled water facilities on Otay Mesa (see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE:
Given the uncertainty of recycled water availability for Otay Mesa, the financial feasibility considerations associated with anticipated recycled water rates from the City of San Diego, the uncertainty of
securing easements to support the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project, and the delivery horizon of Indirect Potable Reuse
(IPR) and/or Direct Potable Reuse (DPR), staff is recommending a
2
temporary moratorium be placed on the installation of new recycled water facilities on Otay Mesa. ANALYSIS:
It is the policy of the District that recycled water shall be used within the jurisdiction wherever its use is financially and
technically feasible, and consistent with legal requirements, preservation of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment. To this end, the District currently operates and maintains 102 miles of recycled water mains and 43.7 million gallons of recycled water storage. A significant majority of these
facilities are located in and support recycled water for the Central area of the District. The District is committed to the use of
recycled water in order to minimize its overall demand for potable water, and currently has one of the largest recycled water distribution systems in San Diego County.
The District owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water
Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) which was originally constructed in 1979 and was upgraded in 1990 to its current rated design capacity of 1.3 million gallons per day (MGD) or approximately 4.0 Acre-Feet
(AF) per day. In April 2013, the District completed an additional treatment upgrade to the RWCWRF to meet the current “Total Nitrogen
limits” established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. With the current design capacity, the RWCWRF has recently produced an average of 3.1 AF per day (1.0 MGD) of recycled water.
On a peak demand day, the RWCWRF has been operated to produce a supply of 3.7 AF per day (1.2 MGD). In 2011, the RWCWRF provided a
recycled water supply of 1,077 AF to the District. The RWCWRF supplies a portion of the recycled water needs for the District which in Fiscal Year 2013 totaled 4,313 AF.
To augment the RWCWRF recycled water supply, the District and the
City of San Diego (City) entered into a Supply Agreement dated October 20, 2003 (“Agreement” is attached as Exhibit B) that provides for recycled water supply from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The term of the Agreement, which began on January 1, 2007, is for twenty years and includes a Schedule of
Reclaimed Water Delivery that increases on an annual basis up to 5.22 million gallons per day in calendar year 2026. The Agreement committed the City to supply sufficient recycled water from the SBWRP to the District at an initial rate of $350 per AF and required that the District pay a one-time capacity reservation charge of $3.6
Million. The District started taking recycled water from the City of San Diego’s SBWRP in May 2007. The Agreement was negotiated
approximately four years ahead of implementing the use of the City’s recycled water supply and in advance of the development of the
3
District’s system in this area. As annual implementation of the Supply Agreement occurred and use of the recycled water supply was
influenced by the economy and the other factors the contract became problematic for the District. To date, the City has not shown interest in discussing the terms of the Agreement. As the District has pursued expansion of the District’s recycled
water system to the Otay Mesa area, the District has encountered a number of issues and risks when considered in total, challenge both the technical and financial feasibility of delivering recycled water to Otay Mesa. These include the following:
• Securing a reliable and cost effective supply of recycled water for Otay Mesa;
• The cost of new recycled water infrastructure when analyzed
with projected demand on Otay Mesa;
• Avoided San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)capacity fees on recycled meters; and
• Potential new sources of water.
This report provides an overview of these issues as they relate to the delivery of recycled water on Otay Mesa and are in support of a staff recommendation to place a temporary moratorium on the installation of new recycled water facilities on Otay Mesa. Securing a reliable and cost effective supply of recycled water for Otay Mesa
The District’s ability to meet the requirements in the Supply Agreement is based on the City’s ability to provide enough recycled
water in the warmer months when demand peaks. Shortly after the Agreement commenced in January 2007, the District’s General Manager
met with the City of San Diego’s Utility Director, James Barrett, to discuss the terms of the Agreement including the topic of pricing. Director Barrett was unwilling to entertain any changes to the
Agreement. District staff has on several occasions over several years attempted to negotiate a more equitable recycled water supply
agreement with the City with the goal of securing a financially feasible and reliable source of recycled water to augment the District’s supply. As an example, on August 1, 2011, staff met with
the City’s Utility Director, Roger Bailey, and his senior staff on the amendment and rewrite of the Agreement and a number of other
issues including resolution of the proposed City recycled water pricing, the contracted volumes, and future availability. The District’s General Manager also met with the City’s Utility Director
several times on these issues. Each meeting was very friendly and detailed, however, no movement towards resolution was provided by
4
the City. The new Utility Director, Halla Razak, who started with the City earlier this year, has met with District staff and
expressed interest in discussing the issues. Staff presented a proposal to rewrite the Agreement to Director Razak; to date no meaningful response has been provided. Exhibit C details the City of San Diego – Otay Water District Discussion Items as of December 2013. Exhibit D includes correspondence related to these issues and
includes the most recent letter sent to the City dated March 5, 2014. In 2003, when the District entered into the Agreement, the District expressed concern regarding the City established rate of $350 per AF
indicating that the recycled water rate was not justified and was excessive for the SBWRP supply. Since that time, the City has
identified that it costs $214 per AF to produce and pump recycled water from the SBWRP plant. Hence, as the District believed in 2003, the City’s charge for recycled water was approximately $136
per AF in excess of the actual production cost.
Over the last several years, the District has repeatedly requested and the City has repeatedly promised to provide the District with a report on future recycled water rates. The District has reviewed
early draft copies of the Raftelis Financial Consultants Recycled Water Pricing Study (Raftelis Report) which has suggested the
wholesale cost of recycled water could change dramatically for the District. The City has hired a contractor to move two de-mineralization systems currently at the City’s North City plant to
the SBWRP to remove chlorides in the recycled water the District receives. Staff understands that the cost of these systems, which
has been estimated by the City at $5.9 Million, will be passed on to the District when the cost of service study is released to account for cost recovery. The District does not agree with this rational
and believes that there are other alternatives. A substantial increase in the cost of recycled water raises concerns regarding the
financial feasibility of providing recycled water to the District’s customers. The issues associated with the recycled water supply Agreement include occasions that the City has been unable to supply sufficient
recycled water to the District when it is most needed, particularly in the summer months. Late last year, the South Bay plant did not consistently deliver requested demands by the District for volume which resulted in the District’s reservoirs operating at a level that was lower than optimal. It took several days to bring the
reservoir back to an optimal operating range. The District is unable to rely on City flows equal to or greater than 6 MGD of
recycled water, let alone the 10 MGD that is included in the recital of the recycled water supply Agreement with the City. Based on the
5
City's 2012 Annual Report and Summary for the South Bay Wastewater Reclamation Plant and Ocean Outfall, the City is only diverting
approximately 8.04 MGD of wastewater to the plant making it impossible for the City to produce 10 MGD as stated in Recital A of the Agreement. To date, the City has not taken steps towards expanding the availability of recycled water in the South Bay.
Among the discussion items included in Exhibit C is the use of District facilities by the City. The City is currently using reverse flow from the District’s 450-1 reservoir when it is full and the SBWRP is not pumping to serve a City customer (Caltrans). The District, under threat from the City to discontinue the supply of
recycled water, allows the City to use the 450-1 reservoir in this manner. The District disputes the City’s right to use the
District’s facilities in this manner and has sent correspondence to the City on an annual basis to reserve the District’s rights. Therefore, the agreement needs to be modified to address the use of
the District’s Reservoir, disinfection, pipeline operations and maintenance, and Capital recovery costs.
Over the last several years, stakeholders have written letters of support to the City of San Diego for the District’s recycled water
program and the District’s efforts to expand the supply in an effort to alleviate the uncertainty out of the cost of the recycled water
(see Exhibit E). The District has expended approximately $49.0 Million in capital
costs to construct the facilities to link the SBWRP to the District’s recycled water system to transport the SBWRP recycled
water to the District’s customers located in the South Bay. Currently, the District is the only significant customer of recycled water from the SBWRP because the City has not developed a recycled
water system in that area.
Although there are existing recycled water facilities that have been constructed on Otay Mesa, the District is not currently providing recycled water to this area. The continued uncertainty on the availability of recycled water from the SBWRP and future cost of recycled water has delayed expansion of the District’s Otay Mesa
Recycled Water Supply Link Project. This Project connects to the existing recycled water infrastructure and customers and enables the District to expand the use of recycled water. The estimated cost of this infrastructure is approximately $23.5 Million. It would connect the existing transmission main from Olympic Parkway via
Wueste Road and connect gaps of the transmission system on Alta Road, Otay Mesa Road, La Media Street, and Airway Road to be able to
provide recycled water to Otay Mesa.
6
The Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project is also dependent on the acquisition of District easements from the City for the
constructed facilities. As noted in the District’s July 27, 2012 letter to the City (Exhibit D), the District initiated discussions to obtain easements in 2010. As recent as March 5, 2014, the District sent correspondence to the City regarding this issue (Exhibit D). To date, the City has not granted the District
easements for this critical infrastructure providing additional uncertainty on the availability of recycled water for Otay Mesa. District staff’s understanding is that the easements were ready to be granted by the City’s Real Estate Department, however, the City’s Utilities Department placed a hold on the process.
As part of the development of the recycled water system on Otay
Mesa, Developers have been required to install dual main pipelines for potable and recycled water and separate onsite recycled water irrigation systems in anticipation of a future recycled water
supply. The current demand for irrigation water on Otay Mesa is 330 AF/year (approximately 0.30 MGD) and is expected to grow to 1,200
AF/year (approximately 1.1 MGD) by 2035. The cost of new recycled water infrastructure when analyzed with projected demand on Otay Mesa
The District’s Finance Department has prepared a recycled water financial analysis for Otay Mesa based on a range of anticipated costs of water from the City’s SBWRP. That analysis shows how
financially unfeasible it is to structure recycled water CIP expenditures in Otay Mesa without a reliable and cost effective
water supply. The recycled water supply Agreement with the City expires at the end of 2026 and the District’s expansion project will begin delivering recycled water to Otay Mesa in 2020. With only six
years remaining on the contract from the time recycled water is able to be delivered to Otay Mesa, staff is concerned with further
expansion of the District’s recycled water supply system to Otay Mesa given the uncertainty of the supply and the cost of recycled water from the City. The budgeted CIP expenditure for the expansion of the recycled water
system to Otay Mesa is approximately $23.5 Million through 2025. The District anticipates it could recoup up to 25% of Otay Mesa recycled water project expenditures through grant reimbursements, resulting in a net CIP cost of $17.6 Million. However, there is some risk as grant reimbursements are not guaranteed. Staff
performed its financial analysis based on obtaining grant reimbursements of 0% and 25% for the associated CIP expenditures.
On October 1, 2013, the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation notified the District that Fiscal Year 2014
7
appropriations did not include funding for the District’s Cooperative Agreement.
In addition to the City of San Diego’s recycled water supply and pricing issues mentioned above, there are risks that, when combined, currently render this a costly source of water. These risks include: the projected volume associated with the level of CIP
expenditures, potable versus recycled water costs, ongoing incremental recycled operating costs and the expiration of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) credits in 2025 and 2026, respectively.
The financial analysis indicates that the most recent pricing
proposal received from the City reflects a recycled rate of $566/AF, which is a 59% increase from Fiscal Year 2015’s budgeted rate of $357/AF and a 23% increase from District staff’s estimated cost of
service, including demineralization, rate of $462/AF. Staff performed the financial analysis based on the $462/AF estimated cost
of service and $566/AF proposed pricing from the City of San Diego. The Otay Mesa recycled expansion will deliver 672 acre-feet of
recycled water beginning in 2020 and grow to 1,200 acre-feet per year by 2035. If the District was able to fund 25% of the CIP
through grants the CIP cost per annual acre-feet of supply would be $14,667. Comparably, the District invested approximately $25.6 Million, net of grants, or $8,533 per annual acre-feet of supply to
obtain the current 3,000 AF/year through the City of San Diego connection to the SBWRP. On an annual acre-feet of supply basis,
the cost of CIP expansion to Otay Mesa is 172% greater than the cost of the City of San Diego connection to the SBWRP.
The Fiscal Year 2015 effective rates for potable and recycled water are $1,476/AF and $551/AF, respectively. The District anticipates
that the current savings between the cost of potable and recycled water will decrease in the future as the City increases its recycled pricing to the District and other uses for this water are developed. The ongoing incremental operating costs include regulatory cross-
connection testing of recycled water lines to the end user and maintaining dual infrastructures (i.e., potable and recycled infrastructure). Staff anticipates that while the volume of water being delivered to Otay Mesa will reach a capacity of 1,200 AF/year, the ongoing incremental costs associated with maintaining the
recycled system will continue to increase due to inflation.
Currently, the District receives $385/AF credit from SDCWA and MWD for recycled water sales to assist in the recovery of investments in
8
the recycled system. These credits will expire in 2025 and 2026 and currently represent approximately $1.5 Million in revenue to the
District. The loss of these credits extend the payback period of any investment not recovered prior to their expiration. When considering all the risks and volumes associated with expanding recycled water to Otay Mesa, the financial analysis indicates it is probable that the payback period for these facilities would be in
excess of 70 years. A payback period of more than 70 years would be beyond the estimated useful life of the infrastructure and as a result would be considered to be financially unfeasible. Avoided San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) capacity fees on recycled meters
Currently, the District has not collected SDCWA capacity fees on meters set for future recycled water in anticipation that recycled water will be available on Otay Mesa. To date, the value of the
avoided SDCWA capacity fees is $1,265,300. These fees represent a risk to the District. This risk could grow very quickly upon the
sale of meters to the Pio Pico Power Plant (Pio Pico) which anticipates needing a 6-inch recycled water meter and to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) which anticipates needing a 4-inch
recycled water meter. In total, these two projects will expose the District to an additional $222,728 in avoided SDCWA capacity fees,
if not collected. A temporary moratorium would allow the District to collect capacity fees from developers and avoid this risk. It also allows developers to avoid the installation cost of a dual
pipeline with separate purple pipe recycled water systems. Potential new sources of water Lastly, the City is pursuing Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) and/or
Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) as a water source. At this time it is unclear how this will specifically impact the City’s production and
supply of recycled water to the District. The delivery for IPR or DPR may have a delivery horizon similar to the estimated development horizon for the Otay Mesa area.
9
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The issues, risks, and financial analysis presented in the report indicate that a temporary moratorium on the installation of new recycled water facilities on Otay Mesa would assist in mitigating financial impacts to the District should the Board decide that a future permanent moratorium of recycled water facilities on Otay
Mesa is required. There are financial risks associated with a future permanent moratorium. Those risks include reimbursement of $950,000 in grant funds that were received from the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) and SDCWA capacity fees. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient
manner” and the District’s Vision, “A District that is innovative in providing water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
BK/DM/KK/RP:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP R2087\Staff Reports\BD 07-02-14\BD 07-02-14 Staff Report City of San Diego Recycled Water Contract and District Expansion to Otay Mesa (BK-DM-RP)_140610.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Exhibit A – Project Location Map
Exhibit B – Supply Agreement Exhibit C – Otay Water District Discussion Items Exhibit D – Letters to City of San Diego Exhibit E – Letters of Support Exhibit F - Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: N/A
Temporary Moratorium on the Installation of New Recycled Water Facilities on Otay Mesa
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance, Administration, and Communications Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on June 18, 2014 and the following comments were
made:
• Staff introduced the item and stated that this item presents
information regarding the financial and technical feasibility of recycled water for Otay Mesa in accordance with District policy and
in consideration of this information provides a recommendation that a temporary moratorium be placed on the installation of new recycled water facilities on Otay Mesa.
• The District operates 102 miles of recycled water mains, there are
four (4) reservoirs with a storage capacity of 43.7 MG, three (3) pump stations that pump recycled water to the reservoirs, and the District operates the Ralph W Chapman Water Reclamation Facility in
support of delivering recycled water to our customers. The Reclamation Facility averages approximately 1 MGD of recycled water
supply. Last fiscal year, this represented one quarter of the District’s customer needs. The remaining three quarters (approximately 3 MGD) is provided through a Supply Agreement with
the City of San Diego.
• Staff indicated that 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.
• Staff provided a high level overview of the entire recycled water system as back ground for the item and reviewed the major facilities that are part of the system.
• The Ralph Chapman Water Reclamation Facility is located in the
northern part of the District and is accessed from SR 94 at Singer Lane. This facility produces recycled water and is fed by the District’s sewer system basins which are also located in the
northern part of the District. In April 2013, the District completed an additional treatment upgrade to the reclamation
facility to meet the current “Total Nitrogen limits” established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Recycled water is pumped from the reclamation plant by the 927-1 Pump
Station which is co-located at this facility.
• It was indicated with regard to two (2) of the recycled system reservoirs that the 944-1 has a storage capacity of 12 MG and the 927-1 has a storage capacity of 16.3 MG. These reservoirs are
located at the northern end of the Salt Creek Golf Course and are accessed from Hunte Parkway in Chula Vista. Construction to
replace the reservoir liner and cover at the 927-1 reservoir was substantially completed just last month.
• The City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is located west of the Tijuana International Border crossing facility
and supplies a majority of the District’s recycled water needs through the District’s Supply Agreement with the City.
• In 2007 the District completed construction of a number of recycled water facilities in support of transporting water from the South
Bay Water Reclamation Plant to the Central area of the District. Those facilities included the 30-inch recycled water distribution main that transports water from the South Bay Water Reclamation
Plant, the 450-1 reservoir, and the 680-1 Pump Station. The 450-1 reservoir is located just south of Olympic Parkway and east of
Brandywine Avenue in the City of Chula Vista. This reservoir has a capacity of 12 MG.
• In 2004, the District constructed the 680-1 reservoir. This reservoir which has a storage capacity of 3.4 MG and is located
under the City of Chula Vista’s Sunset View Park on Greensview Drive. This reservoir location also supports the 944-1 Pump Station. The capacity of the 944-1 Pump Station was increased in
2013 with the installation of a new pump and reconfiguration of the suction header piping.
• Staff then presented information regarding recycled water facilities for Otay Mesa which is the focus of this item. Staff
stated that in the Otay Mesa area there are approximately 16 miles of recycled water mains that have been installed to date. Most of these have been installed through Developer projects as a condition of development in preparation for a supply of recycled water for the Otay Mesa area. The current potential demand for recycled
water is 330 AF/Year and is projected to reach 1,200 AF/Year in
2035. Efforts to bring recycled water to Otay Mesa are dependent on the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link project which would connect the existing transmission main from Olympic Parkway via Wueste Road and connect gaps in the transmission system on Alta Road, Otay Mesa Road, La Media Street, and Airway Road. This work
is currently estimated at $23.5M and has been delayed due to the continued uncertainty with respect to the availability of a recycled water supply.
• As the District pursued expansion of its recycled water system to
the Otay Mesa area, staff encountered a number of issues and risks. When these issues and risks are considered in total, they challenge both the technical and financial feasibility of delivering recycled water to Otay Mesa.
• The District entered into a Supply Agreement with the City (Exhibit B) in 2003 and started taking water in January 2007 beginning the term of the 20-year agreement. The agreement includes a delivery
schedule that increases year to year and tops out at 5.22 MGD when the agreement expires in 2026. As the annual implementation of
the Supply Agreement occurred and use of the recycled water supply was influenced by the economy and the other factors, the contract became problematic for the District due to the cost of recycled
water from the City. When the agreement was initiated, the established rate was $350/AF. The City’s recent price proposal is
$566/AF. Additionally, the District understands that the cost of recycled water from the City may change dramatically as the City studies recycled water rates and considers passing along the cost of systems such as the SBWRP de-mineralization systems. Concerns over the rates and how the rate structure is being developed have
been communicated by the District at meetings with City staff and in correspondence to the City as included in Exhibits C and D of
staffs’ report. To date, the City has not shown interest in discussing the terms of the Agreement.
• There are technical challenges to delivering water to Otay Mesa. These items include the acquisition of easements from the City of San Diego that would allow the District’s proposed transmission
main for the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link to cross the City’s right-of-way. Although the District has been working with
the City for a number of years on this request, the City has not yet granted these critical easements.
• The supply from the City’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant also represents a technical challenge for Otay Mesa. The District has
been unable to rely on City flows greater than 6 MGD of recycled water when it is most needed. To date, the City has not taken
steps towards expanding the availability of recycled water in the
South Bay.
• The City is also using the District’s 450-1 reservoir. The City is
currently using reverse flow from the District’s 450-1 reservoir when it is full and the South Bay Plant is not pumping. This
impairs the District’s ability to efficiently use the reservoir. The District disputes the City’s right to use the District’s facilities in this manner and has sent correspondence to the City
on an annual basis to reserve the District’s rights. The Recycled Water Supply Agreement needs to be modified to address the use of
the District’s Reservoir, disinfection, pipeline operations and maintenance, and Capital recovery costs.
• Further, the recycled water supply incentives provided by the Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Water
Authority are set to expire in 2025 and 2026 respectively. Currently, the District receives credits totaling $385/AF from these agencies for recycled water sales to assist in the recovery
of investments in the recycled system. These credits currently represent approximately $1.5 Million in yearly revenue to the
District.
• Staff indicated in consideration of the infrastructure costs,
projected demand, cost of supply from the City, incentive details, and risks and volumes associated with expanding recycled water to
Otay Mesa, staff performed a financial analysis. The analysis indicates that the probable payback period for these facilities would be in excess of 70 years. A payback period of more than 70
years would be beyond the estimated useful life of the infrastructure. Unless these factors change in a very dramatic way
expansion to Otay Mesa would be considered to be financially unfeasible.
• Staff noted other points of consideration which included risks associated with fees that have been avoided to date. Currently,
the District has not collected SDCWA capacity fees on meters set for future recycled water in anticipation that recycled water will be available on Otay Mesa. To date, the value of the avoided SDCWA
capacity fees is $1.27 Million. These fees represent a risk to the District. This risk could grow very quickly upon the sale of
meters to the Pio Pico Power Plant and to Corrections Corporation of America. In total, these two projects will expose the District to an additional $223K in avoided SDCWA capacity fees, if not
collected. A temporary moratorium would allow the District to collect capacity fees from developers and avoid this risk.
• The District has also received grant funds that total $950K from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for Otay Mesa. If a
future permanent moratorium were placed on Otay Mesa, the District
would be at risk for reimbursement of these funds. In general, a moratorium also allows developers to avoid the installation cost of a dual pipeline with separate purple pipe recycled water systems.
• Staff stated that there is potential for new sources of water in
the future. The City is pursuing Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) and/or Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) as a water source. At this time it is unclear how this will specifically impact the City’s
production, supply, and cost of recycled water to the District. The delivery for IPR or DPR may have a delivery horizon similar to
the estimated development horizon for the Otay Mesa area. Conservation may also play a role as revised landscape plant palates from the City and the County use less water.
• Staff stated given the uncertainty of recycled water availability
for Otay Mesa, the financial feasibility considerations associated with anticipated recycled water rates from the City of San Diego, the uncertainty of securing easements to support the Otay Mesa
Recycled Water Supply Link Project, and the delivery horizon of Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) and/or Direct Potable Reuse (DPR),
staff is recommending a temporary moratorium be placed on the installation of new recycled water facilities on Otay Mesa.
• Staff noted that should the Board approve the recommended temporary moratorium, staff would report back to the Board within one year to
update the Board on the issues associated with recycled water on Otay Mesa including cost of service and present a discussion of next steps. The committee requested that staff provide a status
report to the Board at the six (6) month interval.
• In response to an inquiry from the committee, staff indicated that the moratorium would only impact the Otay Mesa Area. Future developments within the Otay Mesa area would not be required to
install purple pipes. The District’s Attorney responded to another inquiry that the District would need to conduct further reviews in
order to determine if there is exposure.
• In response to another inquiry from the committee staff indicated
that the one-year moratorium will provide the District a year to negotiate with CWA and the USBR for the repayment of capacity fees
and the grant in the event a decision is made to cease recycled water development in Otay Mesa.
• It was discussed that the key for the central area is that the incentives will essentially repay the infrastructure (the pipeline and pump station which connects the South Bay area to the central system) prior to their expiration. As long as there is some differential between the cost for potable and recycled water, the
District will be fine. In the Otay Mesa area it is different
because of the added infrastructure that the District would need to invest in. The infrastructure would not be covered by the incentives due to the timeline that the incentive expire. However, from a supply standpoint, it would still be beneficial to utilize recycled water.
• The committee inquired if staff foresees the District invoking the mediation clause because of the lack of response from the City of
San Diego. General Manager Watton indicated that he had a discussion with the new Director of the City’s Water Department
yesterday and the District will be drafting a proposal for discussion with the City. Staff will see where this discussion goes.
• It was further discussed that the agreement with the City will
expire in 2026 and the incentives with CWA will expire in 2025 which lines up with when the District is expected to have recovered all its capital costs for the central area. Staff indicated in
response to an inquiry from the Committee that they do have the break even numbers and those numbers have been a negotiations point
with the City of San Diego.
• It was indicated that staff would bring back an update on this
matter at the end of the year (the six [6] month interval).
Upon completion of the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the board as an action item. As part of the recommendation, the Committee requested that an update be
provided in six months should the Board approve the temporary moratorium.
Exhibit C
Otay Water District Discussion with City of San Diego
Updated 12/06/2013
Scott Chadwick is the Chief Operating Officer of the City of San Diego effective
October 31, 2013. Scott Chadwick serves the Mayor. The Assistant Chief Operating
Officer is Stacey LoMedico. Together they manage the 6 Deputy Chief Operating
Officers at the City. The Deputy Chief Operating Officer for Infrastructure/Public Works
is Tony Heinrichs. Halla Razak, Public Utilities Director, is one of six departments that
report to Tony.
Recycled Water Discussion Items:
On August 1, 2011, the City of San Diego and Otay Water District staff met to discuss
the amendment/rewrite of the recycled water agreement. The District stated the areas in
which the agreement could be changed to the benefit of both partners. On a follow-up
meeting on September 20, 2013, District staff met with Lee Ann Jones-Santos, to go
over many of the same items and a possible amendment to the recycled water
agreement was discussed. With Halla Razak as the new Utilities Director, the District
would like to revisit these issues again with the City.
Proposition 218 Setting of Recycled Water Rates: After trying to rush a
recycled water rate increase through the City over the summer of 2013, City staff
was directed to have Black & Veatch prepare a cost of service study and
recommend a new rate structure. Their contract was scheduled to go to the City
council in October so it is time to get an update.
City Customers Served by SBWRP: Latest disclosure lists five City of San
Diego recycled water meters serving City customers along with the single meter
to the District. Little information is available for the City meters. IBWC use
fluctuates a lot now and as of Jan-May 2012 were using approx. 97,000 GPD or
about 35 MG per year. This is almost a 50% decrease from previous years and is
probably the result of their producing a sufficient quantity of secondary effluent of
a quality suitable for use onsite. On January 16, 2013, Edgar Perez of the City of
San Diego acknowledges the City relies on District facilities to serve their South
Bay recycled water customers.
Inability to Meet Otay WD’s Demands: The District’s demands have dropped
so no potable water has been needed to supplement the recycled water supply
2
since the summer of 2011. The Metro Commission/JPA letter to the City’s Deputy
Director of Water Resources and Planning dated June 7, 2012 on the
acceptance of the City’s Recycled Water Study stated that, with the JPA’s
acceptance, the JPA request the City begin the Point Loma offloads starting with
the Salt Creek Diversion to the South Bay Plant to be addressed within 12
months of this letter. Ann Sasaki said the City must complete a “benefit analysis”
to justify adding this project to the CIP list.
Consent Decree: In prior IROC Annual Reports (FY2008, FY2009, FY2010, and
FY 2011), IROC has stressed the importance of planning for the potential waiver
denial by the EPA to continue operating Point Loma as advanced primary plant.
The Public Utilities Department relies on the belief that the Advance Primary
Treatment Process at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant meets all of
the requirements of the Clean Water Act, with the exception of the 30 mg/L TSS
and BOD requirements (30/30 rule). No scientific evidence has been presented
that demonstrates a significant negative impact to the biodiversity at the outfall
has occurred as a result of the outfall not meeting the 30/30 rule. However, IROC
as well as the Otay Water District understands that this may be less of a science
issue and more of a political issue when the application for the next waiver is
required.
An additional waiver may not be issued when the current permit expires July 31,
2015. Hence, the District/P.A.’s would like to see a 5, 10, and 15 year detailed
plan on how the City of San Diego will meet this future challenge. FY 2012
should have been the time that a technical subcommittee was formed within the
Department, along with citizen involvement, to start outlaying the long-term plan.
If the next waiver is denied, the City of San Diego would likely have another 5-15
yrs to implement a strategy solution to upgrade its wastewater treatment
capability. Significant planning is required now to assess how future rate cases
may be affected by the lack of the waiver. Too much is at stake not to be
engaged now, instead of waiting until 2015. (IROC’s Annual Report Fiscal Year
2011 issued February 22, 2012 also points out this fact)
To start the Point Loma waiver, a Metro JPA Ad-Hoc Committee was formed to
pursue action on a Long-Range Regional Water Reuse Plan and also to gain
Secondary Equivalency for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. With
the exception of Imperial Beach and the County of San Diego, all Metro JPA
agencies have adopted resolutions supporting these goals.
3
Compliance with Agreement; Under Section 7 of the agreement, the
responsibility for the quality of the recycled water is defined and at the point of
connection between the District and City facilities, the recycled water must meet
all applicable federal, state, and local health and water quality requirements, and
that the recycled water total dissolved solids concentration not exceed 1,000
milligrams per liter. The most recent three years were researched and the
violations show an increasing pattern over the last three years, climbing from
three (3) in 2010 to thirty-three (33) in 2012. Violations occurred for chloride,
coliform, manganese, and percent sodium. The City recently announced they are
moving the demineralization facility from North City to South Bay. When the
District questioned this move, the City provided documentation that they have not
been in compliance with the Regional Board Requirements.
Use of Otay Water District’s Facilities; The City is using the District’s 450-1
reservoir to serve City customers. This reverse flow from the reservoir can be
considerable and has been measured as high as 0.9 MGD (March 9, 2011). To
prevent air from getting into the District’s pipeline and to protect the 680-1R
11,500 GPM pump station, the District has established the reservoir water level
set point for shutdown of the 680-1R pump station at 8.5 feet. The pumps can’t
begin pumping again until the reservoir level is back at 9 feet. As a result of these
operational limitations, only 8.7 MG of useable volume is now available to the
District. This is affecting the efficiency of the pumps by requiring more frequent
shutdowns and start up. The City needs to build infrastructure to serve their
customers and the agreement needs to be modified to address the District’s
Reservoir, disinfection, and pipeline O&M and Capital recovery costs. We
understand that the City is in the process of installing the jockey pump that
supposedly will correct this operational limitation.
Rate Uncertainty: The District has repeatedly requested to be involved in the
setting of a wholesale rate that is fair and equitable to both the District and the
City. The District buys 99.6% of the recycled water sold at SBWRP by the City.
The District owns and operates the largest recycled water distribution system in
the region with over 700 retail customers and 99 miles of distribution mains. The
District maintains that the recycled water rate should be based on a true cost of
service study that gives both price and volumetric assurances that will allow the
District to continue to expand the distribution of this regionally valuable
commodity. Otay Water District’s existing and future demands; without
assurance on price and availability, the District has delayed construction of the
Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link project that will expand recycled water to
Otay Mesa. This is a $30 Million project that is on hold. It is expected that if this
4
project is implemented, 325 AFY of recycled water would be used. The ultimate
demand for recycled water for Otay Mesa is projected to be 1,200 AFY.
Take or Pay Agreement; The take or pay requirement should be revisited.
When the original contract was signed in 2003, the volumes on the take
requirement were unrealistic and did not anticipate the poor economic conditions
in recent years that greatly reduced the demand for recycled water. The
contractual take requirement grew at an average rate of 6% until 2011, and then
it jumped an incredible 21% in one year. This schedule should be revised to
reflect a realistic take requirement and growth rate that assures both beneficial
reuse in the region and financial stability for the City and the District. The City
had to build the SBWRP to tertiary level of 15 MGD per terms of the Consent
Decree wholly independent of the District recycled water system and supply
requirements and the City along with the PA’s 100% paid for the SBWRP. If take
requirements are to remain then they need to be reasonable and adjust as a
function of actual growth rates and impacts to sales such as water conservation
or drought condition declarations and the like. A take or pay agreement is often
used to give financial protection to the party investing in infrastructure, but it
should not be used to take advantage of the other party.
Caltrans water service at Del Sol/I-805; Caltrans is asking to install a City of
San Diego recycled water meter off of the District’s transmission pipeline; The
City needs to install the infrastructure needed to serve this project independent of
the District’s existing reservoir and disinfection facility.
Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Easement to Otay WD: The City
needs to grant the recycled water pipeline easements to the District for the Otay
Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project.
$3.6 M Capacity Reservation Fee: The City (Metro) invested $4.5 Million in
tertiary capital cost at SBWRP. They received $1.4 Million in grant funds,
therefore, the net tertiary capital cost at SBWRP was $3.1 Million. The District’s
capacity costs can be estimated by dividing the District’s portion of the capacity
by the overall pipeline capacity multiplied by the cost of the tertiary capital cost
(6 MGD/15 MGD x $3.1 Million of net capital cost = $1.24 Million). The balance of
the $3.6 Million capacity fee the District overpaid the City for this capacity should
be refunded to the District or applied to future capital expenditures. In this case,
the District’s Capacity Reservation Charge paid for 100% of the tertiary treatment
infrastructure at SWBRP. See the American Water Works Association (AWWA),
Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, M1 Manual which explains the
proper utilization of a take or pay contractual agreement.
5
An unresolved issue with the Participating Agencies (PAs) of Metro is the City’s
(Metro) transferred the 4,145 feet of pipeline that connects to the District pipeline
to the Water department. This was followed by a transfer of funds between
departments of $1.2 Million, the original cost of the pipeline. Metro should
reimburse the PAs for their share of this transfer.
Potable Water Discussion Items:
Metropolitan Airpark development on Brown Field: City is asking for new
interconnection agreements for future emergency interconnections for this
development. City staff wants to terminate existing interconnection agreements
and terminate the service agreement to the INS facility currently served by the
District. Street improvements on La Media will require developer to relocate
existing potable pipeline and install a recycled water pipeline along their project
frontage. Will City require developer to use recycled water?
Nakano Development: Will City require developer to use recycled water? Status
of project?
Otay Water District Base Load Treated Water from Lower Otay Water
Treatment Plant: The City has fixed costs at the Lower Otay water treatment
plant and could benefit by increasing production, thereby, lowering the unit cost
of the water produced at the plant. The purchase price has to be lower than the
total of CWA treated water cost plus the District’s pumping costs. CWA delivery
pressure vs. City of San Diego’s delivery pressure will affect the transportation
cost for the District.
LOPS Agreement: The City and the District entered into an agreement to sell
Otay treated water from the District WTP in 1999. City records indicate an
outstanding balance of $706,991.44 for treated water received 2006-2008. The
City’s letter dated October 15, 2012 states that a failure to resolve this issue with
the City may result in the following adverse actions:
o Forward all unpaid invoices to the City Attorney Office for appropriate
action.
o Assess and accrue interest charges on outstanding balance at a rate of
return equal to the City’s pool investment return per agreement.
o Temporarily suspend the District’s ability to purchase treated water from
City’s Otay WTP.
o Terminate agreement for failure to abide by the terms and conditions of
the agreement.
6
P:\WORKING\CIP R2087\Staff Reports\BD 07-02-14\Draft Final Report\Exhibit C - Otay Water District Discussion Items
with City of San Diego_djm.docx
At the last meeting District staff had with City of San Diego staff, resolution of
this item was identified as a critical item for the City. Resolution of this item
may need to be considered as key to getting the City to renegotiate the
recycled water agreement.
CWA’s Fixed Cost/Desal Pricing: Member agencies (MAs) of CWA have high
fixed water cost that are passed onto them from MWD and CWA. Currently,
CWA has 30% of their water sales revenue as fixed revenue, including the MWD
pass-through. CWA’s preferred method to price Carlsbad Desalinated water for
the member agencies is to increase both the Infrastructure Access Charge, as
well as create a new fixed Standby charge for member agencies. This would
make 32% of what MAs pay to CWA and MWD fixed charges. These high fixed
costs may increase revenue stability to CWA, mitigating its own risk, but they
force the member agencies to pass more fixed costs onto their customers (MA’s
are limited to a 30% fixed per Best Management Practices 1.4). This also
discourages the MAs from developing their own sources of water such as IPR or
recycled water if their fixed costs to CWA are too high, deteriorating the water
independence of MAs. CWA projects that its sales will exceed the combined
required take of water from IID and Carlsbad. This projection shows that CWA
has limited financial risk that would result from sales revenue reductions. CWA
also has the ability to modify its rates in a declining sales environment and adjust
its declining revenues.
Potential Areas the Otay Water District Could Help the City
Expand Recycled Water Use in the South Bay: The City has an opportunity to
expand recycled water use in the South Bay if the District and the City can
amend the current agreement. The District has much of the infrastructure needed
to transport recycled water to the Nakano Development, Caltrans, Brown Field,
IBWC, and the westerly area of Otay Mesa.
DPR/IPR Pipeline Alternative: A concept the City and the District could discuss
is IPR (or DPR) at Lower Otay reservoir and treatment plant. The District has
plans to install a recycled water pipeline near the Otay WTP. An RO facility co-
located at the Otay WTP would reduce staff requirements, eliminate the need for
a costly pipeline from South Bay WRP, and could take advantage of the head
and storage volume available from the large 927/944 recycled water reservoirs.
The brine disposal is just an engineering problem that needs to be solved.
... COedicoted to Comnw"Lty .QetuJtce
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 91978-2004
TELEPHONE: 670-2222, AREA CODE 619
March 5, 2014
Halla Razak
Water Department Director
City of San Diego
MOC II Building
9192 Topaz Way, 2nd Floor
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: City of San Diego Invoice No. 1000095859
Dear Ms. Razak:
www.otaywater.gov
Please consider this correspondence as accompanying the Otay Water District's ("Otay")
payment remitted by check no. 2039533 on the above invoice for reclaimed water, pursuant to the
October 23, 2003 Agreement Between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of
Reclaimed Water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant ("Agreement"). Please take notice that,
as with the prior payments under the Agreement, said payment is made under protest and Otay reserves
any and all rights to dispute or challenge the invoice and/or any related issues. Listed below are several
such related issues regarding the volume requirements, pricing of recycled water, water quality issues and
the unauthorized use of Otay facilities, although these issues may not be the only outstanding issues.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Otay is obligated to pay for certain quantities of reclaimed water at
rates set by the City of San Diego ("City") regardless of whether or not Otay takes the water (the "take-
or-pay provision").' Pursuant to the Agreement, the take-or-pay quantity increases each year.2 Since the
Agreement was signed in 2003, the region has experienced a recession and a drought, which increased
conservation efforts and diminished recycled water demands as much as 30%, thus creating a hardship for
Otay.
Moreover, on more than one occasion the City has been unable to satisfy Otay's recycled water
demands when it was most needed in the summer months. The contract, in section 4.2, states that recycled
water will be produced and pumped to Otay in amounts equal to or greater than 6 mgd. Recital A of the
Agreement represents that the City has 10 million gallons per day of recycled water available for sale.
Over the years Otay has on many occasions needed to supplement its reservoirs with potable water.
Within the last few weeks, for instance, the South Bay plant did not consistently deliver requested
demands by Otay for volume and Otay's storage tank nearly ran empty. The District is rarely able to rely
on the contracted 6 mgd of volume let alone the 10 mgd the recital states. Based on the City's 2012
Annual Report and Summary for the South Bay Wastewater Reclamation Plant and Ocean Outfall, the
City is only diverting 8.04 mgd of wastewater to the plant making it impossible for the City to produce 10
mgd and it is highly questionable if they can produce 6 mgd as agreed.
1 Agreement Between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of Reclaimed Water from the
South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, dated October 23, 2003 ("Agreement"), sec. 3.2.
2 Agreement, sec. 3.1 and Exhibit B.
Page 2
In addition to such supply difficulties from the City and the recession and drought issues touched
on above, increasing recycled sales is made even more difficult because the City is withholding an
easement to Otay which would allow the expansion of Otay's recycled water system to Otay Mesa,
placing unrelated, unreasonable, and unnecessary conditions on the granting of the easement that the
District has sought for years. Similarly, the City is also preventing developers from using recycled water
for projects upstream from the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoir, even after approving water quality
measures which address the City's water quality concerns on storm runoff. Limiting the use of recycled
water prevents Otay from expanding recycled water use to meet the targets of the take-or-pay provision.
Unfortunately, the above actions are not the only actions the City has taken that have stymied the
District's efforts to increase recycled water usage. The City commissioned a recycled water rate study by
Raftelis Financial Consultants ("Raftelis") and a draft report dated January 2009 was issued (the
"Report"). The City Director of Public Utilities at the time indicated the Report was going to be the basis
for intended changes of rates and charges for recycled water. Based on the content of the Report, this put
into focus the viability of the recycled water supply to Otay on an intermediate and long-term basis.
Consequently, Otay suspended plans to invest as much as $30 million in its CIP to expand the recycled
water system. This has had a negative impact on the potential recycled water sales and, as a result,
recycled water purchases from the City, hence Otay's inability to purchase the quantities of recycled
water required in the Agreement.
On June 24, 2013, Otay staff spoke at the City's Independent Rates Oversight Committee
("IROC") meeting after learning about the latest recommendations from Raftelis' study. Otay disputed
the equity of the uniform single rate the City was proposing for all customers, regardless of whether the
customer was a wholesale customer who built its own distribution system (such as Otay) or a retail
customer with a single meter delivering water directly to the customer's property. To resolve this issue,
on July 2nd City staff brought forward a zone rate proposal separating the North City rate from the South
Bay rate. While this proposal was much more equitable, new capital costs were added, raising the South
Bay rate over a four-year period. The addition of such capital costs is troubling when, as part of the
Agreement, Otay was required to pay a $3.2 million Capacity Reservation Charge, thereby prepaying all
capital costs for the length of the Agreement. Accordingly, capital costs should not again be added to the
zone rate at South Bay.
In the past, Otay staff has met with City's staff to discuss these matters but, regrettably, such
discussions and correspondence have not resulted in any progress. Otay has repeatedly expressed
concerns to the City regarding the ongoing viability of the Agreement and the City's rate-setting
calculation for reclaimed water. For instance, on November 24, 2009 and again on or about May 2, 2011,
Otay sent correspondence to the City expressing such concerns. Moreover, Otay's General Manager,
Mark Watton, met with City officials on more than one occasion in an attempt to discuss and work
through issues related to the Agreement and the City's rate structure. Additionally, in both 2012 and
2013, Otay sent protest letters with its take-or-pay payments outlining a number of outstanding issues.
In addition to the above, Otay wants to address and again put the City on notice of outstanding
issues relating to the City's use of storage capacity in Otay's 450-1 Reservoir despite having no
contractual entitlement thereto, as such storage capacity is not contemplated in the Agreement. (The
City's historical share of cost to date is $549,976.) Otay has previously notified the City regarding the
City's unauthorized use (including correspondence going back as early as 2007, again in January of2010,
and yet again in May 2011 and March 2013) but, out of respect for the relationship between Otay and the
City, Otay has delayed taking any action on such issues pending an agreement between the parties. As
Page 3
correspondence on this issue has been ongoing for several years now, discussions on a resolution to the
storage. issues are long overdue.
Similar to the storage capacity issue, the City has not paid for its use of a disinfection facility at
the 450-1 Reservoir. Since the completion of the 450 Reservoir Disinfection System project in July of
2009, the return flow of over 600 acre-feet of disinfected recycled water has served City customers, yet
the City has not paid for past or future use of the disinfection system. (The City's historical share of cost
to date is $39,764.) Additionally, the Agreement also states the City is responsible for metering the
recycled water delivered to Otay. From May 2007 until August 2013, the City's meter did not work
properly, yet the City continued to bill Otay for a malfunctioning meter for 60 of the 76 months, resulting
in an over billing of $88,911. Because the City's meter did not function properly, Otay's water meter at
the 450-1 Reservoir was being used as the meter to read both inflows and outflows of the inlet piping.
Unfortunately, such meter issues were not the City's only failure to comply with the terms of the
Agreement. Otay recently became aware that the City has not been in compliance with state regulations
regarding chlorides since 2010, yet Otay was not notified of the noncompliance in a timely manner.
Section 7.1 of the Agreement clearly states that "City shall meet all applicable federal, state, and local
health and water quality requirements for Reclaimed Water produced at SBWRP and delivered to Otay at
the Point of Delivery." Failure to meet such requirements could be considered a breach of Agreement.
The importance of resolving such issues is highlighted by the City's issuance of a permit to
Caltrans to tap a recycled water irrigation service to Otay's pipeline from the South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant. Otay has notified Caltrans that, pending resolution of the City's use of Otay's storage
and disinfection facilities, and the City paying their fair share of the cost to operate and maintain Otay's
pipeline, Otay may be in a position to issue a permit for this connection. (The City's share of historical
cost to date is $74,936.)
Because of such concerns, I want to take this opportunity to again notify you of the issues which
loom large if the Agreement continues as currently structured. We look forward to reinitiating dialogue
between our respective entities to reach an amicable solution which will allow for a sustainable and long-
term way to move forward.
cc: Richard E. Romero, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, Otay WD Attorney
Lee Ann Jones-Santos, Deputy Director, Public Utilities Dept. (check hand delivered to
Ms. Jones-Santos)
Tom Zeleny, San Diego City Attorney's Office, Public Works Unit
cc: Mayor Jerry Sanders Councilmember David Alvarez, Council District 8
Mr. Mark Walton, General Manager, Otay Water District
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
July 25, 2011
Mr. Roger Bailey, Utilities Director City of San Diego
9192 Topaz Way, MS 904A
San Diego, CA 92123
Subject: Otay Water District’s Procurement of Reclaimed Water
Dear Mr. Bailey,
On behalf of the California Energy Commission staff, I’d like to express our support for
the Otay Water District’s (OWD) effort to procure additional reclaimed water from the City of San Diego under your October 20, 2003 Agreement to supply reclaimed water
from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant.
As part of the Natural Resources Agency, the Energy Commission works diligently to
uphold state water policies that require the use of reclaimed water in industrial applications, such as thermal power plants which are under our exclusive permitting
authority. We are currently conducting an environmental review of the proposed Pio
Pico Energy Center (PPEC) which is a 300-megawatt (MW) power plant that proposes
to use reclaimed water supplied through existing infrastructure owned and operated by
the OWD. Understanding whether or not there is a reliable supply of reclaimed water for PPEC’s operation is a significant consideration in our environmental review.
Additionally, the Energy Commission previously permitted the Otay Mesa Generating
Station (OMGS) which is a 400MW, natural gas-fired power plant adjacent to the PPEC
site. The OMGS was approved to use potable water under a Condition of Certification that requires the water supply to be switched to reclaimed water when reclaimed water
becomes available. As such, we again support any efforts by the City of San Diego to
supply more reclaimed water to the OWD under your October 20, 2003 agreement.
Please feel free to call me at 916-654-3933 with any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
TERRENCE O’BRIEN, Deputy Director
Siting, Transmission, and
Environmental Protection Division
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512 www.energy.ca.gov
OMPOA
Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
August 6, 2012
Mr. Roger Bailey
Utilities Director
The City of San Diego
9192 Topaz Way, MS 904A
San Diego, CA 92123
Mr. Bailey:
As you are aware from our previous letter dated September 23, 2011, the Otay Mesa Property
Owners Association ("OMPOA") is very concerned about the progress that the City 9f San Diego
("City") and the Otay Water District ("OWD") have made towards establishing recydled water
service in Otay Mesa. Therefore, this topic was raised at the OMPOA's joint meeting with its
counterpart in the County, the East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association ("EOM:POA") on
July 12, 2012, whereby the members of both associations unanimously voted for th:e OMPOA
and EOMPOA to take a more active involvement in this effort and identify the main issues that
are delaying this critical alternate water source for our region.
During these efforts, we have learned that the City has not committed to delivering the amount
of water that is necessary to meet customers' needs. This shortage of water suppl~ is a concern
to the OMPOA and EOMPOA, since a dependable recycled water source is essential as our
traditional water sources continue to be depleted. As such, we would like to see a focus on
operating and improving the efficiencies of the South Bay Reclamation Plan to resolve the
water supply deficiencies.
Additionally, it has come to our attention that the City may be attempting to add conditions on
OWD's request for an easement to build the missing link of recycled pipeline from Wueste Road
to Alta Road. It appears that these conditions are unrelated to the easement requ~st and
should be dealt with separately, as they seem to be the only delay to OWD obtaining the
easement. This easement will allow OWD to finalize the design for this crucial segment of
I
pipeline which will connect the 16.5 miles of recycled pipeline infrastructure, that developers
were conditioned to build as part of their projects, to the larger system. Currently, these
segments of purple pipe are sitting in the ground, unable to connect or be utilized. All of the
previous hard work and investment in this infrastructure is for naught, unless the qty and OWD
are able to do their part and connect the system.
Lastly, we understand that the City and OWD have not reached consensus on recycJed water
rates. As perspective ratepayers, this issue is of utmost importance and should be ~esolved
3111 Camino del Rio North, Ste. 100
San Diego, CA 92108
\
OMPOA
Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
immediately to ensure that a fair and equitable price is established, while the other
aforementioned issues are being resolved.
The continuing uncertainties and lack of progress since our previous letter from almost a year
ago, causes us concern. It is imperative to the future development of Otay Mesa and to the tax
base and job opportunities in our region that these two governmental agencies work together
in a productive and efficient manner to resolve these issues immediately.
Since the OMPOA has now designated this task as a "priority item", we request a re;sponse from
the City on the status of its negotiations with OWD in this regard.
We thank you in advance for your attention to this important issue. If you have questions,
please don't hesitate to contact me at (619) 696-8350 or Rob.Hixso, @cbre.com.
Sincerely,
Rob Hixson
Chairman, Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
Cc: Councilmember David Alvarez
Mayor Jerry Sanders
Congressman Bob Filner
Councilmember Carl DeMaio
Supervisor Greg Cox
Ann Sasaki, City of San Diego
Mark Watton, OWD
3111 Camino del Rio North, Ste. 100
San Diego, CA 92108
, ..
EOMPOA
East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
March 6, 2014 ~ 17J' 7 :To~ &
Mayor Kevin Faulconer
City of San Diego
202 C Street, lOth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
RE: City of San Diego Water Utilities Department Recycled Water Rate Recommendation
Dear Mayor Faulconer:
,Y4 I ~p~t{
(?~IV A.
The East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association (EOMPOA) has reviewed both the City of San Diego
Water Utilities Department recycled water rate report and the City's Independent Rate Oversight
Committee annual report which discusses the city's recycled water rate. This will be coming to the City
Council for a hearing soon. The report touches upon several areas of concern to our members including
the following:
The City retained Raftelis Financial Consultants to do a pricing study of the recycled water program. This
program was established to promote the development of recycled water within the service area as a
way to diversify the regional water supply and reduce San Diego's dependence on imported water.
The study found that the Public Utilities Department (PUD) was charging a subsidized recycled water
rate of $0.80 per hundred cubic feet (HCF) which was 20% of the June 2013 irrigation rate of $4.014 per
HCF. The true all-in non-subsidized cost to produce and distribute recycled water is $14.12/HCF and
continuation of the current rate structure would result in San Diego ratepayers paying approximately
$57M-$60M/year to continue subsidizing recycled water.
The PUD proposed to reduce but not eliminate the subsidy by increasing the recycled commodity rate
from 20% to 56% of the portable irrigation rate or from $0.80/HCF to $2.241/HCF (an 180% rate
increase) beginning January 1, 2014 for the next four years. Complicating the proposal was the need to
reduce the subsidy while maintaining customer demand in face of the 180% rate shock; and protests by
the Otay Water District (OWD) who had made $200M of infrastructure investments in their recycled
water system which the rate increased jeopardized.
Independent Rate Oversight Committee (I ROC) held a hearing on the proposed rate increase, reviewed
the proposal, and heard from Otay Water District. I ROC found that San Diego rate payers were likely to
continue to pay the $57-60M annual costs to maintain the subsidy over the next four years, and I ROC
therefore concurred with the PUD proposal to reduce the subsidy. IROC though suggested PUD do this
over a five year phase in period in consultation with their wholesale customers such as OWD, so they
could adjust their business models to accommodate the rate increase. Otay and the City are working
together to resolve the concern about escalating rates so Otay can continue to invest in future
infrastructure and ensure its customers that recycled water supplies will be available in future years.
Page 2
Recycled Water Rate Recommendation
This I ROC recycled water rate recommendation came before the City had the most recent information
regarding potential cut backs in state water transfers to Southern California due to the current severe
drought in California which may continue for several more years.
With the recent announcement by California Governor Jerry Brown that the state is suffering from the
severest drought in decades, now is not the time to cut back on water conservation such as the recycled
water program by increasing water rates significantly over a short time horizon to agencies that are
doing their part to conserve potable water. This increases demand for imported portable water and, at
the same time, supplies may be severely cut back including the imposition of rationing.
The Otay Water District has invested over $200 million in their recycled water distribution system and
private property owners in Otay have invested additional millions in infrastructure to transport recycled
water to their current and proposed developments. Otay and four other agencies that have invested in
recycled water infrastructure need more time than just one to five years to recover the costs of their
infrastructure investment and need some assurance that they will be able to provide recycled water
supplies to customers that have invested in recycled water infrastructure.
Due to the drought, the San Diego Water Utilities Department shouldn't penalize agencies that want to
conserve water by using recycled water. The East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association recommends
the City consider phasing in the proposed water rate increase over 20 to 30 years so Otay and other
agencies can continue to provide recycled water to customers, which will allow both the agencies and
customers to recover the cost of their infrastructure investments and maintain a reliable customer base
for the San Diego PUD to sell its recycled water.
The City of San Diego shouldn't jeopardize our water supply security by destroying the demand for
recycled water by sharply increasing the cost of the recycled water in a short timeframe. This would
only hamper the agencies' ability to market and sell recycled water to users who cannot absorb the
recommended cost increase which amounts to almost 200% over a five year period.
Thank you for your efforts to incorporate our proposed changes into the final recycled water city council
recommendations to help property owners depend upon the availability and future costs of recycled
water to serve future projects in Otay Mesa, East Otay Mesa and throughout San Diego County.
David Wick, Chairman
East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
cc: San Diego City Council
Supervisor Greg Cox
Andrea Tevlin, Independent Budget Analyst
Mark Watton, General Manager, Otay Mesa Water District
Kevin Smith, Staff Consultant, City Council Environment Committee
County District 1 Staff Representative, Michael de Ia Rosa
1050 Rosecrans Street, Ste. B
San Diego, CA 92106
619.222.8155 • 619.222.8154
July 2, 2014
Otay Water District
Temporary Moratorium on
Otay Mesa Recycled Water
System
Overview District System/Otay Mesa
Securing a Reliable and Cost Effective Supply of
Recycled Water for Otay Mesa
Otay Mesa -Cost of Infrastructure, Demand,
Cost of Supply
Avoided Fees
Potential New Sources of Water
Recommendation 2
Existing Infrastructure\Demand
◦102 miles of mains
◦4 Reservoirs -43.7 MG
◦3 Pump Stations
◦RWCWRF –1.0 MGD
◦FY 2013 Total Demand
4,313 AF (3.9 MGD)
◦City of SD Supply
Agreement –Supplies
75% of District’s needs
3
4
5
RWCWRF
6
944-1
927-1
7
SBWRP
8
450-1
9
680-1
Infrastructure\Demand
◦Approx. 16 miles of
Developer installed mains
◦No current supply
◦Current Demand
330 AF/Year (0.3 MGD)
◦Future Demand -2035
1,200 AF/Year (1.1 MGD)
◦Otay Mesa Recycled Water
Supply Link Project -$23.5 M
10
Otay Mesa
Recycled
Water
Supply Link
City of San Diego Supply Agreement
◦Cost of recycled water in excess of actual production
costs
◦District’s efforts to discuss the terms of Agreement
2007 to Present
◦Draft Recycled Water Pricing Study –Cost of
De-mineralization systems
◦Recent Price Proposal from City -$566/AF
◦Agreement expires in 2026
11
Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link
Easement from the City of San Diego
Use of the 450-1 Reservoir by City
Supply –No Plans to expand SBWRP
Recycled Water Incentives
◦MWD -Expire in 2025
◦SDCWA -Expire in 2026
12
Financial Analysis: Payback period more than 70
years (beyond estimated useful life)
Infrastructure Cost: $23.5 Million
Demand projections: 672 AFY (0.6 MGD) by 2020
1,200 AFY (1.1 MGD) by 2035
Cost of Supply: $566/AF City of San Diego
Expiration of Recycled Water Incentives
13
SDCWA $1.27 Million of capacity fees associated
with recycled water meter purchases
o Pio Pico Plant and Corrections Corporation of America
($0.22 Million of exposure)
USBR Grants -$0.95 Million
These fees represent financial risks associated with a
permanent moratorium.
14
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR)
Direct Potable Reuse (DPR)
Conservation -Revised landscape plant palates
from City of San Diego, and County of San Diego
use less water
15
Temporary Moratorium
That the Otay Water District (District)Board
of Directors (Board)place a temporary
moratorium on the installation of new
recycled water facilities on Otay Mesa.
16
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: July 2, 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 7-2-14.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: July 2, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Dan Martin
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Item – Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2014 Capital
Improvement Program Report
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
accept the Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Report for review and receives a summary via PowerPoint presentation (see Attachment C).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE:
To update the Board about the status of all CIP project expenditures and to highlight significant issues, progress, and milestones on major projects.
ANALYSIS:
To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers' expectations to adequately deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective, and quality water, each year the District staff prepares a Six-Year CIP Plan that identifies the District’s infrastructure needs. The CIP is comprised
of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities, replacement/renewal projects, capital purchases, and developer's reimbursement projects.
The Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2014 update is intended to provide a detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the
allotted time and budget of $13.9 million. Expenditures through the Third Quarter totaled approximately $5.9 million. Approximately 43% of the Fiscal Year 2014 expenditure budget was spent (see Attachment B).
This update also provides additional information regarding the annual CIP Budget Forecast versus Expenditures in recent years, as requested by the Board at the March 11, 2014 Board meeting. Annual expenditures over the five year period from FY 2009 to FY 2013 ranged from 57% to 78% of the fiscal year budgeted amount. A review of
these fiscal years indicated factors that influenced the CIP expenditures during the fiscal year. Changes in the economy,
external agency driven projects, as well as budgeting flexibility for “Just in time” delivery for District projects was found to influence the rate of expenditure during a fiscal year. Additionally, a
majority of the projects contained in the annual CIP budget are multi-year projects that require the project manager to forecast how
expenditures will occur over several future fiscal years. The project managers consider these factors when development of a fiscal year’s CIP budget begins. Development of the fiscal year budget
occurs on average sixteen months in advance of that fiscal year’s completion.
Changes in the Economy
The FY 2014 CIP budget contains Developer reimbursement projects and
District transmission projects that are programmed into the budget based on the Developer timelines for project delivery. Changes in
the economy influence Developer decisions on when to implement projects. Staff works with the Developers to incorporate the best project delivery information into the budgeting process, however, as
the economic climate changes during a fiscal year, Developers revise their project delivery schedules.
External Agency Driven Projects
In FY 2014, fifteen (15) percent of the CIP budget consists of projects that are driven by external agencies including the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, Caltrans, and the San Diego
Association of Governments. This category of the District’s projects are typically a component of larger external agency projects and the District’s expenditures are directly tied to the delivery of those external agency projects. As external agency projects experience delays in construction or reimbursement requests, those external
agency delays impact the planned expenditure rate of the District’s projects. A specific example contained in the FY 2014 budget is the
San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall project which has a value of $450,000 where expenditures are dependent on the County’s request for reimbursement. As of May 1, 2014, the District
3
has not received a reimbursement request from the County for this project.
Just in Time Delivery
The CIP also contains a number of projects that experience reprioritization during the course of a fiscal year. The primary reason is to respond to external factors and additional project
information to assure that the project is delivered when it is needed. This concept of “Just in Time Delivery” assists in assuring that project delivery of design or construction does not get ahead of the need and results in avoiding wasted expenditures. In FY 2014 the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System project is
an example of this concept as the District works with Mexico’s Federal Agencies, California State agencies, and the United States
Federal agencies on moving the project forward. As staff is developing the FY 2015 budget, staff is focused on
improving the accuracy of fiscal year budgeting for multi-year projects to meet established expenditure targets by taking the
following actions:
• Working closer with outside agencies and Developers on changes
to their delivery schedules to better predict when expenditures related to these projects will occur.
• Closer coordination between the District’s departments to better determine the anticipated schedule of expenditures where cross-functional teams are required for project delivery.
• Refinement of the project budget numbers while still providing flexibility for Just in Time Delivery. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. STRATEGIC GOAL:
The Capital Improvement Program supports the District’s Mission
statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District, in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the 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.
4
DM/RP:jf
P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2014\Q3\Staff Report\BD 07-02-14, Staff Report, Third Quarter FY 2014 CIP Report, (DM-RP)_rev1(3).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2014 Third Quarter CIP Expenditure Report
Attachment C – Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various
Informational Item – Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Improvement Program Report
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on June 17, 2014, and
the following comments were made:
• Staff provided a PowerPoint presentation to the Committee and
indicated that the expenditures through the third quarter of FY 2014 totaled approximately $5.9 million, which is about 43%
of the District’s fiscal year budget.
• Staff indicated that the District’s FY 2014 CIP budget consists
of 63 projects that total $13.9 million and is divided into four categories: o Capital Facilities= $4.4 million o Replacement/Renewal= $7.7 million
o Capital Purchases= $1.6 million o Developer Reimbursement= $0.2 million
• The PowerPoint presentation included the following:
o Total Life-to-Date Expenditures o CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures o Annual CIP Expenditures vs. Budget o Factors that Influence CIP Expenditures o Major CIP Projects
o CIP Projects in Construction o Construction Contract Status of projects, contract amount with allowances, net change orders, and percent of project completion o Consultant Contract Status of contract amounts, approve
payments to date, change orders, dates when contracts were signed and the end date of contracts
• Staff provided a slide that showed how annual expenditures over the five-year period from FY 2009 to FY 2013 ranged from 57% to 78% of the fiscal year budgeted amount. Expenditures for FY
2014 is projected to be approximately 60%.
• Staff discussed factors that influenced the CIP expenditures during the fiscal year. Changes in the economy, external agency driven projects, and budgeting flexibility for “Just in
time” delivery for District projects found to influence the rate of expenditure. Details of these influential factors are
provided on page 2 of the staff report.
• It was also discussed that a majority of projects in the annual
CIP budget are multi-year projects that require the project manager to forecast how expenditures will occur over several
future fiscal years. Development of the fiscal year budget occurs on average sixteen (16) months in advance of that fiscal year’s completion.
• As staff developed the FY 2015 budget, the focus was on improving the accuracy of fiscal year budgeting for multi-year projects to meet established expenditure targets by taking the following actions:
o Working closer with outside agencies and Developers on
change to their delivery schedules to better predict when expenditures related to these projects will occur o Closer coordination between the District’s departments to
better determine the anticipated schedule of expenditures where cross-functional teams are required for project
delivery o Refinement of the project budget numbers while still providing flexibility for Just in Time Delivery
• Staff provided an update of the following: o 624-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades. Staff indicated that this project is nearing completion
and estimated to be completed in June 2014.
o 927-1 Recycled Water Reservoir Cover and Liner Replacement was placed into service in early June 2014. Staff indicated that minor punch list items are remaining.
o SR-11 Utility Relocations Sequence I project will relocate
existing water to support the construction of SR-11. Staff
indicated that work began in the Third Quarter and is
phased with the delivery of the SR-11 project being constructed by Caltrans. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as an informational
item.
Otay Water District
Capital Improvement Program
Fiscal Year 2014
Third Quarter
(through March 31, 2014)
Attachment C
927-1 Recycled Water Reservoir
03/24/2014
Background
The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 consists of
63 projects that total $13.9 million. These projects are
broken down into four categories.
1.Capital Facilities $ 4.4 million
2.Replacement/Renewal $ 7.7 million
3.Capital Purchases $ 1.6 million
4.Developer Reimbursement $ 0.2 million
Overall expenditures through the Third Quarter of Fiscal
Year 2014 totaled $5.9 million, which is approximately
43% of the Fiscal Year budget.
2
Fiscal Year 2014
Third Quarter Update
($1,000)
CIP
CAT Description FY 2014
Budget
FY 2014
Expenditures
%
FY 2014
Budget
Spent
Total Life-to-
Date Budget
Total
Life-to-Date
Expenditures
%
Life-to-
Date
Budget
Spent
1 Capital
Facilities $4,362 $2,551 58%$127,321 $20,663 16%
2 Replacement/
Renewal $7,730 $2,526 33%$47,008 $16,299 35%
3 Capital
Purchases $1,617 $835 52%$13,266 $8,381 63%
4 Developer
Reimbursement $154 $22 14%$6,973 $1,588 23%
Total:
$13,863 $5,934 43%$194,568 $46,931 24%
3
Fiscal Year 2014
Third Quarter
CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures
4
$13,863,000
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
FISCAL YEAR PERIOD IN MONTHS
Budget Forecast
Total Expenditures
$5,934,000
Annual CIP Expenditures vs. Budget
5
FY 2014
Projection
as of
5/1/2014
Factors that Influence CIP
Expenditures
Causes
Changes in the economy
External Agency driven projects (15% in FY 2014)
Effects
Developer timelines, Agency Schedules
Reprioritization of CIP project expenditures to
respond to external factors
Budgeting flexibility for Just in Time Delivery
6
Actions taken by Staff for
FY 2015 Budget
7
Working closer with Outside agencies and Developers
on changes to their delivery schedules
Closer coordination between District Departments on
anticipated schedule of expenditures
Refinement of Project Budgets while providing flexibility
for Just in Time delivery
District Map of Major CIP Projects
8
CIP Projects in Construction
624-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades (P2493)
Remove and Replace Deteriorating Reservoir Coating
Structural Modifications Including Level Indicator Replacement and Anode Replacement
$1.95M Budget
Start: January 2014
Estimated Completion: June 2014
9
Above: Reservoir Interior Coating
Below: Reservoir Roof Coating
12/03/2013
3/29/2014
3/14/2014
CIP Projects in Construction
927-1 Recycled Water Reservoir Cover and Liner Replacement (R2108)
Removal and Replacement of the reservoir liner and cover
$1.40M Budget
Start: November 2013
Estimated Completion: June 2014
Above: Removing Existing Liner
Below: Recoating Existing Vault
10
2/11/2014
3/10/2014
CIP Projects in Construction
SR-11 Utility Relocations Sequence I (P2453)
Relocate Existing Water Facilities to support SR-11 Construction
$2.25M Budget
Start: February 2014
Estimated Completion: July 2016
Aerial View of Project Location
Future SR-11/Sanyo Avenue
11
CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID
AMOUNT
CONTRACT
AMOUNT W/
ALLOWANCES
NET CHANGE
ORDERS LTD*
CURRENT
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL
EARNED
TO DATE
% CHANGE
ORDERS W/
ALLOWANCE
CREDIT**
%
COMPLETE
EST.
COMP.
DATEPROJECT
TOTAL %
R2091
944-1R Recycled
Pump Station
Upgrade & System
Enhancements
Sepulveda $1,099,423 $1,162,423 $90,505 8.2%$1,252,928 $1,252,928 7.8%100.0%
Complete
February
2014
R2108
927-1 Recycled
Water Reservoir
Cover and Liner
Replacement
Layfield $833,400 $873,400 $3,760 0.5%$877,160 $614,830 0.4%70.1%June 2014
P2453
SR-11 Potable Water
Utility Relocations -
Sequence 1
Coffman
Specialties, Inc.$947,380 $992,380 $0 0.0%$947,380 $0 -4.5%0.0%July 2016
P2493 624-2 Reservoir
Coating
Advanced Industrial
Services $1,169,000 $1,199,000 $0 0.0%$1,169,000 $457,761 -2.5%39.2%June 2014
P2514
Hunte Parkway 30"
Potable Water
Installation
Sepulveda $1,172,257 $1,212,257 $126,233 10.8%$1,312,508 $1,312,508 8.3%100.0%Complete
June 2013
P2513
Orange Avenue/
I-805 12" Potable
Water Installation
Basile $767,000 $872,000 $19,290 2.5%$891,290 $891,290 2.2%100.0%Complete
August 2013
P2518/P251
9
803-3 & 832-2
Reservoir Coating
Advanced Industrial
Services $876,900 $946,900 ($3,339)-0.4%$873,561 $873,561 -7.7%100.0%
Complete
December
2013
TOTALS:$6,865,360 $7,258,360 $236,449 3.4%$7,323,827 $5,402,878 0.9%
*NET CHANGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE ALLOWANCE ITEM CREDITS. IT'S A TRUE CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGE FOR THE PROJECT
**THIS CHANGE ORDER RATE INCLUDES THE CREDIT FOR UNUSED ALLOWANCES
Construction Contract Status
12
Consultant Contract Status
13
Consultant Contract Status
14
Consultant Contract Status
15
QUESTIONS?
16
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: July 2, 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
GENERAL MANAGER:
• Leak Detection Project: The District contracted with ME Simpson
Company to perform proactive leak detection in the area of Chula Vista that is south of Otay Lakes Road and east of La
Media Road. The technicians listened for leak noise in over 6,700 meters and over 3,100 valves on 77 miles of potable pipelines. They also listened to 371 meters and 442 valves on
31 miles of recycled pipelines. They reported 6 service lateral leaks and 30 leaks inside meter boxes and 22 leaks on
customers’ property where the meter was not moving. None of the lateral or meter box leaks were visible on the surface. All the reported leaks were on the potable system; there were none
found on the recycled system. The preliminary estimate for the total flow recovered is 53 gpm. If the leaks would have
continued unnoticed for a year, the amount of water loss would be 85.5 acre feet per year. Using the loaded wholesale rate of $1,455 per acre-foot, the cost of replacing this lost water would be $124,402. The leak survey cost was approximately $28,000. The cost for repairs is presently being determined.
The amount of water loss from the service leaks was estimated using a theoretical water loss table based on the size of the hole and the water pressure. The water loss for the meter leaks, which were mostly dripping, not steadily flowing, was
estimated using 0.1 gpm. The water loss for the leaks on the customer side of the meter was 0.05 gpm, because the meter indicators were not moving and the meters are accurate down to 0.125 gpm.
2
This survey covered 11% of the potable system and 30% of the
recycled system.
Last year staff did 10% of the system from a potable “miles of pipe” standpoint, for a total of 21% over two years. From a “number of service connections” standpoint, staff did 13.7% in each of the last two years for a total of 27.4%.
• The District participated in the following events: o “It’s How We Live Festival”, Spring Valley Community Center,
– Saturday, May 31st o International Friendship Games – Mater Dei High School,
Chula Vista – Saturday, June 7th o Garden Friendly Plant Fair at the EastLake Home Depot, Chula Vista – Saturday, June 14th
o Gonzalez Scholars Give Back: Rice Canyon Clean Up – Chula Vista – Thursday, June 19th 2014
o County Water Authority Exhibit at the Del Mar Fair – Sunday, June 29th
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Purchasing and Facilities:
• Purchase Orders – There were 49 purchase orders processed in June for a total of $303,441 - 40% of the value and 6% of the orders were on blanket orders. While blanket order value exceeded Purchasing’s 15% strategic plan objective, the number
of blanket orders at 6% does not. The drop in the percentage of blanket orders is due to the approaching fiscal year end and an associated surge in off contract orders and projects.
Human Resources: • Employee Picnic and Holiday Party Scheduled – Please mark your
calendars to attend our Picnic and Holiday Party. The Picnic will be held at Santee Lakes on August 2nd from 11:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. and the Holiday Party will be on the Berkley Ferry (San Diego Maritime Museum) on December 13th from 6:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.
• Annual Performance Evaluations – Managers and Supervisors are completing the annual performance evaluations during the months of June and July.
• Recruitments – HR is currently recruiting for Water Reclamation Plant Operator, Senior Civil Engineer, and SCADA/Senior SCADA
Instrumentation Technician.
• New Hires/Promotions – There was one new hire in the month of
June: Utility Worker II.
3
Safety & Security:
• NIMS/SEMS/ICS Program Review/Training – District staff completed ICS-100 and IS-700 training.
• District-Wide Facility Alarm Security Testing and Inspection – Phase I of District-wide alarm security testing, inspection and
reprogramming project is complete. A total of 30 District facility sites are completed.
• First-AID/CPR/AED Training and Annual Hearing Testing- District field employees completed first-aid/CPR/AED and annual hearing
testing and training.
• California Environmental System Reporting Requirements (CERS) Reporting - CERS for 25 District facilities are complete.
• Monthly WebEOC Exercises (April& May) – Completed monthly WebEOC exercises for April and May. April’s training consisted
of sending an emergency e-mail to the CWA. May’s training consisted of developing an ICS 201 Incident Briefing form, completing the current organization section of the chart and
providing a brief summary of actions. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING:
• Strategic Measures - Staff is adding more detail to new projects and revised measures approved by the Board for the
2015 - 2018 Strategic plan. Milestones, deliverables and revised measurements are being developed in order for the new
plan to take effect in July 1.
• City of Chula Vista Sewer Rate Increase - The City of Chula
Vista (City) is increasing their sewer rates this year effective July 1, 2014. The last time they raised their rates
was about five years ago. IT is working with Customer Service to test the new rates to ensure sewer charges are calculated correctly. The City is also asking Otay to split the current
sewer rate into three rates to help them track sewer charges, stormwater fees and replacement fees separately. This phase of
the rate increase will require a full implementation plan which is yet to be discussed. The City is aware that the rate split will not be implemented until later this year. FINANCE
• Fiscal Year-End – Staff is preparing to close the District’s books for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, updating the
4
related annual financial audit schedules and opening the new
fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014.
• Operations Calls Transitioning to Customer Service - In an effort to streamline customer communications, Customer Service Representatives will begin taking customer calls from
Operations beginning on June 26th. Over the past month, Customer Service Representatives have worked closely with the
Operations Secretary to ensure the transition is seamless.
Water Conservation
• Otay Mesa Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility Irrigation Audit - MWD has approved funding a commercial irrigation audit for the California Highway Patrol’s seventeen acre Commercial
Vehicle Enforcement Facility. Van Dyke Landscape Architects of San Diego will provide the audit at no charge to the
District.
• Water Conservation Demonstration Garden - Staff identified
three potential partners for a demonstration garden site in Chula Vista. Otay Ranch Town Center, Southwestern College and
the City of Chula Vista Open Space Section, were contacted and each expressed interest in learning more about the potential project. Staff is currently scheduling meetings to discuss the
proposed idea of establishing a demonstration garden on a visible and accessible area of land.
• The financial reporting for May 31, 2014 is as follows:
o For the eleven months ended May 31, 2014, there are total revenues of $82,503,152 and total expenses of $79,884,064.
The revenues exceeded expenses by $2,619,088.
• The financial reporting for investments for May 31, 2014 is as follows: o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the Investment Portfolio Details as of May 31, 2014 total $80,978,492.85 with an average yield to maturity of 0.38%.
The total earnings year-to-date are $285,726.31.
ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS:
Engineering:
• SR-11 Potable Water Utility Relocations – Sequence 1: This
project consists of the relocation of existing pipelines in
5
Sanyo Avenue and utility easements to accommodate the
construction of the future SR-11 right-of-way. At the request of Caltrans, the District’s relocations were bid as six (6)
separate “work windows” to provide flexibility to Caltrans’ contractor and coordinate with the SR-11 freeway construction. Current work includes coordination with the Caltrans’ SR-11 construction contract, potholing existing utilities, and submittal review/approval. Project is within budget and on
schedule and is anticipated to complete in August 2016. (P2453)
• 927-1 Reservoir Liner and Cover Replacement: This project
consists of replacing the liner and floating cover on the 927-1
recycled water reservoir which is also known as Pond 4 located in the Salt Creek Golf Course. The existing liner and cover have reached the end of their useful life and are in need of
replacement. The project was awarded to Layfield Environmental Systems Corporation. The installation of the liner and cover
is complete and the reservoir has been placed into service. Substantial completion for the project was issued effective May
23, 2014. Contract acceptance is anticipated in June 2014. Project is within budget and on schedule. (R2108)
• 624-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior coatings of the 624-2 8.0 MG Reservoir, along with
providing structural upgrades to ensure the tank complies with both State and Federal OSHA standards as well as American Water
Works Association and County Health Department standards. The construction contract was awarded to Advanced Industrial
Services. The current work consists of the completion of coating operations to the exterior, filling, and testing of the reservoir. The project is within budget and on schedule and is
anticipated that the reservoir will be placed into service in July 2014. (P2493)
• 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 tank complies with both State and Federal OSHA standards as well as American Water Works Association and County Health Department
standards. The project is currently in the design phase. An underwater dive inspection has been performed on all (3) tanks
to evaluate the current conditions and identify any needed upgrades. The project is anticipated to be advertised in July 2014, and award a construction contract at the October 2014
Board Meeting. (P2531, P2532, P2535)
6
• Calavo Basin Sewer System Rehabilitation: This project consists
of removing and replacing approximately 1,400 linear-feet of 8” PVC sewer pipeline in the residential streets of the Calavo
Gardens area near Avocado Blvd. The project is in the final stages of 100% design. Submittal to the County of San Diego for an excavation permit is scheduled for June 16, 2014. The
County estimates 4-6 weeks for review, and subsequently, a permit will be issued for the project identifying the County’s
requirements for paving and traffic control procedures. The project is anticipated to be advertised in August 2014, and award a construction contract at the November 2014 Board
Meeting.
• Administration Building Fire Sprinkler Replacement: This project consists of evaluating and rehabilitating the existing fire sprinkler system in the Administration Building. A recent
inspection of the fire sprinkler system identified corrosion throughout the system. A&D Fire Sprinkler, Inc. recommended the
first phase to be a replacement of the visually corroded fixtures. This was completed on January 21, 2014, and as a result, the District received a 5 year certification on the
Administration Building. The second phase includes installing an automated system to inject a chemical solution that will
treat the corrosion. Epic Fire will be performing the Phase II work and it is anticipated to be completed by July 2014. (P2538)
• Rosarito Desal: Staff, together with District’s consultants and
representatives from NSC Agua, held two telephone conference calls on May 14, 2014 and June 4, 2014 to discuss the project and coordinate on complying with CDPH regulatory requirements.
NSC Agua closed escrow on the 50-acre parcel of land on May 15, 2014. This is an important milestone because it shows the
commitment of NSC Agua to this project. NSC Agua also filed their environmental documents with SEMARNAT for the desalination project and for the first segment of the conveyance pipeline to
Tijuana. (P2451)
• Water Facilities Master Plan Update: Staff, together with District’s consultant, Atkins, met with officials from the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego on June 12, 2014. The
purpose of the meeting was to review City and County planning information relative to the future water demand forecasts and
review changes to major circulation elements that may impact the alignment of future District infrastructure. (P1210)
• For the month of May 2014, the District sold 1 meter (1 EDU) generating $10,599 in revenue. Projection for this period was
17.5 meters (29.5 EDUs) with budgeted revenue of $266,447.
7
Total revenue for Fiscal Year 2014 through May 2014 is
$1,605,267 against the annual budget of $3,197,767.
• The actions below summarize Engineering's CIP project purchases during the period of May 6, 2014 through June 18, 2014 that were within staff signatory authority:
Date Action Amount
Contractor/ Consultant Project
5/6/14 P.O. $1,251.61 Mayer Reprographics 624 Pressure Zone PRSs (P2541)
6/9/14 Check Request $154,956.00 County of San Diego
San Diego County
Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement
(S1000 & S2012)
Water Operations:
• Total number of potable water meters is 49,245.
• The May potable water purchases were 3,316.2 acre-feet which is 36.9% above the budget of 2,422.6 acre-feet. The cumulative purchases through May is 30,139.7 acre-feet which is 9.1% above the cumulative budget of 27,634.1 acre-feet.
8
• The May recycled water purchases and production was 540.5 acre-
feet which is 72.4% above the budget of 313.5 acre-feet. The cumulative production and purchases through May is 4,417 acre-
feet which is 27.4% above the cumulative budget of 3,465.9 acre-feet. This increase was caused by less rainfall and higher than normal temperatures, a temporary customer that was not
anticipated in the FY 2014 budget, and a new meter from the City for water sales from the SBWRP that is running
approximately 10% higher than Otay’s meter.
• Recycled water consumption for the month of May is as follows:
o Total consumption was 458.8 acre-feet or 149,446,660 gallons and the average daily consumption was 4,820,860 gallons per
day. o Total recycled water consumption as of May for FY 2014 is 4221.4 acre-feet.
o Total number of recycled water meters is 706.
• Wastewater flows for the month of May were as follows: o Total basin flow, gallons per day: 1,599,006.
o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro, gallons per day: 529,471.
o Total Otay flow, gallons per day: 1,069,483. o Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility, gallons per day: 1,083,038.
o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District, not including solids, was zero gallons per day.
• By the end of May there were 6,088 wastewater EDUs.
REVENUES:
Water Sales $
Energy Charges
System Charges
MWD & CW A Fixed Charges
Penalties
Total Water Sales
Recycled Water Sales
Sewer Charges
Meter Fees
Capacity Fee Revenues
Betterment Fees for Maintenance
Non-Operating Revenues
Tax Revenues
Interest
Transfer from OPEB
General Fund Draw Down
Transfer from General Fund
Total Revenues $
EXPENSES:
Potable Water Purchases $
Recycled Water Purchases
CW A-Infrastructure Access Charge
CWA-Customer Service Charge
CW A-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
Sewer General Fund
OPEB Trust
Potable General Fund
Total Expenses $
EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENSE) $
F:/MORPT/FS2014-0514
OT A Y WATER Dr STRICT
COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY
FOR ELEVEN MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2014
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Actual Budget
42,668,400 $ 41 ,467,250 $ 38,008,400
1,958,100 1,883,762 1,755,300
11,184,200 10,2 16,475 10,242,300
10,399,700 9,382,932 9,455,500
823,100 770,997 732,800
67,033,500 63 ,721,416 60,194,300
8,340,100 8,811 ,653 7,301,500
2,701 ,600 2,526,485 2,471,900
81 ,600 60,282 74,800
1,291,200 1,018,707 1,183,600
776,700 424,935 712,000
1,846,000 1,825,423 1,666,100
3,597,100 3,668,722 3,525,200
69,100 111,630 63,300
149,800 137,300 137,300
61,600 56,500 56,500
152,800 140,100 140,100
86,101,100 $ 82,503,152 $ 77,526,600
33,028,900 $ 32,542,370 $ 29,774,800
1,599,500 1,495,495 1,406,450
1,856, l 00 1,700,156 1,700,000
1,753,600 1,605,182 1,604,800
4,515,500 4,125,420 4,125,400
531,000 481 ,486 481,200
1,740,500 1,595,468 1,596,100
45,025,100 43,545,576 40,688,750
2,693,300 2,430,004 2,440,500
18,675,500 17,397,886 17,177,735
3,532,900 2,892,276 3,140,491
4,702,600 3,174,043 3,788,509
380,000 276,878 348,333
3,428,000 3,142,300 3,142,300
125,000 114,600 114,600
4,230,000 3,877,500 3,877,500
152,800 140,100 140,100
1,242,900 1,139,300 1,139,300
1,913,000 1,753,600 1,753,600
86,10 l, 100 $ 79,884,064 $ 77,751 ,719
$ 2,619,088 $ !225,119~
Exhibit A
YTD
Variance Var%
$ 3,458,850 9.1%
128,462 7.3%
(25,825) (0.3%)
{72,568) (0.8%)
38,197 5.2%
3,527,116 5.9%
1,510,153 20.7%
54,585 2.2%
(14,518) (19.4%)
(164,893) (13.9%)
(287,065) (40.3%)
159,323 9.6%
143,522 4.1%
48,330 76.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$ 4,976,552 6.4%
$ (2, 767,570) (9.3%)
(89,045) (6.3%)
(156) (0.0%)
(382) (0.0%)
(20) (0.0%)
(286) (0.1%)
632 0.0%
{2,856,826) {7.0%~
10,496 0.4%
(220, 151) (1.3%)
248,215 7.9%
614,466 16.2%
71,455 20.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$ {2, 132,344) (2.7%)
$ 2,844,208
6/19/2014 1:04PM
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
Par
Value
41 ,735,000.00
4,000,000.00
81 ,784.76
12,964,668.30
21 ,250,908.83
80,032,361.89
1,043,772.96
81 ,076,134.85
May 31 Month Ending Total Earnin_9s__ .•
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
33,593.75
81,872,303.89
0.48%
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
May 31, 2014
Market Book
Value Value
41 ,744,015.50 41,737,420.73
4,000,140.00 4,002,605.78
81 ,784.76 81 ,784.76
12,968,779.63 12,964,668.30
21 '140,000.00 21 ,250,908.83
79,934,719.89 80,037,388.40
1,043,772.96 1,043,772.96
80,978,492.85 81,081 '161.36
Fiscal Year To Date
285,726.31
81 '707,229.81
0.38%
%of
Portfolio
52.15
5.00
0.10
16.20
26.55
100.00%
Term
1,017
987
730
581
1 ---
581
Days to
Maturity
844
920
600
487
1
487
YTM YTM
360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
0.675 0.685
0.710 0.720
0.030 0.030
0.225 0.228
0.418 0.424 --
0.535 0.543
0.208 0.211
0.535 0.543
I hereby certify that the investments contained in this report are made in accordance with the District Investment Policy Number 27 adopted by the Board of Directors on May 7, 2014. The market
value information provi~ctive Data Corporation. The investments provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow requirements of the District for the next six months of expenditures.
Jgse
Reporting period 05/01/2014-05/31/2014
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:49
(-!9' -l't
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF _PM1 ) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW
May 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 ofwhich was held on June 18,2014. 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 May 31, 2014 was 0.48%, which was 5
basis points above the previous month. At the same time the LAIF return on deposits has declined over the previous month, reaching an
average effective yield of 0.228% for the month of May 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: May 31, 2014
Investment State Limit Otay Limit Otay Actual
8.01: Treasury Securities 100% 100% 0
8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Operations) $50 Million $50 Million $12.96 Million
8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Bonds) 100% 100% 0
8.03: Federal Agency Issues 100% 100% 56.41%
8.04: Certificates of Deposit 30% 15% 0.10%
8.05: Short-Term Commercial Notes 25% 10% 0
8.06: Medium-Term Commercial Debt 30% 10% 0
8.07: Money Market Mutual Funds 20% 10% 0
8.08: San Diego County Pool 100% 100% 26.21%
12.0: Maximum Single Financial Institution 100% 50% 1.29%
$45,740,027
56.4%
Otay Water District
Investment Portfolio: 05/31/2014
Total Cash and Investments: $81,081,162
$1,125,558
1.4%
C Banks (Passbook/Checking/CO) •Pools (LAIF & County) CAgencies & Corporate Notes
$34,215,577
42.2%
Target: Meet or Exceed 100% of LAIF
J!l 0.60 c Gl
E -0.50 Ill Gl > .E 0.40 c 0 c ... :I -Gl
0:::
Performance Measure FY-14
Return on Investment
Month
liiLAIF •Otay c Difference
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Average
Balance
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3135GOXR9 2269
3133EC6F6
3133EC7H1
3133EDKF8
313382YY3
313383EE7
3130AOVG2
3130AOYG9
3130A1HX9
3130A1SE9
3130A1RB6
3130A1RB6
3130A1Q84
3130A1XA1
3130A1ZX9
3134G4PXO
3134G4WJ3
3134G54N2
3136G1XZ7
3135GOYW7
2258
2260
2291
2268
2270
2281
2282
2287
2288
2289
2290
2292
2294
2296
2277
2284
2293
2274
2276
Fannie Mae
Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Farm Credit 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 Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal National Mortage Assoc
Subtotal and Average
Federal Agency Issues -Coupon
37,507,060.31
3134G4WH7
3135GOYE7
2285
2286
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
20500031 83-6 2283
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal National Mortage Assoc
Subtotal and Average 4,002,651 .20
California Bank & Trust ------
Subtotal and Average 81,784.76
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LA IF
LAIF BASS 2010
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:49
9001
9012
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFO_R_N_IA ____ _
Subtotal and Average 15,503,377.98
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details -Investments
May 31, 2014
Purchase
Date
06/06/2013
12/05/2012
12/17/2012
04/29/2014
05/22/2013
06/19/2013
02/25/2014
03/12/2014
04/23/2014
05/1 9/2014
05/15/2014
05/15/2014
05/08/2014
05/30/2014
05/22/2014
12/27/2013
03/19/2014
05/28/2014
12/19/2013
12/04/2013
03/20/2014
04/01/2014
01/22/2014
07/01/2004
04/21/2010
Par Value
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
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
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
41,735,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
81,784.76
81,784.76
12,964,668.30
0.00
12,964,668.30
Market Value
1,998,460.00
3,007,050.00
3,005,910.00
1,999,640.00
1,997,320.00
1,997,140.00
2,003,300.00
2,000,340.00
2,002,220.00
2,002,380.00
1,031 ,339.00
2,708,516.50
2,002,000.00
1,996,860.00
1,997,080.00
2,000,600.00
2,000,500.00
2,001 ,800.00
1,994,860.00
1 ,996, 700.00
41,744,015.50
1,994,640.00
2,005,500.00
4,000,140.00
81,784.76
81,784.76
12,968,779.63
0.00
12,968,779.63
Stated
Book Value Rate
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
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
2,000,000.00
2,002,420.73
41,737,420.73
2,000,000.00
2,002,605. 78
4,002,605.78
81,784.76
81,784.76
12,964,668.30
0.00
12,964,668.30
0.550
0.350
0.340
0.550
0.350
0.500
0.700
0.750
1.000
1.000
1.020
1.020
1.010
0.650
1.050
0.500
0.625
0.750
0.670
0.750
0.900
0.625
0.030
0.228
0.228
Page 1
YTM Days to Maturity
S&P 360 Maturity Date
AA 0.542
AA 0.345
0.335
0.542
AA 0.345
AA 0.493
0.690
0.740
0.986
0.986
1.006
1.006
0.996
0.641
1.036
0.493
0.616
0.740
0.661
0.685
0.675
828 09/06/2016
365 06/01/2015
442 08/17/2015
789 07/29/2016
631 02/22/2016
841 09/19/2016
908 11/25/2016
925 12/12/2016
967 01/23/2017
1 ,083 05/19/2017
1 ,079 05/15/2017
1 ,079 05/15/2017
1 ,072 05/08/2017
817 08/26/2016
1 '178 08/22/2017
757 06/27/2016
841 09/19/2016
911 11/28/2016
932 12/19/2016
908 11/25/2016
844
0.888 1 ,023 03/20/2017
0.533 817 08/26/2016
0.710
0.030
0.030
0.225
0.225
0.225
920
600 01/22/2016
600
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF _PM2) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
CUSIP Investment# Issuer
San Diego County Pool
SD COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County
Subtotal and Average
Total and Average
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:49
Average
Balance
21,250,908.83
81,872,303.89
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details -Investments
May 31 , 2014
Purchase
Date Par Value Market Value
07/01/2004 21,250,908.83 21 '140,000.00
21,250,908.83 21,140,000.00
80,032,361 .89 79,934,719.89
Stated
Book Value Rate
21,250,908.83 0.424
21,250,908.83
80,037,388.40
Page 2
YTM Days to Maturity
S&P 360 Maturity Date
0.418 ---------
0.418
0.535 487
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-201 0 BOND 9013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Average Balance
Total Cash and Investments
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:49
Average
Balance
0.00
81 ,872,303.89
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details-Cash
May 31, 2014
Purchase
Date Par Value
07/01/2004 10,008.46
07/01/2004 2,950.00
07/01/2004 874,261.06
07/01/2004 27,891.35
04/20/2010 31 ,964.43
04/20/2010 84,607.40
04/20/2010 51.89
01/01/2011 12,038.37
81,076,134.85
Market Value Book Value
10,008.46 10,008.46
2,950.00 2,950.00
874,261.06 874,261 .06
27,891.35 27,891 .35
31 ,964.43 31,964.43
84,607.40 84,607.40
51.89 51 .89
12,038.37 12,038.37
---80,978,492.85 81,081,161.36
Stated
Rate S&P
0.010
0.250
0.010
0.010
Page 3
YTM Daysto
360 Maturity
0.010
0.000
0.247
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.535 487
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF _PM2) 7.3.0
Run Date: 06/16/2014 • 14:49
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Interest Earnings Summary
May 31, 2014
CO/Coupon/Discount Investments:
Interest Collected
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period
Interest Earned during Period
Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses
Earnings during Periods
Pass Through Securities:
Interest Collected
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period
Interest Earned during Period
Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses
Earnings during Periods
Cash/Checking Accounts:
Interest Collected
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period
Interest Earned during Period
Total Interest Earned during Period
Total Adjustments from Premiums and Discounts
Total Capital Gains or Losses
Total Earnings during Period
May 31 Month Ending
28,024.30
48,404.01
53,820.85)
0.00)
22,607.46
-172.50
333.33
22,768.29
0.00
0.00
0.00)
0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
357.52
20,224.36
9,756.42)
10,825.46
33,432.92
-172.50
333.33
33,593.75
Fiscal Year To Date
165,155.02
48,338.99
29,749.47)
0.00)
183,744.54
-2,270.48
-467.49
181 ,006.57
0.00
0.00
0.00)
0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
108,355.93
20,224.36
23,860.55)
104,719.74
288,464.28
-2,270.48
-467.49
285,726.31
Page 1
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF _PM6) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
CUSIP Investment#
Fund: Treasury Fund
LA IF
UNION MONEY
9001
9002
UNION OPERATING 9004
SD COUNTY POOL 9007
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011
3133EC6F6 2258
3133EC7H1 2260
3133ECA61
313382YY3
3135GOXR9
313383EE7
3136G1WT2
3136G1XZ7
3135GOYW7
3134G4PXO
3133EDD41
3130AOQFO
3130AOVG2
3130AOYG9
2050003183-6
3134G4WJ3
3134G4WH7
3135GOYE7
3130A1HX9
3130A1SE9
3130A1RB6
3130A1RB6
3133EDKF8
2261
2268
2269
2270
2273
2274
2276
2277
2278
2279
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
Run Date: 06/16/2014-14:52
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
Security
Type
LA1
PA1
PA1
LA3
PA1
PA1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
BCD
MC1
FAC
FAC
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
OTAY
Interest Earnings
Sorted by Fund -Fund
May 1, 2014-May 31, 2014
Period Yield on Beginning Book Value
Ending
Par Value
12,964,668.30
10,008.46
874,261 .06
21 ,250,908.83
31,964.43
84,607.40
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
81 ,784.76
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
Beginning
Book Value
15,064,668.30
10,003.96
686,233.12
21,250,908.83
1,061 ,961.61
2,789,600.14
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,999,660.83
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,002,501.96
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,550,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
81,784.76
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,002,702.89
2,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
Ending Maturity Current Yield This
Book Value Date Rate Period
12,964,668.30
10,008.46
874,261.06
21,250,908.83
31 ,964.43
84,607.40
3,000,000.00 06/01/2015
3,000,000.00 08/17/2015
0.00 06/18/2015
2,000,000.00 02/22/2016
2,000,000.00 09/06/2016
2,000,000.00 09/19/2016
0.00 11/21/2016
2,000,000.00 12/19/2016
2,002,420.73 11/25/2016
2,000,000.00 06/27/2016
0.00 07/07/2016
0.00 02/14/2017
2,000,000.00 11/25/2016
2,000,000.00 12/12/2016
81,784.76 01/22/2016
2,000,000.00 09/19/2016
2,000,000.00 03/20/2017
2,002,605.78 08/26/2016
2,000,000.00 01/23/2017
2,000,000.00 05/19/2017
1,030,000.00 05/15/2017
2, 705,000.00 05/15/2017
2,000,000.00 07/29/2016
0.228
0.010
0.250
0.424
0.010
0.010
0.350
0.340
0.320
0.350
0.550
0.500
0.800
0.670
0.750
0.500
0.625
1.050
0.700
0.750
0.030
0.625
0.900
0.625
1.000
1.000
1.020
1.020
0.550
0.020
0.084
0.021
0.036
0.029
0.028
0.028
0.029
0.046
0.042
0.069
0.056
0.058
0.042
0.054
0.090
0.058
0.063
0.003
0.052
0.075
0.047
0.083
0.079
0.083
0.083
0.046
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Interest Amortization/ Adjusted Interest
Earned Accretion Earnings
3,002.13
8.37
146.99
7,652.66
4.22
11.09
875.00
850.00
186.66
583.33
916.66
833.33
888.89
1,116.67
1,250.00
833.34
763.89
587.71
1,166.66
1,250.00
2.11
1,041.67
1,500.00
1,041.66
1,666.67
666.67
466.93
1,226.27
916.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-81.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-97.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,002.13
8.37
146.99
7,652.66
4.22
11.09
875.00
850.00
192.50
583.33
916.66
833.33
888.89
1,116.67
1,168.77
833.34
763.89
587.71
1,166.66
1,250.00
2.11
1,041 .67
1,500.00
944.55
1,666.67
666.67
466.93
1,226.27
916.67
Portfolio OTAY
AP
IE (PRF _IE) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
Security Ending
CUSIP Investment # Fund Type Par Value
Fund: Treasury Fund
3130A1Q84 2292 99 MC1 2,000,000.00
3134G54N2 2293 99 MC1 2,000,000.00
3130A1XA1 2294 99 MC1 2,000,000.00
3130A1ZX9 2296 99 MC1 2,000,000.00
Subtotal 81 ,033,203.24
Total 81,033,203.24
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:52
OTAY
Interest Earnings
May 1, 2014 -May 31,2014
Beginning Ending Maturity Current Yield This
Book Value Book Value Date Rate Period
0.00 2,000,000.00 05/08/2017 1.010 0.083
0.00 2,000,000.00 11128/2016 0.750 0.048
0.00 2,000,000.00 08/26/2016 0.650 0.028
0.00 2,000,000.00 0812212017 1.050 0.081
81 ,500,026.40 81,038,229.75 0.040
81,500,026.40 81,038,229.75 0.040
Interest
Earned
1,290.56
125.00
36.11
525.00
33,432.92
33,432.92
Page 2
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Amortization/
Accretion
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-172.50
-172.50
Adjusted Interest
Earnings
1,290.56
125.00
36.11
525.00
33,260.42
33,260.42
Portfolio OTAY
AP
IE (PRF _IE) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Activity Report
Sorted By Issuer
May 1, 2014-May 31, 2014
Par Value Par Value
Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending
CUSIP Investment# Issuer of Portfolio Balance Rate Date Deposits Withdrawals Balance
Issuer: STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Union Bank
UNION MONEY 9002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.010 13,020,226.72 13,020,222.22
UNION OPERATING 9004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.250 1,342,444.49 1 '154,416.55
PAYROLL 9005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 298.75 0.00
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.010 2.82 1 ,030,000.00
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.010 7.26 2, 705,000.00
UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.00 6,564.84
Subtotal and Balance 4,596,996.53 14,362,980.04 17,916,203.61 1,043,772.96
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LA IF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.228 6,600,000.00 8, 700,000.00
Subtotal and Balance 15,064,668.30 6,600,000.00 8,700,000.00 12,964,668.30
Issuer Subtotal 17.278% 19,661 ,664.83 20,962,980.04 26,616,203.61 14,008,441.26
Issuer: California Bank & Trust
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
Subtotal and Balance 81,784.76 81,784.76
Issuer Subtotal 0.101% 81,784.76 0.00 0.00 81,784.76
Issuer: Fannie Mae
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
Subtotal and Balance 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 2.467% 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00
Issuer: Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3133ECA61 2261 Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.320 05/08/2014 0.00 3,000,000.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:51 DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Activity Report Page 2
May 1, 2014 -May 31, 2014
Par Value Par Value
Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending
CUSIP Investment# Issuer of Portfolio Balance Rate Date Deposits Withdrawals Balance
Issuer: Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3133EDD41 2278 Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.625 05/23/2014 0.00 2,000,000.00
Subtotal and Balance 13,000,000.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 8,000,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 9.867% 13,000,000.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 8,000,000.00
Issuer: Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3130AOQFO 2279 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.050 05/14/2014 0.00 1,550,000.00
3130A1SE9 2288 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.000 05/19/2014 2,000,000.00 000
3130A1RB6 2289 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.020 05/15/2014 1,030,000.00 0.00
3130A1RB6 2290 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.020 05/15/2014 2,705,000.00 0.00
3130A1Q84 2292 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.010 05/08/2014 2,000,000.00 000
3130A1XA1 2294 Federal Home Loan Bank 0:650 05/30/2014 2,000,000.00 0.00
3130A1ZX9 2296 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.050 05/22/2014 2,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 11,550,000.00 11 '735,000.00 1,550,000.00 21,735,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 26.808% 11,550,000.00 11 '735,000.00 1 ,550,000.00 21 '735,000.00
Issuer: Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3134G54N2 2293 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 0.750 05/28/2014 2,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 4,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 6,000,000.00 -
Federal Agency Issues -Coupon
Subtotal and Balance 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 9.867% 6,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 8,000,000.00
Issuer: Federal National Mortage Assoc ---
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3136G1WT2 2273 Federal National Mortage Assoc 0.800 05/21/2014 0.00 2,000,000.00
Subtotal and Balance 6,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 4,000,000.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date: 06/16/2014 • 14:51 DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
Percent
CUSIP Investment# Issuer of Portfolio
Issuer: Federal National Mortage Assoc --
Federal Agency Issues -Coupon
Subtotal and Balance
Issuer Subtotal 7.400%
Issuer: San Diego County
San Diego County Pool
Subtotal and Balance
Issuer Subtotal 26.211%
Total 100.000%
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:51
OTAY
Activity Report
May 1, 2014 -May 31, 2014
Par Value
Beginning Current Transaction
Balance Rate Date
2,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
21,250,908.83
21,250,908.83
81,544,358.42
Par Value
Purchases or Redemptions or
Deposits Withdrawals
0.00 2,000,000.00
0.00 0.00
34,697,980.04 35,166,203.61
Page 3
Ending
Balance
2,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
21,250,908.83
21,250,908.83
81,076,134.85
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
CUSIP Investment #
Fund: Treasury Fund
LAIF 9001
UNION MONEY 9002
PETTY CASH 9003
UNION OPERATING 9004
PAYROLL 9005
SD COUNTY POOL 9007
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011
LAIF BASS 2010 9012
UBNA-2010 BOND 9013
UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014
3133EC6F6 2258
3133EC7H1 2260
3133ECA61 2261
313382YY3 2268
3135GOXR9 2269
313383EE7 2270
3136G1WT2 2273
3136G1XZ7 2274
3135GOYW7 2276
3134G4PXO 2277
3133EDD41 2278
3130AOQFO 2279
3130AOVG2 2281
3130AOYG9 2282
2050003183-6 2283
3134G4WJ3 2284
3134G4WH7 2285
3135GOYE7 2286
3130A1HX9 2287
3130A1SE9 2288
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:50
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
Fair Value
Amortized
Amortized
Amortized
Amortized
Fair Value
Amortized
Amortized
Fair Value
Amortized
Amortized
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Amortized
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Fair Value
Maturity
Date
06/01/2015
08/17/2015
06/18/2015
02/22/2016
09/06/2016
09/19/2016
11/21/2016
12/19/2016
11/25/2016
06/27/2016
07/07/2016
02/14/2017
11/25/2016
12/12/2016
01/22/2016
09/19/2016
03/20/2017
08/26/2016
01/23/2017
05/19/2017
OTAY
GASB 31 Compliance Detail
Sorted by Fund -Fund
May 1, 2014-May 31, 2014
Beginning
Invested Value
15,069,445.58
10,003.96
2,950.00
686,233.12
27,592.60
21,216,000.00
1,061 ,961 .61
2,789,600.14
0.00
51 .89
18,603.21
3,003,450.00
3,001 ,620.00
3,000,030.00
1,998,720.00
1,996,700.00
1,997,320.00
2,000,760.00
1,994,380.00
1,996,400.00
1,998,780.00
1 ,998,120.00
1,550,542.50
1,998,920.00
1,997,820.00
81,784.76
1,999,080.00
1,993,800.00
1 ,998, 760.00
2,002,960.00
0.00
Purchase
of Principal
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
Addition
to Principal
6,600,000.00
13,020,226.72
0.00
1 ,342,444.49
298.75
0.00
2.82
7.26
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
Redemption
of Principal
8,700,000.00
13,020,222.22
0.00
1,154,416.55
0.00
0.00
1,030,000.00
2, 705,000.00
0.00
0.00
6,564.84
0.00
0.00
3,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
1,550,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Adjustment in Value --------~ ------
Amortization
Adjustment
0.00
QOO
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
QOO
QOO
QOO
QOO
QOO
QOO
QOO
QOO
QOO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Change in
Market Value
-665.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-76,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,600.00
4,290.00
-30.00
-1 ,400.00
1,760.00
-180.00
-760.00
480.00
300.00
1,820.00
1,880.00
-542.50
4,380.00
2,520.00
0.00
1,420.00
840.00
6,740.00
-740.00
2,380.00
Ending
Invested Value
12,968,779.63
10,008.46
2,950.00
874,261.06
27,891.35
21 '140,000.00
31,964.43
84,607.40
0.00
51.89
12,038.37
3,007,050.00
3,005,910.00
0.00
1,997,320.00
1,998,460.00
1,997,140.00
0.00
1,994,860.00
1,996,700.00
2,000,600.00
0.00
0.00
2,003,300.00
2,000,340.00
81,784.76
2,000,500.00
1,994,640.00
2,005,500.00
2,002,220.00
2,002,380.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
GO (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
3130A1RB6 2289 99 Fair Value 05/15/201 7 0.00 1,030,000.00
3130A1RB6 2290 99 Fair Value 05/15/201 7 0.00 2,705,000.00
3133EDKF8 2291 99 Fair Value 07/29/2016 1,998,560.00 0.00
3130A1Q84 2292 99 Fair Value 05/08/2017 0.00 2,000,000.00
3134G54N2 2293 99 Fair Value 11/28/2016 000 2,000,000.00
3130A1XA1 2294 99 Fair Value 08/26/2016 0.00 2,000,000.00
3130A1ZX9 2296 99 Fair Value 08/22/2017 0.00 2,000,000.00
Subtotal 81,490,949.37 13,735,000.00
Total 81,490,949.37 13,735,000.00
Run Date: 06/16/2014 · 14:50
Adjustment in Value ---
Addition Redemption Amortization Change in
to Principal of Principal Adjustment Market Value
0.00 0.00 0.00 1,339.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 3,516.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 1,080.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 1,800.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,140.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 -2,920.00
20,962,980.04 35,166,203.61 0.00 -44,232.95
20,962,980.04 35,166,203.61 0.00 -44,232.95
Page 2
Ending
Invested Value
1,031,339.00
2,708,516.50
1,999,640.00
2,002,000.00
2,001,800.00
1,996,860.00
1,997,080.00
80,978,492.85
80,978,492.85
Portfolio OTAY
AP
GD (PRF_GD)7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
Security ID Investment# Fund
3134G54N2 2293
3134G4WJ3 2284
3134G4PXO 2277
3136G1XZ7 2274
3135GOYW7 2276
3130A1SE9 2288
313382YY3 2268
3130AOVG2 2281
3130A1Q84 2292
3130A1 RB6 2289
3130A1ZX9 2296
3130A1HX9 2287
3130A1RB6 2290
313383EE7 2270
3130AOYG9 2282
3130A1XA1 2294
3133EC7H1 2260
3133EC6F6 2258
3133EDKF8 2291
3135GOXR9 2269
3134G4WH7 2285
3135GOYE7 2286
2050003183-6 2283
Run Date: 06/16/2014-14:53
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
OTAY
Duration Report
Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type
Through 05/31/2014
Issuer
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
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 Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Farm Credit Bank
Fannie Mae
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal National Mortage Assoc
California Bank & Trust
Investment
Class
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Amort
Book
Value
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,002,420. 73
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
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,002,605.78
81 ,784.76
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
1,030,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,705,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
81,784.76
Market Current
Value Rate
2,001,800.00 .7500000
2,000,500.00 .6250000
2,000,600.00 .5000000
1,994,860.00 .6700000
1 ,996, 700.00 . 7500000
2,002,380.00 1.000000
1,997,320.00 .3500000
2,003,300.00 . 7000000
2,002,000.00 1.010000
1,031,339.00 1.020000
1,997,080.00 1.050000
2,002,220.00 1.000000
2,708,516.50 1.020000
1 ,997,140.00 .5000000
2,000,340.00 . 7500000
1 ,996,860.00 .6500000
3,005,910.00 .3400000
3,007,050.00 .3500000
1,999,640.00 .5500000
1,998,460.00 .5500000
1,994,640.00 .9000000
2,005,500.00 .6250000
81 ,784.76 .0300000
YTM Current
360 Yield
0.740 0.713
0.616 0.614
0.493 0.485
0.661 0.772
0.685 1.082
0.986 0.959
0.345 0.428
0.690 0.633
0.996 0.975
1.006 0.975
1.036 1.096
0.986 0.957
1.006 0.975
0.493 0.563
0.740 0.743
0.641 0.721
0.335 -0.054
0.345 0.230
0.542 0.558
0.542 0.705
0.888 0.997
0.533 0.501
0.030 0.030
Maturity/ Modified
Call Date Duration
11/28/2016
09/19/2016
06/27/2016
12/19/2016
11/25/2016
05/19/2017
02/22/2016
11/25/2016
05/08/2017
05/15/2017
08/22/2017
01/23/2017
05/15/2017
09/19/2016
12/12/2016
08/26/2016
08/17/2015
06/01/2015
07/29/2016
09/06/2016
03/20/2017
08/26/2016
01/22/2016
2.464
2.277
2.054
2.515
2.451
2.915
1.715
2.453
2.884
2.903
3.161
2.601
2.903
2.278
2.498
2.21 5
1.208
0.998
2.144
2.242
2.755
2.21 5
1.640
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DU (PRF _DU) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
Securi~ ID Investment # Fund Issuer
LA IF 9001 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAIF COPS07 9009 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SD COUNTY 9007 99 San Diego County
Run Date: 06/16/2014 -14:53
OTAY
Duration Report
Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type
Through 05/31/2014
Investment Book Par
Class Value Value
Fair 12,964,668.30 12,964,668.30
Fair 0.00 0.00
Fair 0.00 0.00
Fair 21,250,908.83 21 ,250,908.83
Report Total 80,037,388.40 80,032,361.89
Page 2
Market Current YTM
Value Rate 360
12,968,779.63 .2280000 0.225
0.00 .0000001 0.000
0.00 .2280000 0.225
21 '140,000.00 .4240000 0.418
79,934,719.89
Current
Yield
0.228
0.000
0.228
0.424
0.539
Maturity/ Modified
Call Date Duration
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.317
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DU (PRF_DU) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
Page 1 of 12
Check Total
2,846.25
3,196.88
5,085.00
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
2040431 06/11/14 15416 24 HOUR ELEVATOR INC 11999 05/23/14 ELEVATOR LOAD TEST 800.00 800.00
2040432 06/11/14 15285 A & D FIRE SPRINKLERS INC 305419 05/19/14 LOCKER MAINTENANCE 285.00 285.00
2040433 06/11/14 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 4270 05/15/14 PROGRAMMING SERVICES (4/28/14-5/13/14)937.50 937.50
2040320 05/28/14 13901 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SVCS INC 3B 04/25/14 RESERVOIR UPGRADE PROJECT (ENDING 4/30/14)270,973.99 270,973.99
2040321 05/28/14 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1309 05/12/14 DEVELOPER PROJECTS (3/29/14-O5/2/14)19,921.80 19,921.80
2040322 05/28/14 11803 AEROTEK ENVIRONMENTAL OE01035882 05/15/14 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (4/28/14-5/2/14)1,526.25
OE01037966 05/22/14 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (5/6/14-5/9/14)1,320.00
2040434 06/11/14 11803 AEROTEK ENVIRONMENTAL OE01039994 05/29/14 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (5/12/14-5/16/14)1,650.00
OE01042032 06/05/14 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (5/19/14-5/23/14)1,546.88
2040323 05/28/14 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131334167 05/07/14 AQUA AMMONIA 2,693.40
131334166 05/07/14 AQUA AMMONIA 2,391.60
2040324 05/28/14 13753 AIRGAS USA LLC 9918184232 04/30/14 BREATHING AIR 41.75 41.75
2040435 06/11/14 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 7 05/23/14 AS-NEEDED LAND SURVEYING (4/1/14-4/30/14)1,977.50 1,977.50
2040325 05/28/14 14811 ALARMS UNLIMITED INC 162158 05/22/14 CARD READER 10,530.45 10,530.45
2040390 06/04/14 06261 ALCANTARA, CYNTHIA 051914052214 05/28/14 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (5/19/14-5/22/14)926.42 926.42
2040326 05/28/14 01463 ALLIED ELECTRONICS INC 9003020898 04/30/14 PROTOCOL CONVERTER 988.10 988.10
2040436 06/11/14 01463 ALLIED ELECTRONICS INC 9003111504 05/23/14 INSTRUMENT CABLE 159.42 159.42
2040437 06/11/14 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES # 509 0509005622891 05/25/14 TRASH SERVICES (MAY & JUNE 2014)1,409.52 1,409.52
2040495 06/18/14 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES # 509 0509005624488 05/25/14 TRASH SERVICES (JUNE 2014)22.15 22.15
2040496 06/18/14 11590 AMERICAN DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHY 19567 05/29/14 LICENSE RENEWAL (5/30/14-5/29/15)12,600.00 12,600.00
2040438 06/11/14 06166 AMERICAN MESSAGING L11095700F 06/01/14 PAGER SERVICES (MAY 2014)230.46 230.46
2040391 06/04/14 15623 ANN FULCHIRON Ref002434279 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000028733 74.62 74.62
2040392 06/04/14 00002 ANSWER INC 9980 05/22/14 ANSWERING SERVICES (MONTHLY)1,100.00 1,100.00
2040439 06/11/14 08967 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS EAP 41224 05/23/14 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (JUNE 2014)318.89 318.89
2040393 06/04/14 15540 APPLIED DIVING SERVICES INC 14056 05/09/14 DIVE INSPECTIONS 6,250.00 6,250.00
2040327 05/28/14 13171 ARCADIS US INC 0591426 05/07/14 CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW (4/1/13-3/30/14)4,900.00 4,900.00
Page 2 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
12,194.17
9,394.28
2040394 06/04/14 15625 ARMANDO CASTRO Ref002434282 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000092773 93.53 93.53
2040497 06/18/14 15658 ASTRYD LUGO Ref002434506 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000184520 34.68 34.68
2040440 06/11/14 07785 AT&T 000005444504 06/01/14 CALNET 2 PHONE SVCS (MAY 2014)1,229.08 1,229.08
2040498 06/18/14 07785 AT&T 000005445525 06/02/14 CALNET 2 PHONE SVCS (5/2/14-6/1/14)4,918.24 4,918.24
2040441 06/11/14 12810 ATKINS 1194623 04/23/14 2015 WFMP UPDATE (2/10/14-3/30/14)11,667.89 11,667.89
2040442 06/11/14 12810 ATKINS 1194423 05/20/14 DESIGN SERVICES (12/2/13-4/27/14)4,068.00 4,068.00
2040499 06/18/14 15667 AUTUMN CLARK Ref002434516 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000205583 27.01 27.01
2040500 06/18/14 15618 BETTGER PROPERTIES INC UB625453726 05/22/14 CUSTOMER REFUND 148.68 148.68
2040328 05/28/14 15618 BETTGER PROPERTIES INC UB625453726 05/22/14 CUSTOMER REFUND 148.68 148.68
2040501 06/18/14 15654 BRANDON MIZUHARA Ref002434502 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000144938 250.23 250.23
2040502 06/18/14 15661 BRANDON MONTGOMERY Ref002434509 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000189022 44.92 44.92
2040443 06/11/14 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI416955 05/16/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 3,098.07
BPI418932 05/23/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2,450.15
BPI416585 05/15/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,552.57
BPI417451 05/19/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,516.19
BPI418658 05/22/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,066.38
BPI417450 05/19/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 974.40
BPI418931 05/23/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 838.96
BPI416586 05/15/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 697.45
2040329 05/28/14 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI412919 05/02/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,647.59
BPI414844 05/09/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,485.86
BPI413623 05/06/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,449.47
BPI412036 04/30/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,433.30
BPI412037 04/30/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,265.51
BPI415302 05/12/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,164.43
BPI414410 05/08/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 948.12
2040444 06/11/14 02977 BROWN, VINCENT O0000000098 06/05/14 SAFETY BOOT REIMBURSEMENT 150.00 150.00
2040503 06/18/14 15665 CANDICE BLACKWELL Ref002434514 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000203222 13.03 13.03
2040504 06/18/14 04071 CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC CWW26278 04/30/14 LOBBYING DISCLOSURE 45.00 45.00
Page 3 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
96.12
810.00
432.62
1,752.00
3,000.00
2040330 05/28/14 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 7776 04/29/14 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS 61.56
7780 05/02/14 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS 34.56
2040395 06/04/14 15639 CARRILLO PROPERTY INVS LLC Ref002434296 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000207181 76.71 76.71
2040445 06/11/14 03232 CDW GOVERNMENT INC LZ29624 05/21/14 SUPPORT RENEWAL 1,050.00 1,050.00
2040505 06/18/14 15671 CENTURY 21 1ST CHOICE Ref002434520 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000206853 55.98 55.98
2040506 06/18/14 15663 CHARMAINE DE LA CRUZ Ref002434512 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000194529 44.33 44.33
2040396 06/04/14 02026 CHULA VISTA ELEM SCHOOL DIST AR043311 05/21/14 GARDEN TOUR (5/6/14)270.00
AR043312 05/21/14 GARDEN TOUR (5/8/14)270.00
AR043362 05/29/14 GARDEN TOUR (4/22/14)270.00
2040507 06/18/14 15659 CHULA VISTA R-14 LLC Ref002434507 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000185769 3,040.25 3,040.25
2040508 06/18/14 15256 CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE / LINA 09520492670614 06/18/14 AD&D & SUPP LIFE INS (JUNE 2014)4,492.80 4,492.80
2040331 05/28/14 08895 CITY OF LA MESA 16427 04/29/14 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 100.00 100.00
2040446 06/11/14 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE 16094820 05/20/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 328.99
16081860 05/14/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 103.63
2040332 05/28/14 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE 16031990 04/29/14 COPY PAPER 1,071.01 1,071.01
2040509 06/18/14 11056 CONCHAS, FREDERICK O0000000100 06/12/14 SEMINAR REIMBURSEMENT 60.00 60.00
2040447 06/11/14 02643 CORE-ROSION PRODUCTS C2014158 05/06/14 TEFLON EXPANSION JOINTS 1,395.83 1,395.83
2040510 06/18/14 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMW 05/20/14 EXCAVATION PERMITS (APR 2014)1,054.50 1,054.50
2040333 05/28/14 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEH2009HUPFP2 05/12/14 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (6/30/14-6/30/15)292.00
DEH2009HUPFP2 05/12/14 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (6/30/14-6/30/15)292.00
DEH2009HUPFP2 05/12/14 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (6/30/14-6/30/15)292.00
DEH2009HUPFP2 05/12/14 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (6/30/14-6/30/15)292.00
DEH2010HUPFP2 05/12/14 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (6/30/14-6/30/15)292.00
DEH2004HUPFP2 05/12/14 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (6/30/14-6/30/15)292.00
2040448 06/11/14 08479 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CA719620514 05/21/14 O & M CAPITAL REPLACEMENT (FY 2012-2013)154,956.00 154,956.00
2040449 06/11/14 02756 COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO 27170514 05/30/14 INTERNET SERVICES (5/29/14-6/28/14)1,500.00
28810514 05/30/14 INTERNET SERVICES (5/29/14-6/28/14)1,500.00
2040511 06/18/14 00693 CSDA, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER CSDA2014 06/01/14 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 150.00 150.00
Page 4 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
845.00
6,402.27
8,701.20
77.92
2040512 06/18/14 11150 DARNELL & ASSOCIATES INC 140152 04/30/14 TRAFFIC ENGINEER SERVICES (12/11/13-3/20/14)7,200.00 7,200.00
2040513 06/18/14 15669 DEBORAH NELL Ref002434518 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000206244 37.22 37.22
2040397 06/04/14 00319 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH O0000000097 05/30/14 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 80.00 80.00
2040398 06/04/14 15631 DIEGO RUBIO Ref002434288 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000204363 10.94 10.94
2040399 06/04/14 03417 DIRECTV 23177618698 05/19/14 SATELLITE TV (5/18/14-6/17/14)6.00 6.00
2040514 06/18/14 03417 DIRECTV 23295686445 06/05/14 SATELLITE TV (6/4/14-7/3/14)18.00 18.00
2040400 06/04/14 02447 EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION 1554580514 05/31/14 RECYCLING SERVICES (MAY 2014)95.00 95.00
2040450 06/11/14 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0064757IN 04/30/14 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (APR 2014)695.00 695.00
2040515 06/18/14 03765 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC, THE 1114016 01/31/14 RECORD DRAWINGS (11/1/13-1/31/14)2,000.00 2,000.00
2040451 06/11/14 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 4050658 05/19/14 RECYCLED WATER ANALYSIS (5/1/14-5/8/14)490.00 490.00
2040334 05/28/14 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 4050346 05/05/14 RECYCLED WATER ANALYSIS (4/18/14-4/24/14)445.00
4050509 05/12/14 RECYCLED WATER ANALYSIS (4/25/14-4/30/14)400.00
2040516 06/18/14 15662 ERIC TOBIN Ref002434511 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000194141 79.55 79.55
2040452 06/11/14 02939 ESCARCEGA, LUIS 8752 06/09/14 SEMINAR REIMBURSEMENT 60.00 60.00
2040453 06/11/14 14320 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL INC L0168121 05/23/14 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (5/6/14)255.00 255.00
2040335 05/28/14 14320 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL INC L0165712 05/06/14 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (4/22/14)255.00 255.00
2040336 05/28/14 00645 FEDEX 265636473 05/16/14 MAIL SERVICES (5/7/14)6.24 6.24
2040454 06/11/14 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0473824 05/13/14 36" BUTTERFLY VALVE 5,538.27
0475033 05/21/14 VALVE CAN 864.00
2040337 05/28/14 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0471494 04/30/14 INVENTORY 6,114.79
04691691 05/06/14 INVENTORY 2,458.79
0472796 04/29/14 PVC / BRASS 127.62
2040338 05/28/14 12187 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003400414 04/30/14 ONLINE DOCUMENTS (MONTHLY)99.00 99.00
2040339 05/28/14 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES - SD 019935 05/12/14 COFFEE SUPPLIES 270.10 270.10
2040340 05/28/14 00035 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 6176190 04/30/14 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 56.15
6228217 05/01/14 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 21.77
2040517 06/18/14 14478 FISHER WIRELESS SERVICES INC 221027 02/21/14 RADIO REPAIR 922.80 922.80
Page 5 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
216.81
792.33
3,150.30
25,528.84
658.88
213.82
2040341 05/28/14 11962 FLEETWASH INC x271045 05/02/14 FLEET VEHICLE WASHING 151.11 151.11
2040455 06/11/14 11962 FLEETWASH INC x277118 05/16/14 FLEET VEHICLE WASHING 131.40
x280814 05/23/14 FLEET VEHICLE WASHING 85.41
2040401 06/04/14 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2434351 06/05/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 50.00 50.00
2040518 06/18/14 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2434538 06/19/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 50.00 50.00
2040519 06/18/14 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2434540 06/19/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 81.00 81.00
2040402 06/04/14 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2434353 06/05/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 81.00 81.00
2040342 05/28/14 07224 FRAZEE INDUSTRIES INC 22744 05/01/14 PAINT 686.32
25648 05/09/14 PAINT 106.01
2040343 05/28/14 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER 196 05/03/14 GARDEN TOURS (4/22/14-4/25/14)2,480.00 2,480.00
2040456 06/11/14 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER 199 05/23/14 GARDEN TOURS (MAY 2014)4,340.00 4,340.00
2040520 06/18/14 15673 GARYS CONSTRUCTION INC Ref002434522 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000208489 1,349.56 1,349.56
2040457 06/11/14 10817 GEXPRO S107763405001 05/16/14 RX3I PLC 2,751.90
S107763405002 05/16/14 RX3I PLC 398.40
2040521 06/18/14 15650 GORDON DAY Ref002434498 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000022648 154.29 154.29
2040344 05/28/14 14948 GPS INSIGHT LLC 87516 11/01/13 QUARTERLY SERVICE FOR GPS MODEM 8,548.69
87517 02/01/14 QUARTERLY SERVICE FOR GPS MODEM 7,667.28
918356 05/01/14 MONTHLY PER VEHICLE MONITORING FEE 7,176.60
87515 08/01/13 QUARTERLY SERVICE FOR GPS MODEM 1,830.06
85910 01/20/14 GPS HARDWARE 306.21
2040403 06/04/14 00101 GRAINGER INC 9405733586 04/02/14 TOOLS - INSPECTION 210.39
9432347301 05/05/14 ELECTRICAL HARDWARE 195.02
94062018556 04/03/14 TOOLS - INSPECTION 120.29
9426558830 04/28/14 ELECTRICAL HARDWARE 92.00
9426558848 04/28/14 ELECTRICAL HARDWARE 33.35
9426861135 04/28/14 ELECTRICAL HARDWARE 7.83
2040458 06/11/14 00101 GRAINGER INC 9445970016 05/20/14 TOOLS 141.33
9448129602 05/22/14 PVC WRAP TAPE 56.64
9445970024 05/20/14 TOOLS 15.85
Page 6 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
9,159.50
19,334.30
47,535.15
1,684.65
1,684.65
2040345 05/28/14 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 11952 04/29/14 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (APR 2014)8,909.50
11953 04/30/14 STUMP REMOVAL 250.00
2040346 05/28/14 00174 HACH COMPANY 8828989 05/12/14 SAMPLER REPAIR 951.79 951.79
2040347 05/28/14 15370 HALAX2 INC 102 05/01/14 SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING (4/3/14-4/24/14)1,782.50 1,782.50
2040348 05/28/14 02350 HARPER & ASSOCIATES ENG4919 05/02/14 COATING INSPECTION (4/1/14-4/30/14)23,192.00 23,192.00
2040349 05/28/14 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 3 05/02/14 CORROSION SERVICES (2/23/14-3/29/14)56,473.50 56,473.50
2040459 06/11/14 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 4 05/20/14 CORROSION SERVICES (3/30/14-5/3/14)21,259.00 21,259.00
2040404 06/04/14 15349 HDR INC 153922B 05/22/14 CONSULTING SERVICES (APR 2014)7,962.00 7,962.00
2040460 06/11/14 04472 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO 110 06/01/14 BI-NATIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES (APR 2014)3,600.00 3,600.00
2040522 06/18/14 02096 HELIX WATER DISTRICT HWD060414-otay-j 06/04/14 OTAY LANDSCAPE CONTEST WINNER 29.46 29.46
2040350 05/28/14 12335 HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES LLC U3175637 05/12/14 IVR PAYMENT SERVICES (APR 2014)34.20 34.20
2040351 05/28/14 08969 INFOSEND INC 79672 04/30/14 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (APR 2014)12,366.07
79671 04/30/14 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (APR 2014)5,102.30
79813 05/02/14 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (APR 2014)1,865.93
2040405 06/04/14 03380 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR INC 1100365813 04/30/14 SCADA SERVER 39,002.84
1100366068 05/01/14 SCADA SERVER 5,158.88
1100366198 05/02/14 SCADA SERVER 3,373.43
2040352 05/28/14 15368 INTEGRITY MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS 3917 04/15/14 SCRUBBER GAUGE 234.80 234.80
2040461 06/11/14 13899 INTERMEDIA.NET INC 1406001244 06/01/14 EMAIL SERVICES (5/2/14-6/2/14)3,626.55 3,626.55
2040406 06/04/14 15523 JANET HERRING Ref002434281 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000053856 51.26 51.26
2040353 05/28/14 03077 JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA INC SDO04140143 04/01/14 JANITORIAL SERVICES (APR 2014)1,135.50 1,135.50
2040407 06/04/14 15630 JAVIER MARISCAL Ref002434287 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000194840 56.28 56.28
2040462 06/11/14 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 618235 CREDIT MEMO -3,000.00
618227 05/15/14 CHLORINE 4,684.65
2040354 05/28/14 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 616348 CREDIT MEMO -3,000.00
616305 04/29/14 CHLORINE 4,684.65
2040408 06/04/14 15628 JOHN KIRSCHKE Ref002434285 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000176495 112.71 112.71
Page 7 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
700.00
316.67
463.20
2040523 06/18/14 15652 JONATHAN HUME Ref002434500 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000067898 67.72 67.72
2040463 06/11/14 03172 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0100758 05/13/14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING (4/1/14-4/25/14)420.00
0100757 05/13/14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING (4/1/14-4/25/14)280.00
2040524 06/18/14 15655 JOSE D CALLEROS Ref002434503 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000145742 95.86 95.86
2040409 06/04/14 15626 KAREN KOPMANN Ref002434283 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000128279 101.94 101.94
2040355 05/28/14 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 5563 05/09/14 AS NEEDED PAVING SERVICES FY14 9,414.90 9,414.90
2040464 06/11/14 14036 KRATOS / HBE SM46960 05/01/14 ALARM MONITORING (FEB & MAR 2014)80.00 80.00
2040465 06/11/14 14952 KYNE CONSTRUCTION INC 004367 06/21/13 W/O REFUND D0891-090142 1,602.25 1,602.25
2040356 05/28/14 02063 LA MESA - SPRING VALLEY 3667 05/06/14 GARDEN TOURS 1,121.00 1,121.00
2040410 06/04/14 15629 LANES END LLC Ref002434286 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000185370 2,046.00 2,046.00
2040466 06/11/14 09511 LAYFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 4A 04/30/14 927-1 COVER / LINER REPL (ENDING 4/30/14)60,957.51 60,957.51
2040357 05/28/14 06273 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 180164 04/30/14 ATTORNEY SERVICES (THRU 4/30/14)6,408.00 6,408.00
2040467 06/11/14 03019 LOPEZ, JOSE 050114053114 06/04/14 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (MAY 2014)12.32 12.32
2040411 06/04/14 15632 LYNN COLE Ref002434289 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000204477 72.32 72.32
2040525 06/18/14 15660 MARIBEL LARIOS Ref002434508 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000186796 34.23 34.23
2040526 06/18/14 15666 MARK PETERSEN Ref002434515 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000203783 187.00 187.00
2040358 05/28/14 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0086480IN 05/12/14 REPROGRAPHICS SERVICES 59.40 59.40
2040468 06/11/14 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 86470506 05/22/14 PARTS & MATERIALS 737.40 737.40
2040359 05/28/14 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 84128996 05/06/14 CLARIFIER BAFFLE MATERIALS 168.18
84501625 05/08/14 CLARIFIER BAFFLE MATERIALS 148.49
2040469 06/11/14 11876 MICHAEL D KEAGY REAL ESTATE 1119 05/26/14 APPRAISAL SERVICES (12/1/13-5/26/14)15,000.00 15,000.00
2040360 05/28/14 11876 MICHAEL D KEAGY REAL ESTATE 1118 04/29/14 APPRAISAL SERVICES (12/1/13-4/19/14)11,000.00 11,000.00
2040361 05/28/14 15619 MICHELE BRIGGS UB050013200 05/22/14 CUSTOMER REFUND 426.88 426.88
2040362 05/28/14 15136 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 340283639 05/06/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 394.95
340283640 05/06/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 68.25
2040470 06/11/14 15136 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 340285766 05/20/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 405.42
Page 8 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
1,185.53
426.49
340284680 05/13/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 405.36
340284679 05/13/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 114.17
340285765 05/20/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 114.17
340285761 05/20/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 91.41
S340284864 05/20/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 55.00
2040363 05/28/14 15620 MY LITTLE PONY RIDES 62125 05/23/14 EMPLOYEE PROGRAM 450.00 450.00
2040527 06/18/14 15664 NANCY MAURICIO Ref002434513 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000198992 16.08 16.08
2040528 06/18/14 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2434532 06/19/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 8,438.27 8,438.27
2040412 06/04/14 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2434345 06/05/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 8,438.27 8,438.27
2040364 05/28/14 00459 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION A53221 05/22/14 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 139.00 139.00
2040471 06/11/14 00745 NEWARK 25182097 05/21/14 OFF DELAY TIMERS 290.95 290.95
2040365 05/28/14 08531 NEWEST CONSTRUCTION 201402 05/05/14 HIDDEN MTN ENCLOSURE INSTALL 9,104.40 9,104.40
2040472 06/11/14 14856 NEXUS IS INC JC641400 05/22/14 NETWORK EQUIPMENT 20,503.08 20,503.08
2040529 06/18/14 14856 NEXUS IS INC JC641016 05/05/14 TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE 3,829.36 3,829.36
2040366 05/28/14 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 708582810001 05/08/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 263.64
708139610001 05/07/14 MONITOR FILTER 108.30
708583021001 05/08/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 54.55
2040530 06/18/14 15609 OTAY RANCH TOWN CENTER Ref002434510 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000193693 28.49 28.49
2040531 06/18/14 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 167086 06/09/14 INVENTORY 4,416.77 4,416.77
2040473 06/11/14 14183 PACIFIC SAFETY CENTER 70581 05/22/14 CPR/FIRST AID/AED TRAINING (5/14/14 & 5/28/14)1,495.00 1,495.00
2040367 05/28/14 05497 PAYPAL INC 31672786 04/30/14 PHONE PAYMENT SVCS (APR 2014)54.10 54.10
2040474 06/11/14 15598 PDF ELECTRIC & SUPPLY CO INC 130141 05/20/14 PLC ETHERNET MODULES 4,700.00 4,700.00
2040532 06/18/14 15643 PEARTREE CONSTRUCTION &8202 05/22/14 TERMITE TREATMENT 800.00 800.00
2040533 06/18/14 15672 PGI INVESTMENTS Ref002434521 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000207320 168.63 168.63
2040534 06/18/14 15670 PGI INVESTMENTS LLC Ref002434519 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000206810 116.64 116.64
2040535 06/18/14 15668 PIA MCNEIL Ref002434517 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000205951 43.45 43.45
2040368 05/28/14 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 4478 05/01/14 GRAPHIC DESIGN 85.00 85.00
Page 9 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
1,197.73
543.00
57,265.01
2040475 06/11/14 10929 PORTABLE POWER SYSTEMS INC 170393 05/23/14 UPS BATTERIES 302.77 302.77
2040413 06/04/14 03351 POSADA, ROD 052114052314 05/27/14 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (5/21/14-5/23/14)1,279.29 1,279.29
2040536 06/18/14 00079 POSTMASTER POSTMASTER614 06/03/14 POSTAGE 7,676.00 7,676.00
2040369 05/28/14 13059 PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES 39151 04/01/14 JANITORIAL SERVICES (APR 2014)3,664.00 3,664.00
2040370 05/28/14 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2434157 05/22/14 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 158,478.38 158,478.38
2040476 06/11/14 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2434341 06/05/14 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 158,370.73 158,370.73
2040371 05/28/14 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 32472801 05/06/14 SAFETY SUPPLIES 474.77
32472800 04/30/14 SAFETY SUPPLIES 382.43
32445000 05/08/14 FACE MASK RECERTIFICATION 194.73
32472802 05/07/14 SAFETY SUPPLIES 145.80
2040477 06/11/14 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 32472803 05/21/14 SAFETY SUPPLIES 145.80 145.80
2040414 06/04/14 15635 RAFID PUTROS Ref002434292 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000205440 10.24 10.24
2040415 06/04/14 15640 REDSTONE CAPITAL OF CALIFORNIA Ref002434297 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000207444 50.34 50.34
2040478 06/11/14 15600 RICHARD J THORMAN 051914 05/19/14 CONSULTING SERVICES 1,360.00 1,360.00
2040537 06/18/14 15653 RICHARD METCALFE Ref002434501 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000075246 87.93 87.93
2040538 06/18/14 15651 RODOLFO TAMAYO Ref002434499 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000049468 44.07 44.07
2040539 06/18/14 15657 RONALD SAMONTE Ref002434505 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000184084 74.37 74.37
2040416 06/04/14 15627 RONI GRINSHFAN Ref002434284 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000175118 170.35 170.35
2040479 06/11/14 02620 ROTORK CONTROLS INC CI08223 05/13/14 FILTER INF ACTUATOR 1,293.00 1,293.00
2040372 05/28/14 02620 ROTORK CONTROLS INC 05053114 CREDIT MEMO -93.00
RSI47970 05/09/14 BUSHING FOR MAIN AIR SCOUR MANIFOLD 636.00
2040540 06/18/14 15649 RUDY MERCADO Ref002434497 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000021697 184.20 184.20
2040373 05/28/14 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 2013235 05/05/14 ASSESSOR DATA (MONTHLY)125.00 125.00
2040374 05/28/14 06828 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF SL13046 05/05/14 SPLASH LAB (05/05/14)655.00 655.00
2040480 06/11/14 00247 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 440847 05/19/14 ADVERTISEMENT 82.50 82.50
2040481 06/11/14 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 060214 06/02/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)30,368.59
060414 06/04/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)26,896.42
Page 10 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
199,659.59
440.00
1,753.00
2040375 05/28/14 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 051614 05/16/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)806.89 806.89
2040417 06/04/14 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 052714 05/27/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)84,079.79
052314 05/23/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)64,524.93
051914 05/19/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)50,174.91
052214 05/22/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)879.96
2040541 06/18/14 12080 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, THE 0000357588 04/11/14 LEGAL AD 477.20 477.20
2040418 06/04/14 15638 SAND SHADE PROPERTIES LLC Ref002434295 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000206408 199.41 199.41
2040542 06/18/14 15086 SAVAGE, DEANDRE O0000000099 06/12/14 SAFETY BOOT REIMBURSEMENT 127.41 127.41
2040482 06/11/14 12333 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION 7100259287 02/13/14 REPAIR ELEVATOR 3,027.98 3,027.98
2040483 06/11/14 07442 SCHULTZ, ALEXANDER 051914052214 06/09/14 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (5/19/14-5/22/14)960.42 960.42
2040376 05/28/14 15000 SEGURA, ADOLFO 051914052114 05/22/14 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (5/19/14-5/21/14)113.00 113.00
2040419 06/04/14 15641 SERGIO GONZALEZ JR UB250653408 06/03/14 CUSTOMER REFUND 207.67 207.67
2040543 06/18/14 15656 SHIRLEY VIDOT Ref002434504 06/16/14 UB Refund Cst #0000175098 22.36 22.36
2040484 06/11/14 15307 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC 4F05036 06/05/14 LABORATORY SERVICES (5/28/14)220.00 220.00
2040544 06/18/14 15307 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC 4F13030 06/13/14 LABORATORY SERVICES (6/4/14)220.00 220.00
2040420 06/04/14 15307 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC 4E29011 05/29/14 LABORATORY SERVICES (5/21/14)220.00
4E27030 05/27/14 LABORATORY SERVICES (5/15/14)220.00
2040421 06/04/14 15624 SILVIA SARIN Ref002434280 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000030388 47.15 47.15
2040377 05/28/14 11618 SOUTH COAST COPY SYSTEMS AR150570 04/30/14 COPIER MAINTENANCE (MAY 2014)1,682.59 1,682.59
2040485 06/11/14 02963 SOUTH COUNTY ECONOMIC 1117-14 06/01/14 2014-2015 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 750.00 750.00
2040378 05/28/14 03103 SOUTHCOAST HEATING &C53397 04/15/14 IT AC MAINTENANCE (APR 2014)205.00 205.00
2040486 06/11/14 15176 SOUTHCOAST HEATING &C53592 05/15/14 AC MAINTENANCE - OPS (MONTHLY)1,068.00
C53609 05/15/14 AC MAINTENANCE - MULTIPLE LOCATIONS (MONTHLY)480.00
C53601 05/15/14 AC MAINTENANCE - MAIN OFFICE (MONTHLY)205.00
2040487 06/11/14 02594 SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE OWD042314 06/09/14 SDCO SPONSORSHIP 7,000.00 7,000.00
2040379 05/28/14 10975 SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER CSD0514 05/22/14 PUBLIC RECOGNITION 250.00 250.00
2040380 05/28/14 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 20098 05/06/14 MONITORING 870.00 870.00
Page 11 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
493.15
2040488 06/11/14 07448 STANLEY STEEMER 1248377 05/16/14 CARPET CLEANING 1,713.00 1,713.00
2040545 06/18/14 12809 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF 95188 06/18/14 LEGAL SERVICES (APR 2014)24,241.43 24,241.43
2040422 06/04/14 15636 SUKUT CONTRUCTION INC Ref002434293 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000206001 1,360.56 1,360.56
2040489 06/11/14 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 397879 05/14/14 RED DYED DIESEL FUEL 8,296.64 8,296.64
2040423 06/04/14 07362 SUSAN MARCUS A000093 04/30/14 YOGA SESSIONS 600.00 600.00
2040381 05/28/14 14576 SWIATKOWSKI, KEITH A000092 05/15/14 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 160.00 160.00
2040490 06/11/14 01905 SYMPRO INC 07998 05/16/14 SYMPRO SOFTWARE SUPPORT (7/1/14-6/30/15)7,743.00 7,743.00
2040382 05/28/14 15593 SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS LLC 12753 05/06/14 TROUBLESHOOTING OF CM800 220.30 220.30
2040491 06/11/14 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 2513 05/21/14 SCADA PROGRAMMING 5,600.00 5,600.00
2040424 06/04/14 15634 TERESA VELASCO Ref002434291 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000205087 92.88 92.88
2040425 06/04/14 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 050114053114 05/31/14 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (MAY 2014)25.76 25.76
2040492 06/11/14 15398 TIMMONS GROUP INC 160324 05/13/14 CONSULTANT SERVICES (THRU 4/30/14)43,421.24 43,421.24
2040383 05/28/14 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 420140486 05/01/14 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)355.50 355.50
2040384 05/28/14 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 104339510514 05/22/14 PREPAID POSTAGE MACHINE 6,000.00 6,000.00
2040493 06/11/14 07674 US BANK E000075 05/22/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY)250.00
E000074 05/22/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY)243.15
2040385 05/28/14 07674 US BANK SC42014 04/23/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY)565.62 565.62
2040546 06/18/14 07674 US BANK SC0514 05/22/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY)1,175.56 1,175.56
2040547 06/18/14 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 617140 05/31/14 ALARM RESPONSE (MAY 2014)417.30 417.30
2040386 05/28/14 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 581087 04/30/14 ALARM RESPONSE (APR 2014)702.65 702.65
2040426 06/04/14 15637 VALDEZ FAMILY SURVIVORS TRUST Ref002434294 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000206134 179.81 179.81
2040548 06/18/14 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2434534 06/19/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 12,441.63 12,441.63
2040427 06/04/14 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2434347 06/05/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 12,435.99 12,435.99
2040428 06/04/14 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2434349 06/05/14 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 2,615.85 2,615.85
2040549 06/18/14 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2434536 06/19/14 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 2,165.85 2,165.85
Page 12 of 12
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 5/22/2014 - 6/18/2014
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
2040429 06/04/14 12686 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2434355 06/05/14 401A TERMINAL PAY 913.65 913.65
2040550 06/18/14 03781 WATTON, MARK 050114053114 06/09/14 TRAVEL EXP / MILEAGE REIMB (MAY 2014)151.96 151.96
2040387 05/28/14 03781 WATTON, MARK 040114043014 05/22/14 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (APR 2014)182.00 182.00
2040494 06/11/14 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL 89359 05/16/14 BEE REMOVAL SERVICES 115.00 115.00
2040388 05/28/14 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL 88881 04/29/14 PEST CONTROL 200.00 200.00
2040430 06/04/14 15633 YUKO SELVERA Ref002434290 06/03/14 UB Refund Cst #0000204926 79.44 79.44
2040389 05/28/14 15567 ZETTA INC INV00011741 04/30/14 CLOUD SERVICES 24,999.00 24,999.00
Amount Pd Total:1,778,843.51
Check Grand Total:1,778,843.51