HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-13 Board Packet 1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
February 6, 2013
3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF NOVEM-
BER 28, 2012 AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2013
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST
IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
a) APPROVE AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH THE AUDITING FIRM OF
DIEHL, EVANS & COMPANY, LLP TO PROVIDE AUDIT SERVICES TO
THE DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013
b) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES, INC. FOR THE 803-3 AND 832-2 RESERVOIRS INTERI-
OR/EXTERIOR COATINGS AND UPGRADES PROJECT IN AN
AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $946,900
c) APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH HECTOR MARES COMMENCING
APRIL 1, 2013 FOR TWO YEARS (ENDING MARCH 31, 2015) FOR AN
2
ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $60,000 (TOTAL OF $120,000)
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ON BI-NATIONAL WATER MATTERS
FOR WORK RELATED TO THE OTAY MESA CONVEYANCE AND DIS-
INFECTION SYSTEM PROJECT
d) APPROVE TERMINATING WORK ON THE JOINT WATER AGENCIES
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/HABITAT CONSER-
VATION PLAN
ACTION ITEMS
7. BOARD
a) DISCUSSION OF 2013 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
8. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMA-
TIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING
AGENDA ITEMS:
a) INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE DISTRICT’S WATER AND SEWER
COST OF SERVICE STUDY (BELL)
b) INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE DISTRICT’S REFINANCING OF
THE 2004 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (KOEPPEN)
c) INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE DISTRICT’S COMPUTER SECU-
RITY STATUS (SEGURA)
d) INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON THE RANCHO DEL REY GROUNDWA-
TER WELL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MARCHIORO)
REPORTS
9. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
a) SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
10. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
11. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
3
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be
deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board.
The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the
District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered
at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website.
Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District
Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280.
If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to
participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at (619) 670-2280 at least
24 hours prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on February 1, 2013, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near
the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time be-
ing at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Gov-
ernment Code Section §54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley, California on February 1, 2013.
/s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary
1
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
November 28, 2012
1. The meeting was called to order by President Lopez at 3:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak and Thompson
Directors Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, General Counsel Daniel
Shinoff, Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens, Chief
Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Engineering Rod
Posada, Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, Chief of
Administration Rom Sarno, 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 President Lopez 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.
AGENDA ITEM 4
2
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
6. DISCUSSION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S PROPOSED
AGREEMENT WITH POSEIDON RESOURCE’S REGARDING THEIR CARLSBAD
DESALINATION PROJECT
General Manager Watton introduced Sandy Kerl, Deputy General Manager, and
Ken Weinberg, Water Resources Director, of San Diego County Water Authority
(CWA) who would be presenting a powerpoint concerning the Carlsbad
Desalination Project. Ms. Kerl thanked the board for the opportunity to attend the
District’s board meeting. She stated that they wished to present on the Water
Purchase Agreement (WPA) that is being proposed with Poseidon Resources. The
WPA will be presented to CWA’s board for action tomorrow (November 29). She
introduced Mr. Weinberg who would be providing the presentation.
Mr. Weinberg indicated that the first question he would like to answer is why CWA is
proposing the agreement. It is the same answer that many member agencies
answer when developing their local water supplies. He stated that there are
challenges in ensuring supply reliability to the region due to uncertainty in the
imported water supplies from the State Water Project in Northern California and the
Colorado River. Allocations are being reduced because of the Endangered Species
Act restrictions on the State Water Project and drought on the Colorado River.
Though demand has been low in the last few years, projected future demand
indicates that there will be an increase in demand for water due to growth and
climate change.
He noted that in the last ten (10) years, seven (7) years have been dry for the
Colorado River. He indicated that the allocation of the river water was done when
water was abundant. Today there is more competition for the water available from
the Colorado River.
He stated that the water from the State Water Project was reduced from 6 MAF
(million acre feet) annually to 4.7 MAF through a decision from the State Water
Board due to environmental concerns. Based on the future fish listings, if there is
not a fix for the Delta, the water exported will be reduced to about half or 2 to 3 MAF
annually which is not a sustainable level for Southern California. Further, if an
earthquake were to occur in California, the water exported would drop to 1 to 1.5
MAF and it would take 1½ to 3 years for the levies to be repaired. He stated that
the state’s water supply resources are very vulnerable.
Mr. Weinberg indicated that the answer for the water authority board is to diversify
its water portfolio to manage the risk of supply shortages. He reviewed the planned
supply portfolio by 2020 which includes reducing the region’s reliance on
Metropolitan Water District to just 30% rather than 70%. Other supplies include the
Imperial Irrigation water transfer (24% of region’s supply), All American & Coachella
3
Canal Lining (10%), conservation (13%), recycled water (6%), groundwater (4%),
local surface water (6%) and desalination (7%).
He reviewed the Carlsbad Desalination project and stated that it is expected to
produce 50 MGD through reverse osmosis and will be located at the Encina Power
Station. It is has been in development by a private company, Poseidon Resources,
for the last 10 years and CWA is proposing to take 56,000 AF annually from the
project. The water from the plant will be the most reliable portion of CWA’s portfolio
and also the most costly.
He stated that CWA’s 2003 Master Plan Program EIR identified the Carlsbad
Desalination Project as a water resource and it is also included in their 2005 and
2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as part of the region’s verifiable local
water supply. The project is fully permitted to commence construction and the initial
operations will utilize the power plant’s cooling water (ocean water) as a source to
cool the plant equipment. However, in 2017 to 2020, the Encina Power Plant will no
longer be able to use ocean water to cool its equipment and at that point the
desalination project will need to operate on a standalone basis which will require
upgrades to the ocean intake. This will add some additional operating costs.
Mr. Weinberg indicated that he is asked many times whether there is enough
demand for desalinated water in the future. With local agencies developing
additional local supplies, is there enough demand. He indicated that in reviewing
CWA’s Urban Water Management Plan, as we move forward to the future, the
region will have enough demand. The region is also still significantly reliant on
MWD for water supplies.
He stated that the Poseidon Project is basically the plant and the new conveyance
pipeline. CWA is responsible for the improvements to its system to take and
distribute the desalinated water. The parties to the agreement are Poseidon,
Kiewit-Shea Joint Venture (plant engineering procurement and construction
contractor) and IDE (process engineering and equipment; and they will also operate
the plant).
He noted that CWA prefers a Water Purchase Agreement over building and
operating the plant itself as it has no experience with desalination and there are
inherent risks which are beyond CWA’s experience. The risks transferred to
Poseidon are:
Construction and Operating Cost Overruns
Timely Project Completion
Regulatory and Law Compliance
Regulated or Differing Site Conditions
Capital Maintenance, Repair and Replacement
Labor Supply and Relations
4
The risks retained by CWA:
Changes in Law that Affect All Water Treatment Plant Operators or
Wastewater Dischargers
Cost of Encina Improvement Due to Expected Power Station Closure, Up to
$20 Million Capital and $2.5 Million Annual Operating Costs (a change in
law)
Uninsurable Force Majeure Events
Unusual Raw Seawater Water Parameters (no additional compensation)
Retained Risks are “Uncontrollable Circumstances”
Bond Financing Interest Rates
General Price Inflation (CPI is forecasted at approximately 2.5% per year
over the 30 year term)
General Electricity Rates
He noted that General Manager Watton has asked CWA to do a
number of analyses to determine the impact of general electricity rates
as electricity is approximately 25% of the cost of desalination, which is
significant. CWA indicated that they felt that the percentage of the
total cost from electricity does not cause a large impact to the cost of
desalination. The proportion of desalination to CWA’s total supply
portfolio is not large, so its impact to rates will be limited. He stated
that if electricity rates were really to increase, it would affect all water
supply resources (State Water Project, etc.).
The WPA provides for specific performance guarantees for water quality, minimum
annual water deliveries, and water ordering rights which allows CWA to adjust it
delivery orders based on seasonal and daily demand changes.
He stated the total cost of the project is $691 million for both plant and product
water pipeline and the financing costs is $213 million. The cost will be financed by
tax exempt bonds issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority
(82% or $740 million) and cash equity from Stonepeak Infrastructure (18% or $164
million).
It is estimated the operating and maintenance cost of the plant will be between
$48.8 and $53.1 million annually depending on how much CWA purchases from the
plant (48,000 AFY to 56,000 AFY). The cost per AF is between $1,876/AF if CWA
purchased 56,000 AFY and $2,097/AF if CWA purchased 48,000 AFY. He stated
that this is expensive, however, it is competitive and representative of what local
supplies cost in this region.
He stated that the infrastructure to accept desalinated water from the Carlsbad
Plant, Pipeline 3 and the Twin Oaks Valley WTP improvements, will cost
approximately $80 million. These improvements will add to the AF cost of
desalinated water approximately $153/AF (if CWA purchased 56,000 AFY) or
$179/AF (if CWA purchased 48,000 AFY). Additionally, administrative costs will
5
increase which will add another $12/AF (if CWA purchased 56,000 AFY) or $14/AF
(if CWA purchased 48,000 AFY) for a total AF cost of $2,041 or $2,290 respectively.
The estimated impact of CWA’s purchase of desalinated water to the retail water
rate is an average increase of approximately $5 to $7/month (or 7% to 10%
increase) if a customer used 15 units of water a month.
Mr. Weinberg indicated that they are currently discussing how the cost of the
purchase of desalinated water will be allocated. Nothing has yet been decided and
there will continue to be discussions on this issue going forward.
CWA’s board also provided the member agency’s the opportunity to purchase water
from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant through CWA. The water would be treated
similar to recycled or groundwater which would provide the agency additional
allocations during times of shortage under CWA’s drought allocation method.
These agencies will be required to pay for full cost recovery for the desalinated
water to move through CWA’s system. Vallecitos WD and the City of Carlsbad
have indicated their interest in purchasing 3500 AF and 2500 AF of desalinated
water respectively. Their commitment to purchase desalinated water reduces the
total project cost that would need to be recovered through CWA’s rates and charges
by approximately 10%.
Mr. Weinberg stated that the Carlsbad Desalination WPA will be presented to
CWA’s board for consideration tomorrow, November 29. Much of the required tasks
have been completed with the exception of the initiation of a Cost of Service Study
(COSS) to incorporate the cost of the desalinated water into CWA’s rate and charge
structure. CWA’s board will be asked to adopt a resolution approving the WPA,
pipeline design-build agreement, financing agreements, adjustments to CIP,
supporting contracts and contract amendments, CEQA addendum to Carlsbad
Desalination Project EIR and member agencies’ commitment to purchase a fixed
minimum purchase amount. Following CWA’s board action, CWA will refer the rate
structure alternatives to its cost of service consultant.
Chief of Engineering Rod Posada presented a slide showing the Carlsbad
Desalination Plant and the CWA project components (Pipeline 3 and the Twin Oaks
Valley WTP improvements). The desalinated water would provide for a new local
drought-proof water supply and improved water quality (lower TDS). The proposed
agreement is for 48,000 AFY with an option to take up to 56,000 AFY for 30 years.
There is an early buy-out provision in the agreement where CWA may exercise the
option to buy the desalination plant after the plant has been in operation for 10
years.
Staffs’ presentation is divided into five (5) aspects:
Power Cost
Water Requirement for Drought Proofing
6
CWA’s Risks Associated with the WPA
Financing True Costs
Projected Rate Impact on Otay’s Ratepayers
Electrical charges represent about 25% of the cost of desalinated water. The
capital charge is a little over 50% and operating charges represent about 25%.
Chief of Engineering Posada stated that any variation in the electricity charge will
have a great impact on cost. He presented a slide (see attached copy of
presentation) showing three scenarios for the future price for electricity for the
desalination project:
Low Growth Rate Increase of 1.2%
Middle Growth Rate Increase of 2%
High Growth Rate Increase of 2.4%
Staff disagrees with the factors that drive the low growth rate as the demand and
actual costs in the last several years has been determined by SDG&E’s rate which
has been going up. The actual increase since 2003 is 8.3%. The California Public
Utility Commission (CPUC) estimates that the rate increase for electricity is
approximately 4.1% over the next eight (8) years. The desalination plant is
expected to start operations in 2016. If the electricity rate increases by 2%, this
translates into a $50 cost increase per AF that will be transferred to ratepayers.
In early November, the Fallbrook Public Utility District (FPUD) prepared a
presentation that was sent to CWA and all the member agencies entitled, “The Cost
of Improving Regional Reliability through Desalination.” FPUD outlined three
scenarios:
No shortage
20% MWD shortage
20% MWD shortage plus penalty fees
Comparing the cost of imported water versus desalinated water, if the worst case
scenario were to occur, the cost of the purchase of 56,000 AF of desalinated water
would cost $114.4 million, whereas, imported water would cost $53.5 million, which
is less than half the cost of desalinated water. CWA claims that desalination is
required to assure reliability. However, the increase in reliability for the shortfall
between the two supply options is only 4,480 AF. The cost of this water for
reliability is very expensive at $13,582/AF.
He stated that CWA’s projection of water demand is based on their 2010 Urban
Water Management Plan and the 20% demand reduction requirement of SBX 7-7.
The calculation, however, does not include reduced water consumption realized
through conservation from 2009 to 2011 which is approximately 100,000 AF. The
demand for this past year is similar to 2011 consumption savings and if demand is
7
projected out based on current per capita use, the demand projection is much
lower.
CWA also has preferential rights of 220,000 AFY from MWD. With the decrease in
demand of approximately 100,000 AF due to conservation (decrease in per capita
use), the supply needed from MWD will be below the preferential rights level and,
thus, desalination is not necessary.
Staff reviewed the WPA and provided CWA a list of 140 comments/issues with
regard to the WPA. It is felt that CWA is taking on too much risk. The WPA
indicates that CWA will cover the costs associated with future changes in the law or
regulations. CWA must also pay up to $20 million for the change to the intake
system and $2.5 million for the operations of new and enhanced facilities. These
costs will impact rates. The WPA also provides for annual increases of 10% after
the desalination plant becomes operational.
Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem indicated that CWA does not include in their
estimated retail water rate impact increase of $5 to $7 the $20 million cost to
change the Carlsbad desalination plant’s intake system. He also noted that CWA is
deferring interest costs which presents a better financial picture than actual. CWA
is effectively deferring its debt payments and this initial deferral decreases the AF
cost of desalinated water by $352 in 2016. In later years (by 2046), CWA will be
paying an additional debt cost of $908/AF to compensate for the deferral of costs.
Otay does not defer costs and feels that it is more conservative and responsible to
have a level debt service. He presented a slide showing the cost difference for
deferring costs versus level debt service and there is a cost savings of over $300
million over the life of the WPA.
He presented a slide showing three different scenarios and the potential rate impact
of the desalinated water to Otay’s customers (see attached copy of presentation).
The scenarios are:
2% Electrical Inflator with Debt Deferred
4.1% Electrical Inflator with Level Debt Payments
Additional Intake Cost with 4.1% Electrical Inflator with Level Debt Payments
The impact to Otay’s customer based on the above scenarios is a monthly increase
of $8.66 to $16.09 for customers utilizing 14 units of water a month. Over a four
year period, the cumulative percentage rate increase would be up to 45.1%
General Manager Watton stated that he was not critical of the job Ms. Kerl has done
negotiating the WPA. CWA’s staff has looked at the project cost from many
different scenarios. The agencies may agree to disagree, but in the end, this is
really a business deal. There is a lot of disagreement and discussion regarding the
rate for the desalinated water.
8
He stated that it is very unorthodox to vote on a project without knowing what the
rates impact may be. He indicated that he expects there will be a lot of discussion
on how the rates will be determined at CWA’s board meeting tomorrow.
He indicated that CWA is very involved in the design, construction and the
maintenance of the desalination plant and this all comes at a cost and also transfers
risks to CWA. In a private development, generally the plant just delivers water to its
customer at a certain cost. The buyer is not involved in their plans, they just
purchase the water. Additionally, in the future it is very likely that Poseidon will be
facing renewals of some of their permits which will very likely change their cost
structure.
He stated that the Colorado River Supply is very reliable as California has the
highest priority right on the river water and the IID water transfer is the highest
within the California priority. He indicated that it is unlikely that the State of
California would get cut back from these supply resources.
General Manager Watton stated that he supports desalination and that the region
needs to develop a more robust portfolio of local supplies that relies less on
imported water. He indicated that he did not know, however, if this is the right
project based on the cost.
Director Croucher thanked CWA’s staff for attending the District’s meeting. He
stated, as a board member, he looks at the District’s customers and in providing
them quality, reliable and affordable water. He indicated that ratepayers are
fatigued with regard to cost increases and he is concerned that the COSS has not
yet been done. It is currently unknown how the cost of the desalinated water will be
allocated to the member agencies and, thus, it is uncertain if costs will be fairly
allocated among the agencies.
Director Robak thanked staff for their thorough business analysis of the Carlsbad
project. He stated, from a business perspective, he did not see how the project
would “pencil out.” The estimated rate of $2400 is much higher than was originally
anticipated. He stated that it seems everyone is fatigued in the industry in hearing
about the Poseidon Project. He indicated that it does not seem to matter what the
facts are about the project, the agencies just want to push the project through. He
stated this does not make for a good business decision.
Director Thompson indicated that he walked his division during his election
campaign and the message he received from his constituents is how the District can
keep water rates from going up higher than the rate of inflation. Customers felt if
the District could not do this, then it has fundamentally not served them properly.
The Carlsbad Desalination Project does not make sense financially and a COSS
has not yet been completed. He asked the District’s representatives to CWA to do
whatever it takes to get CWA to delay their decision on the WPA. He indicated that
9
this project will not keep rates down and, thus, we would not be serving our
ratepayers.
Director Gonzalez referenced a letter from one of the District’s ratepayer
complaining that their home was vacant for two (2) months, however, their water bill
was approximately $167 for the two (2) months that it was vacant. They indicated
that $15 of each bill was for actual water use and the remainder was for fixed fee
charges. He stated that he felt this is a prelude to what will happen when this WPA
is approved. He indicated that it seems the agencies are pushing for approval of
the WPA because they are tired of hearing about the Carlsbad Project and they
don’t really want to hear/talk about it further. He indicated that he felt we need to be
more conscious of our ratepayers and realize that it is not the time to approve the
WPA as all the cost information has not been finalized.
President Lopez indicated that the District had been trying to request information
concerning the project from CWA and the information was not received until two (2)
weeks before CWA’s board meeting. He stated that this was frustrating, as the
District, could not get the information needed to assist in evaluating the viability of
the Carlsbad Desalination Project. He stated the District is supportive of
desalination or any project that will augment the region’s water resources. He
indicated he appreciates the board members’ comments and as a representative of
the District’s customers he asks that the District’s representatives vote “no” on the
approval of the WPA.
General Manager Watton indicated that he supports the City of San Diego in
requesting that the rate be reviewed. He indicated that he does not agree with
everything the City has requested, but he felt that the rate should be reviewed by a
professional consultant to assure that the proposed rate structure is fair to all the
member agencies.
Director Croucher indicated CWA’s Administration and Finance Committee met on
Tuesday and the committee attendees all agreed that a COSS needs to be
completed and all aspects of the project must be reviewed.
Director Thompson indicated that he wished to understand why CWA is borrowing
on the future to fund this project. Ms. Kerl indicated that CWA has a very complex
debt portfolio. CWA looks at structuring in the manner that the assets are not used
within a short period of time (will be used over a long period of time) so there is a
benefit to looking at wrapping that debt and having it paid in different increments
over time. When you look at a portfolio such as CWA, you look at different tools in
terms of spacing the debt. She indicted she fully appreciates the District’s
perspective and comments on the issue, however, it is a policy decision for the
Board of Directors. She stated that she felt it was important for the District to know
that CWA has put in an expensive amount of due diligence and effort into this
project and CWA does not go into anything lightly. There is an extensive amount of
study and effort, and what this truly gets down to, “is it worth the price to get that
10
additional increment of reliability.” This is the bottom line policy decision for the
Board of Directors. She indicated that she wished to note that it is her
understanding that CWA moved forward with projects, including the overall Capital
Improvement Program, ESP, and QSA, with the COSS being completed following
approval of the projects. She stated CWA’s process has always been a very
thoughtful and involved when coming to a decision on how costs will be allocated
and CWA clearly knows what the costs are. She indicated if CWA’s board approves
the agreement and approves a COSS, there will be a workgroup set-up in which
every member agency will be a participant. She stated CWA’s process has always
been very iterative, and CWA has worked very hard to come to a consensus, which
has then been brought forward to the board for consideration. Ms. Kerl thanked the
board for the invite to attend the District’s board meeting and that she appreciated
their time. The board thanked Ms. Kerl and Mr. Weinberg for attending as well.
7. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board, President Lopez adjourned the
meeting at 5:30 p.m.
___________________________________
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
1
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT and OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION
January 8, 2013
1. The meeting was called to order by President Lopez at 2:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak, and Thompson
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Asst. General Manager
German Alvarez, General Counsel Jeff Morris, Chief
Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Engineering Rod
Posada, Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens,
Chief of Administration Rom Sarno, Chief of Water
Operations Pedro Porras and District Secretary Susan
Cruz and others per attached list.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. OATH OF OFFICE CEREMONY
Mexico Congressman and former Otay WD Director, Jaime Bonilla, administered
the Oath of Office to Director Jose Lopez. Mr. Isaiah Diamond administered the
Oath of Office to Director Mitchell Thompson. District Secretary Susan Cruz
administered the Oath of Office to Director Mark Robak. The three directors
were elected in the November 2012 elections to the District’s Divisions 4, 2 and 5
seats respectively.
5. PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION PLAQUE TO BOARD PRESIDENT
Vice President Gonzalez presented a recognition plaque from the Board of
Directors to Board President Lopez and thanked him for his leadership and
service during the past year. President Lopez thanked Vice President Gonzalez
and the Board for their support and stated that he is honored to be part of the
Board of Directors.
6. RECESS FOR RECEPTION AND RECONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING
The board recessed for a reception at 2:38 p.m. and reconvened the board
meeting at 3:05 p.m.
7. ELECTION OF BOARD PRESIDENT
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Gonzalez and
carried with the following vote:
AGENDA ITEM 4
2
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak, and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to re-elect Director Lopez as President.
8. ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Gonzalez and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak, and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to elect Director Thompson as Vice President.
9. ELECTION OF BOARD TREASURER
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 elect Director Gonzalez as Treasurer.
10. 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.
11. 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.
3
12. RECESS OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING AND CONVENE A
MEETING OF THE OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION
The Otay Water District board meeting was recessed at 3:10 p.m. and a meeting
of the Otay Service Corporation board was convened.
13. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak and Thompson
14. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT AND
TREASURER
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Gonzalez and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak, and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to elect Director Lopez as President, Director Thompson as Vice President and
Director Gonzalez as Treasurer.
15. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER AND SECRETARY
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 elect General Manager Watton as Executive Director, Joe Beachem as Chief
Financial Officer and District Secretary Susan Cruz as Secretary.
16. ADJOURN OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING AND
CONVENE THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD
MEETING
President Lopez adjourned the Otay Service Corporation board meeting at
3:12 p.m. and convened the Otay Water District Financing Authority board
meeting.
17. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak and Thompson
4
18. RE-AFFIRM OFFICERS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING
AUTHORITY
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 elect Director Lopez as President, Director Thompson as Vice-President,
General Manager Watton as Executive Director, Joe Beachem as
Treasurer/Auditor, and District Secretary Susan Cruz as Secretary.
19. ADJOURN OTAY DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING AND
CONVENE THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
President Lopez adjourned the Otay District Financing Authority board meeting at
3:14 p.m. and reconvened the Otay Water District board meeting.
20. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 9,
2012 AND NOVEMBER 7, 2012
A motion was made by Director Gonzalez, 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 minutes of the regular board meetings of October 9, 2012 and
November 7, 2012.
CONSENT CALENDAR
21. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST
IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
Director Robak pulled Item 24b, APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO THE
EXISTING CONTRACT WITH GARCIA JUAREZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $22,460 FOR THE CALAVO GARDENS SEWER
REHABILITATION PROJECT, for discussion.
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Gonzalez and
carried with the following vote:
5
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak, and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to approve the remaining consent calendar items:
a) APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO HAAKER
EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $366,118.33 FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE (1) NEW VACTOR MODEL 2110 PLUS JET
RODDER
c) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BASILE CONSTRUCTION,
INC. FOR THE 12-INCH POTABLE WATER PIPELINE IN ORANGE
AVENUE, I-805 CROSSING IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED
$872,000
President Lopez presented Item 24b for discussion:
b) APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT
WITH GARCIA JUAREZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$22,460 FOR THE CALAVO GARDENS SEWER REHABILITATION
PROJECT
Director Robak inquired about an incident at the project site and asked who
oversees the project. General Manager Watton indicated that Engineering
Manager Dan Martin is in charge of overseeing the project and invited him to the
podium to provide an update report to the board.
Engineering Manager Martin reported that an incident at the project site had
occurred on January 7, 2013. He stated that due to the rain, the trenches at the
project site needed to be cleaned to prepare them for sewer pipeline work. As
the contractor was cleaning the site, an SDG&E power line was struck which
resulted in a power outage that affected approximately 150 residents. Mr. Martin
indicated that District staff and the contractor worked closely with SDG&E to help
expedite the restoration of power to these residents.
Mr. Martin provided details of Change Order No. 2 that included a variety of
added and deleted items related to a storm drain conflict that required the re-
routing and redesign of the sewer main. He indicated that the project is
approximately 60% complete and that staff is satisfied with the work that Garcia
Juarez Construction, Inc. provides to the District.
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
Noes: None
6
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to approve staffs’ recommendation.
ACTION ITEMS
22. BOARD
a) APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT’S
GENERAL MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH NO
CHANGES IN COMPENSATION
It was indicated that General Manager Watton’s performance evaluation was
completed by an ad hoc committee consisting of President Lopez and Director
Croucher. The Committee recommended the approval of extending Mr. Watton’s
contract to July 1, 2016.
In response to a question from Director Croucher, General Manager Watton
stated that the contract was more restrictive and includes an amendment to
ensure its compliance with the severance provision of Government Code Section
53260:
“Severance compensation equal to 12 months of the annual salary
then in effect will be paid by District in same manner as if Watton
was still employed by District, provided that, if the remaining term
of Watton’s Contract is less than 12 months, the maximum severance
compensation that Watton may receive shall be an amount equal
to Watton’s monthly salary multiplied by the number of months left
on the unexpired term of the Contract.”
In response to a inquiry from Director Robak, Attorney Jeff Morris indicated that
the existing contract was updated to become compliant to new Government
Code section 53260. He explained that previously, as the severance provision
was written, it allowed the General Manager to receive a 12 month severance
pay although there was less than 12 months left on the contract. As per the new
Government Code, if the contract is less than 12 months, the severance would
only be equal to the remaining term of the contract. Attorney Morris also
indicated that the maximum extension of a General Manager’s contract is 4
years. The Otay Water District is extending Mr. Watton’s contract for only 2
years (July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2016).
President Lopez indicated that after performing Mr. Watton’s evaluation and
considering all of his accomplishments and well-established relationship with the
board, it gave the Committee an opportunity to extend his contract and stay
within the District’s normal 3-year term. President Lopez stated that he is
pleased with the Committee’s recommendation.
7
Director Thompson stated that he is in agreement with the Committee’s
recommendation and is very pleased with General Manager Watton’s
performance. He indicated that he understands the possibility that General
Manager Watton may leave early, but believes he will continue his dedicated
services to the District through his contract term given the amount of time he has
vested, stability he has provided, his past performance and strong leadership.
Director Thompson believes the Committee’s action to extend General Manager
Watton’s contract is a good statement as it demonstrates the District’s support for
him as he continues to lead one of the strongest water agencies in the County.
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Gonzalez, and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak, and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to approve amendments to the District’s General Manager’s Employment
Contract with no changes in compensation.
b) DISCUSSION OF 2013 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
President Lopez requested that the 2013 Board Meeting Calendar be updated to
reflect that the regular board meeting scheduled for January 2 was rescheduled
to January 8.
A motion was made by Director Gonzalez, seconded by Director Croucher, and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez, Robak, and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to approve the 2013 board meeting calendar with the new date of the January
board meeting (January 8).
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
23. THESE ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING
AGENDA ITEMS.
a) REPORT ON DIRECTOR’S EXPENSES FOR THE 1st QUARTER OF
FISCAL YEAR 2013
The board waived presentation and recommended that the report be received
and filed.
8
b) INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE DISTRICT’S WATER AND SEWER
RATE STUDY
Finance Manager Rita Bell indicated that the District is currently performing its
rate study. Mses. Bell and Karyn Keese from Atkins Global, the District’s
consultant for the Water and Sewer Rate Study, provided a PowerPoint
presentation to the board members. Please reference the Committee Action
notes (Attachment A) attached to staffs’ report for the details of their
presentation.
Director Robak suggested that the District’s customers should be involved with
the District’s water and sewer rate study process and be able to provide
feedback and suggestions to the District.
Ms. Keese thanked the board for providing Atkins Global the opportunity to work
with District staff to create a rate structure that is in line with the District’s policies.
c) INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE ROSARITO DESALINATION
PLANT AND THE OTAY MESA CONVEYANCE AND DISINFECTION
SYSTEM PROJECTS
Senior Civil Engineer Bob Kennedy updated the board on the Rosarito
Desalination Plant and the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System
Projects. Please reference the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) attached
to staffs’ report for the details of his presentation.
General Manager Mark Watton stated that there is a misconception that it’s easy
to get permits in Mexico, but in reality Mexico has a very complex permitting
process similar to the United States. He indicated that there is a need to educate
the public that permitting in Mexico is just as rigorous as it is in the United States.
He indicated that on behalf of the District, he had signed a non-binding Letter of
Intent (LOI) with NSC Agua to negotiate a Water Purchase Agreement for the
purchase of desalinated water produced from the Rosarito Desalination facility.
Mr. Watton stated that next month staff also plans to visit the pilot-plant which is
currently in operation. He discussed Minute Order No. 319 which he believes is
the most important minutes signed since the 1944 Treaty; it provides for shortage
and surplus sharing, and storage in Lake Mead between the United States and
Mexico. Mr. Watton indicated that the Project requires environmental work that
needs to be completed and a spring survey. It was noted that if the survey is not
submitted on time, it could be delayed another year. He also indicated that there
will be at-risk money as consultants and environmentalists work parallel to each
other to increase efficiency. Mr. Watton shared that the wholesale cost for
Mexico to bring Colorado River water into its country is the same as the United
States cost. He also shared that staff met with the California Department of
Health to discuss the project and they are supportive of the desalination project.
He stated that they seemed a little apprehensive because they have never dealt
with a project similar to this. Mr. Watton indicated that the Otay Water District will
9
have to be cautious when approaching regulatory agencies and will have to
provide some of the guidance to get through the issues.
Director Croucher stated that within the process of completing the projects, he
felt that it was important to keep in mind the cost, reliability and quality of the
water supply. He voiced his concerns with CWA’s project in that the cost of the
Carlsbad Desalination Project has not yet been laid out. He stated that the
Rosarito Desalination Project would benefit the District and the region and would
assure that a reliable source of water is available for customers.
Director Thompson indicated some of his concerns with the uncertainty of costs
associated with the Project’s water purchase agreement, share of risks, and lock-
in with construction contracts, etc. General Manager Mark Watton indicated that
the District’s plan is to purchase water at the border only. The District will not be
involved with the construction of the project or any overruns. However, the
District will have to consider pass-thru costs that include power, operation and
maintenance of the plant. Financing is another factor to consider. Mr. Watton
believes that District staff, however, has a good understanding of these risk
factors and has confidence in the project.
Director Robak thanked Director Croucher and General Manager Watton for
representing the District’s opposition of the CWA Desalination Project. He also
thanked staff for a very detailed presentation.
In response to several questions from Director Robak, General Manager Watton
indicated that a Groundbreaking Event for the Rosarito Desalination Plant may
be held sometime in late February 2013. He also responded that the alignment
of the Project has not been finalized at this time because there are other
alignments being considered. He stated that the current estimated cost of the
Project might increase because there may be a requirement to perform ultraviolet
filtration. Conversely, there might not be a significant amount of increase
because the District may not need to do full filtration and the Project might not
need a pump station if the water can be gravity fed.
President Lopez believes the Project is ready and the District should start
marketing it to the public.
Director Croucher stated that staff should consider other opportunities for the
District, such as recycled water agreements and partnering with other agencies
who can connect to the District’s water supply.
In response to a question from Director Robak, General Manager Watton stated
that the Presidential Permit is handled through the State Department and
Mexico’s State Department. It is not exotic, but must be precise and have all
filings completed. There are many agencies to coordinate with to get this type of
permit, including the Bureau of Reclamation, IBWC, and other State
Departments. Mr. Watton indicated that Ms. Barbara Bartholomew has
completed Presidential Permits and is assisting the District with this matter. In
response to another inquiry from Director Robak regarding Minute Order No.
10
319, Mr. Watton stated that the minute identifies a desalination component where
the language is open to allow for a private project. CILA, who is the Mexican
counterpart for IBWC, approves those minutes through an intricate administrative
process.
Director Thompson stated that he expects District staff to conduct many
workshops to fully educate the board about the projects. He indicated that he
wants a clear understanding of what he and the board will be voting for and he
wishes to ensure that the public understands that the District knows what it is
doing. General Manager Watton indicated that the board definitely needs to be
engaged with these projects. He also stated that the District’s public
relations/focus groups are already marketing these projects to the public.
d) INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE USE OF AS-NEEDED
SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE DELIVERY OF THE DISTRICT’S
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Engineering Manager Dan Martin provided a report on the use of As-Needed
Services to support the delivery of the District’s Capital Improvement Program.
Please reference the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) attached to staffs’
report for the details of his report.
Director Robak commended staff on their report. He indicated that he likes the
approach, in terms of private sector paradigm, that the District is taking to
increase efficiency. He stated that it is important to keep in mind that it is the
public’s money that the District is spending.
e) STATUS REPORT ON THE FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2013
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The board waived presentation and recommended that the report be received
and filed.
REPORTS
24. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
General Manager Watton reviewed the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)
handouts that were provided to the board and discussed some concerns about
Bay Delta matters. He indicated that legislators are in conflict with each other
about the BDCP, which could lead to disaster. Mr. Watton suggested that the
District should place itself in a leadership role and sign the BDCP Conceptual
Alternative letter along with other water agencies.
He presented his report which included the status of the District’s Rate Increase
Notice, the possibility of water conservation signs being installed at Knott’s Soak
City, MasterLinx Meter Reading Upgrade, the 30-Inch 980 Zone Hunte Parkway
– Proctor Valley/Use Area Project, and the Avocado, Louisa, Calavo, Challenge,
Hidden Mesa Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project.
11
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE:
General Manager Watton indicated that the CWA committee appointments have
been made and he and Director Croucher will continue to hold vice-
chairmanships. He also indicated that he has been assigned as Chair of the
Litigation Committee and will be involved with the Metropolitan lawsuit and QSA
matters. He stated that CWA’s vice-chairman seat has become vacant as Mr.
Richard Smith from the Helix Water District was not re-elected to his seat. CWA
is accepting nominations for the seat and will soon be filling the vacancy.
25. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
Director Robak indicated that he had attended the ACWA Conference held in
early December 2012.
26. PRESIDENT’S REPORT
President Lopez reported on meetings he attended during the month of
December 2012 (a list of meetings he attended is attached).
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
27. CLOSED SESSION
The board recessed to closed session at 5:12 p.m. to discuss the following
matters:
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS [GOVERNMENT CODE
§54957.6]
AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: MARK WATTON, GENERAL
MANAGER, AND GERMAN ALVAREZ,
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: OTAY WATER DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION
AND
ALL REPRESENTED AND UNREPRESENTED PERSONNEL
INCLUDING MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS [GOVERNMENT CODE
§54957.6]
AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: DIRECTORS JOSE LOPEZ AND GARY
CROUCHER
12
WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER’S CONTRACT
c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9]
1 CASE
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
28. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD
MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
The board reconvened at 5:40 p.m. and Attorney Morris indicated that no
reportable actions were taken in closed session for both Conference with Labor
Negotiators (Items 30a and 30b).
Attorney Morris indicated that the board did take action on item 30c, Anticipated
Litigation. The board considered a claim that was submitted by Mr. Larry A. Le
Feuvre and a motion was made by Director Robak, seconded by Director
Thompson, and carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Lopez, Thompson, Gonzalez, Croucher and Robak
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to reject the claim submitted by Mr. Le Feuvre.
29. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4207 TO EXTEND THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION AND APPROVE THE
SAME PROVISIONS FOR MANAGEMENT, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYEES
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Gonzalez, and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Lopez, Thompson, Gonzalez, Croucher and Robak
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to adopt Resolution No. 4207 to extend the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Otay Water District and the Otay Water District Employees’
Association and approve the same provisions for management, confidential, and
executive employees.
30. ADJOURNMENT
13
With no further business to come before the Board, President Bonilla adjourned
the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
___________________________________
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
14
President’s Report
January 8, 2013 Board Meeting
A) Meetings attended during the Month of November 2012:
1) November 7: Attended the District’s Regular Board Meeting
2) November 13:
a) Attended a meeting of the Desalination Project
Committee. Reviewed, discussed and made recommendation
on the Rosarito Desalination Project.
b) Attended a meeting of the Ad Hoc Employee Negotiations
Committee. Reviewed, discussed and made recommendation
on Employee MOU matters.
3) November 20: Attended the signing ceremony for Minutes 319
at a ceremony held in San Diego at the Hotel Del Coronado.
Attendees: Mark Watton.
4) November 26: Attended the Ad Hoc Employee Negotiations
Committee. Reviewed, discussed and made recommendation on
the Employee MOU matters.
5) November 28:
a) Committee Agenda Briefing. Met with General Manager
Watton to review items that will be presented at the
December Committee meetings.
b) Attended the District’s Special Board Meeting.
Discussed CWA’s proposed Water Service Agreement with
Poseidon Resources.
B) Meetings attended during the Month of December 2012:
1) December 4: Attended a meeting of the Finance,
Administration and Communications Committee.
2) December 6 to 7: Attended the ACWA Fall Conference held in
San Diego at the Manchester Grand Hyatt.
3) December 12: Attended the Water Conservation Garden Board
Meeting (copy of agenda attached).
4) December 19: Attended a meeting of the Desalination Project
Committee. Reviewed, discussed and made recommendation on
the Rosarito Desalination Project.
15
C) Meetings attended during the Month of January 2013:
1) January 4: Board Agenda Briefing. Met with General Manager
Watton and Attorney Jeff Morris to review items that will
be presented at the January Board meeting.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Kevin Koeppen, Finance Manager
PROJECT: DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY:
Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Appointment of Auditor for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2013
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the General Manager to sign the engagement
letters from the auditing firm of White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP, to
contract for audit services for the 2013 Fiscal Year. The FY-2013 audit
is the last year under the 5-year agreement with White Nelson Diehl
Evans LLP.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
The District is required to retain the services of an independent
accounting firm to perform an audit of the District’s financial records
each year.
ANALYSIS:
At the Board meeting on March 9, 2009, the Board approved Diehl, Evans
& Company, LLP as the District’s auditors for a 1-year contract, with
four (4) 1-year options, with each option year subject to Board review
and approval. The Board subsequently approved contract options in
March 2010, February 2011, and March 2012 to perform the respective FY-
2010, FY-2011 and FY-2012 audits. In October 2011, Diel, Evans &
Company, LLP merged with the accounting firm White, Nelson & Co., and
now operates under the name White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP.
AGENDA ITEM 6a
2
Staff is recommending the appointment of White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP
as the District’s auditors for FY-2013, in conjunction with the fourth
1-year contract option. This is based on their staff’s knowledge of
the District’s operations and finances, their technical qualifications,
and their performance as the District’s auditors during the FY-2009
through FY-2012 audits. Also, at the conclusion of these audits, the
White Nelson Diehl Evans staff provided significant advice and review
of staff’s draft Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) prior to
submission to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for
award consideration.
The following is a tentative planning schedule for the major activities
involved in completing the FY-2012 financial audit:
Apr-2012: Pre-audit (3–4 days)
Aug-2012: Year-end audit (4–5 days)
Nov-2012: Board presentation of audited financials
Dec-2012: Completed CAFR
The audit will consist of four major components: 1) Standard Audit
Services, to provide an audit opinion on the District’s financial
statements; 2) Review of the District’s Investment Policy procedures;
3) A State Controllers Report, required by the State of California; and
4) Assistance in preparation of the District’s CAFR.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fee for auditing services for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2013,
will not exceed $35,000. This is an increase of $1,000 over last
year’s fee, and is the second fee increase since the inception of the
contract in 2009.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The District ensures its continued financial health through long-term
financial planning, formalized financial policies, enhanced budget
controls, fair pricing, debt planning, and improved financial
reporting.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Required by law.
Attachments: Attachment A - Committee Action Form
Attachment B - White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP Audit
Engagement Letter
Attachment C - White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP State
Controllers Report Engagement Letter
Attachment D - White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP Agreed Upon
Procedures Engagement Letter
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Appointment of Auditor for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2013
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee reviewed this
item at a meeting held on January 22, 2013 and the following comments
were made:
Staff is requesting that the board approve the engagement of
White Nelson Diehl Evans, LLP (WNDE) to perform the District’s
Fiscal Year 2013 (FY 2013) audit.
WNDE’s performance of the FY 2013 audit will be the last year
under their five (5) year agreement with the District. Next year
the District will be bidding out audit services.
Staff is recommending WNDE based on their knowledge of the
District’s operations, their technical qualifications, and their
past performance. WNDE has also provided significant advice on
the District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
WNDE’s fee to perform the audit services for FY 2013 will not
exceed $35,000. This is an increase of $1,000 over last year’s
fee and is the second fee increase since the inception of the
contract in 2009.
In response to an inquiry from the committee, staff indicated
that the original contract amount was $33,000 in 2009. The
increase is approximately 1.5% annually since 2009. The District
did not request that WNDE perform any additional services. The
increase is purely a Cost of Living increase.
The committee observed that by utilizing the same auditor, it
saves staff time as the auditor is already familiar with the
District and its operations. Staff does not need to spend much
time providing the auditor background information, etc. They
would only require information pertinent to FY 2013.
Following the discussion, the Finance, Administration and
Communications Committee supported presentation to the full board as a
consent item.
- 1 -
2965 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • Tel: 760.729.2343 • Fax: 760.729.2234
Offices located in Orange and San Diego Counties
January 15, 2013
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem
Chief Financial Officer
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
Dear Mr. Beachem:
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide Otay Water District (the District)
for the year ending June 30, 2013. We will audit the financial statements of Otay Water District as of and for the
year ending June 30, 2013. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America provide for
certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A), to
supplement Otay Water District’s basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic
financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an
essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational,
economic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the Otay
Water District’s RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America.
These limited procedures will consist of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the
information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the
basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements.
We will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do
not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. The following RSI is
required by generally accepted principles and will be subjected to certain procedures, but will not be audited:
1. Management’s Discussion and Analysis
2. Schedule of Funding Progress for PERS
3. Schedule of Funding Progress for DPHP
If a Single Audit is required, supplementary information other than RSI also would accompany Otay Water
District’s financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing
procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including
comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to
prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and will provide an
opinion on it in relation to the financial statements as a whole:
1. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 2
The following other information accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements, and for which our auditor’s report will not provide an
opinion or any assurance.
1. Introductory Section
2. Statistical Section
Audit Objective
The objective of our audit is the expression of an opinion as to whether your basic financial statements are fairly
presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America and to report on the fairness of the supplemental information referred to in the second
paragraph when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Our audit will be
conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and will
include tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such
an opinion. If our opinion on the financial statements is other than unqualified, we will discuss the reasons with
you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to express an opinion, we
may decline to express an opinion or may not issue a report as a result of this engagement.
If the District is subject to a Single Audit the objective of our audit also includes reporting on:
Internal control related to the financial statements and compliance with laws, regulations, and the
provisions of contracts or grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on
the financial statements in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
Internal control related to major programs and an opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) on compliance with
laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a direct and
material effect on each major program in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996
and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.
The reports on internal control and compliance will each include a statement that the report is intended solely for
the information and use of management, the body or individuals charged with governance, others within the
District, specific legislative or regulatory bodies, federal awarding agencies, and if applicable, pass-through
entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
If the District is subject to a Single Audit, our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards for financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Single Audit Act Amendments
of 1996; and the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, and will include tests of accounting records, a
determination of major program(s) in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, and other procedures we consider
necessary to enable us to express such opinions and to render the required reports. If our opinions on the
financial statements or the Single Audit compliance opinions are other than unqualified, we will discuss the
reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or
have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or to issue a report as a result of this engagement.
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 3
Management Responsibilities
Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as well as all representations contained therein. If the District is subject to a Single Audit, management is also responsible for
identifying government award programs and understanding and complying with the compliance requirements, and for preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with the requirements of
OMB Circular A-133. As part of the audit, we will assist with preparation of your financial statements and related notes. You are responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management
functions relating to the financial statements and related notes and for accepting full responsibility for such decisions. You will be required to acknowledge in the management representation letter our assistance with
preparation of the financial statements and that you have reviewed and approved the financial statements and related notes prior to their issuance and have accepted responsibility for them. Further, you are required to
designate an individual with suitable skill, knowledge, or experience to oversee our assistance with the preparation of your financial statements and related notes and any nonaudit services we provide and for
evaluating the adequacy and results of those services and accepting responsibility for them.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, including internal controls over compliance, and for evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities, to help ensure that appropriate
goals and objectives are met and that there is reasonable assurance that government programs are administered in compliance with compliance requirements. You are also responsible for the selection and application of
accounting principles; for the fair presentation in the financial statements of the financial position of the Otay Water District and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows in conformity
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; and for compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements.
Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us and for
ensuring that management and financial information is reliable and properly recorded. You are also responsible for providing us with (1) access to all information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation ond
fair presentation of the financial statements, (2) additional information that we may request for the purpose of the audit, and (3) unrestricted access to persons within the District from whom we determine it necessary to
obtain audit evidence.
Your responsibilities also include identifying significant vendor relationships in which the vendor has responsibility for program compliance and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. Your
responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and confirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current
engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.
You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and
for informing us about all known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the government involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud or
illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the government received in
communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the District complies with applicable laws, regulations, contracts,
agreements, and grants. Additionally, is a Single Audit is required, as required by OMB Circular A-133, it is management’s responsibility to follow up and take corrective action on reported audit findings and to prepare a
summary schedule of prior audit findings and a corrective action plan.
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 4
Management Responsibilities (continued)
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit findings
and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying for us previous financial audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies related to the objectives discussed in the Audit
Objectives section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits, attestation engagements, performance
audits, or studies. You are also responsible for providing management’s views on our current findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions, for the report, and for the timing
and format for providing that information.
Audit Procedures - General
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the
areas to be tested. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the
reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
presentation of the financial statements. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than
absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from (1)
errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or
governmental regulations that are attributable to the District or to acts by management or employees acting on
behalf of the District. Because the determination of abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not
expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting abuse.
Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, combined with the inherent limitations of internal control, and
because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements
or noncompliance may exist and not be detected by us, even though the audit is properly planned and performed
in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards (if
applicable). In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or
governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements or major
programs. However, we will inform you of any material errors and any fraudulent financial reporting or
misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform you of any violations of laws or
governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential, and of any material abuse
that comes to our attention. We will include such matters in the reports required for a Single Audit (if required).
Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later
periods for which we are not engaged as auditors.
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts,
and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain
other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, creditors, and financial
institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they
may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will require certain written
representations from you about the financial statements and related matters.
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 5
Audit Procedures - Internal Controls
Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the District and its environment, including internal control,
sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature,
timing, and extent of further audit procedures. Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of
certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that are material to the
financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal acts and other
noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our tests, if performed,
will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control and, accordingly, no
opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
If a Single Audit is required, as required by OMB Circular A-133, we will perform tests of controls over
compliance to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to
preventing or detecting material noncompliance with compliance requirements applicable to each major federal
award program. However, our tests will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on those
controls and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to
OMB Circular A-133.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit findings
and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying for us previous financial audits,
attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies related to the objectives discussed in the Audit
Objectives section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us corrective actions taken to address
significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits, attestation engagements, performance
audits, or studies. You are also responsible for providing management’s views on our current findings,
conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions, for the report, and for the timing
and format for providing that information.
An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify significant deficiencies.
However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal
control related matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards, Government
Auditing Standards, and OMB Circular A-133.
Audit Procedures - Compliance
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement, we will perform tests of the District’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the
provisions of contracts and agreements, including grant agreements. However, the objective of those procedures
will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion in our report on
compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
OMB Circular A-133 requires that we also plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the auditee has complied with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant
agreements applicable to major programs. Our procedures will consist of tests of transactions and other
applicable procedures described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement and related addenda for
the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of the District’s major
programs. The purpose of these procedures will be to express an opinion on the District’s compliance with
requirements applicable to each of its major programs in our report on compliance issued pursuant to
OMB Circular A-133.
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 6
Audit Administration Fees, and Other
Noted below is a listing of work required by District staff to assist in the audit.
1. Preparation of trial balances for all funds, after posting of all year end journal entries.
2. Preparation of schedules supporting all major balance sheet accounts, and selected revenue and expense
accounts.
3. Typing of all confirmation requests.
4. Pulling and refiling of all supporting documents required for audit verification.
5. Preparation of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis.
The workpapers for this engagement are the property of White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP and constitute
confidential information. However, we may be requested to make certain workpapers available to grantor
agencies pursuant to authority given to it by law or regulation. If requested, access to such workpapers will be
provided under the supervision of our personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide photocopies of
selected workpapers to the grantor agencies. The grantor agencies may intend, or decide, to distribute the
photocopies or information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies.
In accordance with our firm’s current record retention policy, all of your original records will be returned to you
at the conclusion of this engagement. Our accounting workpaper files will be kept for a period of seven years.
All other files will be kept for as long as you retain us as your accountants. However, upon termination of our
service, all records will be destroyed after a period of seven years. Physical deterioration or catastrophic events
may further shorten the life of these records. The working papers and files of our firm are not a substitute for
your original records.
We expect to begin our audit on approximately August 1, 2013 and to issue our reports no later than
October 31, 2013. Nitin Patel is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and
signing the report or authorizing another individual to sign them. Our fee for these services will be at our
standard hourly rates plus out-of-pocket costs (such as report reproduction, word processing, postage, travel,
copies, telephone, etc.) except that we agree that our gross fee, including expenses, for the year ending
June 30, 2013 will not exceed $35,000. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility
involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be
rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. In accordance with our firm policies,
work may be suspended if your account becomes 60 days or more overdue and may not be resumed until your
account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to
have been completed upon written notification of termination, even if we have not completed our report. You
will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out-of-pocket costs through
the date of termination. The above fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the
assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If significant additional
time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional
costs.
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 7
Government Auditing Standards require that we provide you with a copy of our most recent external peer review
report and any letter of comment, and any subsequent peer review reports and letters of comment received
during the period of the contract. Our peer review reports accompany this letter.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Otay Water District and believe this letter accurately
summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree
with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us.
Very truly yours,
Nitin P. Patel, CPA
Engagement Partner
RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the Otay Water District
By:
Title:
Date:
-1-
2965 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • Tel: 760.729.2343 • Fax: 760.729.2234
Offices located in Orange and San Diego Counties
January 15, 2013
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem
Chief Financial Officer
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
Dear Mr. Beachem:
This letter is to confirm our understanding of the terms and objectives of our engagement and the
nature and limitations of the services that we will provide.
We will compile and provide the Special Districts Financial Transaction Report and Supplement to the
Annual Report of the Otay Water District (District) for the year ending June 30, 2013 to be included in
the form prescribed by the California State Controller’s Office. Our report is presently expected to
read:
“We have compiled the accompanying Annual Report of Financial Transactions of Otay
Water District for the year ending June 30, 2013, included in the accompanying prescribed
form and as filed electronically with the California State Controller's Office, in accordance
with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
Our compilation was limited to presenting in the form prescribed by the California State
Controller information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or
reviewed the financial statements referred to above and, accordingly, do not express an
opinion or any other form of assurance on them.
These financial statements are presented in accordance with the requirements of the State
Controller of California, which differ from generally accepted accounting principles. These
financial statements omit substantially all of the disclosures required by generally accepted
accounting principles. If the omitted disclosures were included in the financial statements,
they might influence the user's conclusions about the District's financial position and results
of operations. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not
informed about such matters.”
Our fee to prepare the report is included in the $35,000 maximum fee quoted in the engagement letter
to conduct the June 30, 2013 financial audit of the District dated January 15, 2013. This fee
contemplates that conditions satisfactory to the normal progress and completion of the Report will be
encountered and that the District personnel will furnish assistance in connection with the Report
preparation.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Otay Water District and believe this letter
accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let
us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the
enclosed copy and return it to us.
Very truly yours,
Nitin P. Patel, CPA
Engagement Partner
RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding
of the Otay Water District.
By
Title
Date
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
January 15, 2013
Otay Water District
Page 2
-1-
2965 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • Tel: 760.729.2343 • Fax: 760.729.2234
Offices located in Orange and San Diego Counties
January 15, 2013
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem
Chief Financial Officer
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
Dear Mr. Beachem:
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the nature and limitations of the services we are to
provide for the Otay Water District.
We will apply the agreed-upon procedures which the District’s senior management has specified, listed
in Attachment A solely to assist the District’s senior management in evaluating the investments of the
District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. Our engagement to apply agreed-upon procedures
will be conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of the procedures is solely the responsibility of those
parties specified in the report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of
the procedures described in the attached schedule either for the purpose for which this report has been
requested or for any other purpose. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the procedures, we
will describe any restrictions on the performance of the procedures in our report, or will not issue a
report as a result of this engagement.
Because the agreed-upon procedures listed in the attached schedule do not constitute an examination,
we will not express an opinion on the evaluation of the investments of the District. In addition, we
have no obligation to perform any procedures beyond those listed in Attachment A.
We will submit a report listing the procedures performed and our findings. This report is intended
solely for the use of District senior management, and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties. Our report will contain a paragraph indicating that had we performed additional
procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.
You are responsible for the presentation of the evaluation of the investments of the District; and for
selecting the criteria and determining that such criteria are appropriate for your purposes. You are also
responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management functions; and for
evaluating the adequacy and results of those services and accepting responsibility for them.
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 2
Nitin P. Patel, CPA is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and
signing the report or authorizing another individual to sign it.
We plan to begin our procedures on approximately August 1, 2013 and, unless unforeseeable problems
are encountered, the engagement should be completed by October 31, 2013. At the conclusion of our
engagement, we will require a representation letter from management that, among other things, will
confirm management's responsibility for the presentation of the evaluation of the investment of the
District.
Our fee to prepare the report is included in the $35,000 maximum fee quoted in the engagement letter
to conduct the June 30, 2013 financial audit of the District dated January 15, 2013. If significant
additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we
incur the additional costs. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses
and are payable on presentation.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you and believe this letter accurately summarizes the
significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with
the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to
us. If the need for additional procedures arises, our agreement with you will need to be revised. It is
customary for us to enumerate these revisions in an addendum to this letter. If additional specified
parties of the report are added, we will require that they acknowledge in writing their responsibility for
the sufficiency of procedures.
Very truly yours,
Nitin P. Patel CPA
Engagement Partner
RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding
of the Otay Water District.
By
Title
Date
Mr. Joseph R. Beachem, CFO
Otay Water District
January 15, 2013
Page 3
Attachment A
Agreed Upon Procedures
1. Obtain a copy of the District’s investment policy and determine that it is in effect for the time period
under review.
2. Select 4 investments held at year end and determine if they are allowable investments under the
District’s Investment Policy.
3. For the four investments selected in #2 above, determine if they are held by a third party custodian
designated by the District.
4. Confirm the par or original investment amount and market value for the four investments selected above
with the custodian or issuer of the investments.
5. Select two investment earnings transactions that took place during the year and recompute the earnings
to determine if the proper amount was received.
6. Trace amounts received for transactions selected at #5 above into the District’s bank accounts.
7. Select five investment transactions (buy, sell, trade or maturity) occurring during the year under review
and determine that the transactions are permissible under the District’s investment policy.
8. Review the supporting documents for the five investments selected at #7 above to determine if the
transactions were appropriately recorded in the District’s general ledger.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Kevin Cameron
Assistant Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger
Engineering Manager
PROJECTS: P2518-001103
P2519-001103
DIV. NO. 5
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a construction contract to Advanced Industrial Services, Inc.
(AIS) and authorizes the General Manager to execute an agreement with
AIS for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coatings and
Upgrades Project in an amount-not-to exceed $946,900 (see Exhibit A-1
& A-2 for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
construction contract with AIS for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project in an amount-not-to
exceed $946,900.
AGENDA ITEM 6b
2
ANALYSIS:
In June 2011, the District’s corrosion consultant, Schiff Associates
(Schiff), completed a Corrosion Control Program (CCP) that addressed
the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of corrosion protection
systems for the District’s steel reservoirs and buried metallic
piping. The CCP included a reservoir maintenance schedule that
showed the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs are due to be recoated on both
the interior and exterior surfaces. In addition to replacing the
coatings of the reservoir, structural upgrades will be added to
comply with the current American Water Works Association (AWWA) and
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for both
Federal (OSHA) and State (Cal-OSHA) levels.
An external inspection of the reservoirs was performed in 2008 by
Utility Service Company, Inc. as part of a multiple tank
investigation. An internal inspection was completed in October 2012
by Aqua Video Engineering, Inc. The recommended coating and
structural upgrades, developed with input from engineering and
operations staff, are as follows: replace the twenty (20) year old
coating on the interior and exterior surfaces, replace the existing
level indicators, install new fall prevention devices on the interior
ladders, modify anode access ports, replace all anodes, replace the
roof vents, install new lanyard cables, and add miscellaneous tank
penetrations for chlorination and sampling. These upgrades will
ensure compliance with AWWA, OSHA, Cal-OSHA requirements as well as
upgrade antiquated equipment on the tanks.
Staff developed the contract documents and the Project was advertised
for bid on November 28, 2012 on the District’s website and several
other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript.
Two (2) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to
address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during
the bidding period. Bids were publicly opened on December 20, 2012,
with the following results:
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
AMOUNT
CORRECTED
BID AMOUNT
1 Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. $946,900.00 -
2 Tri-State Painting, Inc. $994,670.00 $995,300.00
3 Blastco, Inc. $996,505.00 -
The Engineer’s Estimate is $948,000.
Staff reviewed the bids submitted for conformance with the contract
requirements and determined that AIS was the lowest responsive and
3
responsible bidder. AIS holds a Class C-33, Painting and Decorating,
Contractor’s License, which meets the contract document’s
requirements, and is valid through January 31, 2014. AIS also holds
a current QP-1 and QP-2 certification from Society for Protective
Coatings, which were also a requirement. The reference checks
indicated an excellent performance record on similar projects. An
internet background search of the company was performed and revealed
no outstanding issues with this company. AIS previously worked with
the District on the 850-3 Reservoir exterior coating in the spring of
2012 and completed the work on time and within budget.
Staff has verified that the bid bond provided by AIS is valid. Staff
will also verify that AIS’ Performance Bond and Labor and Materials
Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total budget for CIP P2518, as approved in the FY 2013 budget, is
$750,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $652,990.
The total budget for CIP P2519, as approved in the FY 2013 budget, is
$775,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $641,007.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that both budgets are sufficient to support the Project.
See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail for CIP P2518 and Attachment
B-2 for the budget detail for CIP P2519.
Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the
Replacement Fund for both CIP P2518 and CIP P2519.
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.
4
KC/RR:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2518 & 2519 - 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoir Interior-Exterior Coating\Staff Reports\Staff
Report - 803-3 and 832-2 Reservoirs Coatings - 2-6-13.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B-1 – Budget Detail for CIP P2518
Attachment B-2 - Budget Detail for CIP P2519
Exhibit A-1 – 803-3 Location Map (P2518)
Exhibit A-2 – 832-2 Location Map (P2519)
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2518-001103
P2519-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 16, 2013,
and the following comments were made:
Staff requested that the Board award a construction contract to
Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. (AIS) and authorize the
General Manager to execute an agreement with AIS for the 803-3 &
832-2 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
in an amount-not-to exceed $946,900.
It was indicated that the District’s 2011 Corrosion Control
Program (CCP) shows the 803-3 and 832-2 Reservoirs are due to be
recoated on the interior and exterior surfaces.
Staff stated that the existing coatings on both tanks are 20
years old and at the end of their useful life. Structural
upgrades are also required to bring the reservoirs up to current
Federal and State OSHA standards as well as AWWA Standards.
It was noted that once the coatings are replaced, both sites
will have cracks repaired in the asphalt and the site will be
slurry sealed. The existing landscape at both sites is
adequate, and neither site is in close proximity to any
residential areas.
Staff discussed the selection process and indicated that two
addenda were sent out to address contractor’s questions. It was
noted that three (3) bids were received and the results are
shown in the table on page 2 of the staff report.
Staff indicated that AIS submitted the lowest bid and was
reviewed for conformance. Staff also checked the company’s
references which showed an excellent performance record. After
review, staff determined that AIS submitted a responsive bid.
It was noted that AIS has previously worked with the District on
the 850-3 Reservoir exterior coating project which was completed
in August 2012. That project was completed on time and on
budget.
The Committee inquired as to why the District received only 3
bids for such a big project (803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project). Staff stated
that 1 bid was submitted but did not make the District’s
deadline and indicated that 3 other companies were called to
submit bids but they declined. It was also noted that there is a
small number of companies in this type of business because it
requires specialized knowledge of materials and products.
In response to a question by the Committee, staff stated that
both sites’ landscaping is sufficient and does not need
upgrades. The 803-3 site is in a valley not visible to the
community. The 832-2 site is mostly asphalt with surrounding
trees and the land outside the fence line is protected habitat.
The Committee inquired about security at the site. Staff
indicated that they are currently working with SDG&E to obtain
power at the project’s site. Once power is established, a
camera system can be installed. This plan would fall under a
different CIP project as staff plans to look into a solar camera
system, SCADA, and back-up generator.
Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’
recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent
calendar.
ATTACHMENT B-1
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2518-001103
P2519-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
Date Updated: 12/19/2012
Budget
750,000 CIP Budget1
Planning
Standard Salaries 678 678 - 678 Planning1 Planning 1
Total Planning 678 678 - 678
Design 001102
Service Contracts 992 874 119 992 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Design1 Design 1
45 45 - 45 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Design2 Design 2
Standard Salaries 22,258 22,258 4,742 27,000 Design3 Design 3
Total Design 23,295 23,177 4,861 28,037
Construction
Standard Salaries 418 418 74,582 75,000 Construction1 Construction 1
Construction Contract 475,500 - 475,500 475,500 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Construction2 Construction 2
Service Contracts - - 35,000 35,000 V & A CONSULTING Construction3 Construction 3
Project Closeout - - 15,000 15,000 CLOSEOUT Construction4 Construction 4
Project Contingency 23,775 - 23,775 23,775 5% CONTINGENCY Construction5 Construction 5
Total Construction 499,693 418 623,857 624,275
Grand Total 523,666 24,273 628,717 652,990
24,391 24,273 119 24,391 Total1 Total 1
FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2518-803-3 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
ATTACHMENT B-2
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2518-001103
P2519-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
Date Updated: 12/19/2012
Budget
775,000 CIP Budget1
Planning
- - - - Planning1 Planning 1
Total Planning - - - -
Design 001102
Service Contracts 992 874 119 992 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Design1 Design 1
45 45 - 45 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Design2 Design 2
Standard Salaries 16,482 16,482 3,518 20,000 Design3 Design 3
Total Design 17,520 17,401 3,636 21,037
Construction
Standard Salaries 152 152 74,848 75,000 Construction1 Construction 1
Construction Contract 471,400 - 471,400 471,400 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Construction2 Construction 2
Service Contracts - - 35,000 35,000 V & A CONSULTING Construction3 Construction 3
Project Closeout - - 15,000 15,000 CLOSEOUT Construction4 Construction 4
Project Contingency 23,570 - 23,570 23,570 5% CONTINGENCY Construction5 Construction 5
Total Construction 495,122 152 619,818 619,970
Grand Total 512,642 17,554 623,454 641,007
17,672 17,554 119 17,672 Total1 Total 1
FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2519-832-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
Vista Rodeo Dr
Vista Sierra Dr
Pansy Way
Saltbush Ln
Vista Madera Ln
West Village Dr
Pence Dr
Brust Ct
Valhalla View Dr
Buttonbrush Ln
Bitterbush Ln
Pearlbush Ct
Buttonwood Ct
Vista Madera Way
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTS
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
P:\WORKING\CIP P2518 & 2519 - 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoir Interior-Exterior Coating\Staff Reports\Exhibit A-1-803-3 Location Map.mxd
OTAY WATER DISTRICT803-3 RESERVOIR INT./EXT. COATING & UPGRADESLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A-1 CIP P2518
0 350175Feet
PROJECT SITE
Campo Rd
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTS
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
P:\WORKING\CIP P2518 & 2519 - 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoir Interior-Exterior Coating\Staff Reports\Exhibit A-2-832-2 Location Map.mxd
OTAY WATER DISTRICT832-2 RESERVOIR INT./EXT. COATING & UPGRADESLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A-2 CIP P2519
0 200 400100Feet
PROJECT SITE
832-1 CONCRETERESERVOIR NOTINCLUDED
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Watton
General Manager
PROJECT: P2451-
001101
DIV. NO. 2
APPROVED BY:
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Consulting Services Contract for Professional
Consulting Work Related to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project for Consulting on Bi-national
Water Matters
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
authorize the General Manager to execute a Consulting Services
Agreement with Hector Mares (Attachment C) in an amount not-to-exceed
$60,000 annually commencing April 1, 2013 for two years ($120,000
total ending March 31, 2015) for professional consulting work on Bi-
national water matters related to the Otay Mesa Desalination Facility
Conveyance and Disinfection System Project (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
Consulting Services Agreement with Hector Mares in an amount not-to-
exceed $60,000 annually commencing April 1, 2013 for two years
($120,000 total ending March 31, 2015) for professional consulting
work on Bi-national water matters related to the Otay Mesa
Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project
(Project).
ANALYSIS:
The District is working with a private developer and several bi-
national governmental agencies to support the design, build, and
operation of a sea-water desalting facility in the area of Rosarito,
Baja California. The Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System
Project (Project) will provide a potable water transmission pipeline
AGENDA ITEM 6c
and pump station to convey the desalinated water from the border of
Mexico to Roll Reservoir on Otay Mesa. The primary purpose of the
Project is to provide water service at a potable level to customers
in both the U.S. and Mexico.
Given the many challenges in advancing this Project, the District
will benefit by retaining the services of a bi-national consultant to
advise the board and management on matters concerning desalination in
Mexico among other subjects related to bi-national water development
opportunities.
Staff is recommending the engagement of Mr. Mares based on his
experience and knowledge in bi-national matters. Mr. Mares has been
engaged as a consultant to the District in a similar capacity under
the General Manager’s authority and his analysis, reporting, and
expertise has been of benefit to the District. By Mr. Mares’
efforts, the District has established very important contacts and
relationships with various Mexican water officials. This has
resulted in a better understanding of the various projects and
initiatives by local, state, and federal agencies in Mexico.
In addition to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System
Project, there are opportunities for bi-national water projects,
including but not limited to, recycled water, Colorado River aqueduct
transportation and desalination. Mr. Mares will continue to provide
valuable insight and assistance in these efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total budget for CIP P2451, as approved in the FY 2013 budget, is
$30,000,000. Expenditures to date are $1,195,716. Total
expenditures, plus outstanding commitments, including this contract,
totals $5,270,198.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that the budget is sufficient to support this Project
(see Attachment B).
Finance has determined that 40% of the funding is available from the
New Water Supply Fund and 60% of the funding will be available from
the Betterment Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District's Mission statement, "To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of
Otay Water District, in a professional, effective, and efficient
manner" and the District's Strategic Goal, "To satisfy current and
future water needs for potable, recycled, and wastewater services."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
BK:sc
P:\WORKING\CIP P2451 Desalination Feasibility Study\Staff Reports\Board 1-6-13 Mares Binational\BD 02-06-13, Staff Report, Award of
Consulting Services Contract to Mares Bi-national Consulting Services, (MW).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Location Map
Attachment C – Agreement
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2451-001101
Award of a Consulting Services Contract for Professional
Consulting Work Related to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project for Consulting on Bi-national
Water Matters
COMMITTEE ACTION:
This item was presented to the Engineering and Water Operations
Committee at a meeting held on January 16, 2013, and the following
comments were made:
Staff requested that the Board authorize the General Manager to
execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Hector Mares in an
amount not-to-exceed $60,000 annually commencing April 1, 2013
for two years ($120,000 total ending March 31, 2015) for
professional consulting work on Bi-national water matters
related to the Otay Mesa Desalination Facility Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project.
Staff provided a background of the Rosarito Desalination Project
and the Otay Mesa Desalination Facility Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project.
Staff also provided a background of Mr. Mares’ assigned duties
and indicated that he has been a consultant for the District
since 2005. Mr. Mares’ resume was provided to the Committee.
Staff noted that the engagement of Mr. Mares services is very
important because his experience and knowledge in bi-national
matters is needed by the District. With the anticipation of the
District purchasing water from the Rosarito Desalination Plant,
staff believes Mr. Mares would benefit the District because he
can help the District understand the politics and communicate
with officials in Mexico.
In response to a request by the Committee, staff indicated that
they would consult with the District’s legal counsel to include
a “Confidentiality” provision to Mr. Hector Mares’ contract.
Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’
recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent
calendar with the requested revision.
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2451-001101
Award of a Consulting Services Contract for Professional
Consulting Work Related to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project for Consulting on Bi-national
Water Matters
Date Updated: January 11, 2013
Budget
30,000,000
Planning 001101
Labor 478,643 478,643 478,643
Printing 61 61 - 61 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
Mileage Reimbursement 138 138 - 138 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Parking and Tolls 88 88 - 88 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Parking and Tolls 45 45 - 45 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Parking and Tolls 21 21 - 21 WATTON, MARK
Airfare and Transportation 40 40 - 40 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Airfare and Transportation 9,781 9,781 0 9,781 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Airfare and Transportation 697 697 - 697 WATTON, MARK
Lodging 3,262 3,262 - 3,262 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Lodging 1,590 1,590 - 1,590 WATTON, MARK
Lodging 472 472 - 472 CONSOLIDATED WATER COMPANY
Meals and Incidentals 249 249 - 249 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 38 38 - 38 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Meals and Incidentals 194 194 - 194 WATTON, MARK
Meals and Incidentals 395 395 - 395 CONSOLIDATED WATER COMPANY
Business Meetings 180 180 - 180 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 949 949 - 949 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Insurance 26 26 - 26 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Insurance 27 27 - 27 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional Legal Fees 43,175 43,175 - 43,175 SOLORZANO CARVAJAL GONZALEZ Y
Professional Legal Fees 15,914 15,914 - 15,914 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Professional Legal Fees 152,066 152,066 - 152,066 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
Other Legal Expenses 9,975 9,975 - 9,975 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
Other Legal Expenses 38 38 - 38 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Consultant Contracts 98,577 98,577 - 98,577 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC
Consultant Contracts 46,706 46,706 - 46,706 MARSTON+MARSTON INC
Consultant Contracts 994 994 - 994 CPM PARTNERS INC
Consultant Contracts 12,200 12,200 - 12,200 REA & PARKER RESEARCH
Consultant Contracts 4,173 4,173 - 4,173 SALVADOR LOPEZ-CORDOVA
Consultant Contracts 152,066 80,066 72,000 152,066 SILVA SILVA INTERNATIONAL
Consultant Contracts 70,200 64,800 5,400 70,200 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO
Consultant Contracts 120,000 - 120,000 120,000 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO
Consultant Contracts 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 BUSTAMANTE & ASSOCIATES LLC
Consultant Contracts 32,340 32,340 - 32,340 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
Service Contracts 500 500 - 500 REBECA SOTURA NICKERSON
Service Contracts 106 106 - 106 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Total Planning 1,262,926 1,065,525 197,400 1,262,926
Design 001102
Labor 76,660 76,660 76,660
Meals and Incidentals 14 14 - 14 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Consultant Contracts 5,535 5,535 - 5,535 MICHAEL R WELCH PHD PE
Consultant Contracts 3,910,297 33,215 3,877,082 3,910,297 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC
Consultant Contracts 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 ATKINS
Consultant Contracts 8,818 8,818 - 8,818 CPM PARTNERS INC
Consultant Contracts 276 276 - 276 MARSTON+MARSTON INC
Service Contracts 343 343 - 343 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
Total Design 4,006,943 129,861 3,877,082 4,006,943
Construction 001103
Labor 329 329 329
Total Construction 329 329 - 329
Grand Total 5,270,198 1,195,716 4,074,482 5,270,198
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2451 - Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
Page 1 of 8
Attachment C
CONSULTANT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
BI-NATIONAL WATER AND RELATED ISSUES
THIS CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT (herein “Agreement”) is made and
effective as of January 1, 2013, by and between the Otay Water District, a municipal water
district organized pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911,
commencing with Section 71000 of the Water Code of the State of California, as amended
(herein “OWD”) and Hector Mares (herein “Consultant”).
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.0 SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1. Scope of Services. In compliance with all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Consultant shall perform the work or services set forth in the Scope of Services
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The Consultant warrants that
all work and services set forth in the Scope of Services will be performed in a competent,
professional and satisfactory manner.
1.2. Compliance With Law. All work and services rendered hereunder shall be
provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the
OWD and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
1.3. Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. The Consultant shall obtain at
its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the
performance of the services required by this Agreement.
2.0 COMPENSATION
2.1. Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, and
costs incurred in connection therewith, Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with the
Schedule of Compensation attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this
reference.
2.2. Method of Payment . Provided that Consultant is not in default under the
terms of this Agreement, Consultant shall be paid monthly in accordance with the terms set forth
in Exhibit B.
Page 2 of 8
3.0 COORDINATION OF WORK
3.1. Representative of Consultant. Hector Mares is hereby designated as being
the principal and representative of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work and services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith.
3.2. Contract Officer. Mark Watton, General Manager of the OWD, is hereby
designated as being the OWD representative authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work and services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith (herein
“Contract Officer”). The General Manager of OWD shall have the right to designate another
Contract Officer by providing written notice to Consultant.
3.3. Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. Consultant shall not
contract with any person or entity to perform in whole or in part the work or services required
hereunder without the express written approval of OWD. Neither this Agreement nor any
interest herein may be assigned or transferred voluntarily or by operation of law, without the
prior written approval of OWD. Any such prohibited assignment or transfer shall be void.
3.4. Independent Contractor. Neither OWD nor any of its employees shall
have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees,
perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Consultant shall perform all
services required herein as an independent contractor of OWD and shall remain under only such
obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner
represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of OWD.
4.0 INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
4.1. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and
expense, in a form and content satisfactory to OWD, during the entire term of this Agreement
including any extension thereof, a policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance written
on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than either (i) bodily injury liability limits of
$250,000.00 per person and $500,000.00 per occurrence and property damage liability limits of
$100,000.00 per occurrence and $250,000.00 in the aggregate or (ii) combined single limit
liability of $500,000.00. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, leased and
hired cars.
The above policy of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name OWD, its
directors, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds. The insurer shall waive all rights
of subrogation and contribution it may have against OWD, its directors, officers, employees and
agents and their respective insurers. The policy of insurance shall provide that said insurance may
not be amended or canceled without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice by registered
mail to OWD. In the event said policy of insurance is canceled, the Consultant shall, prior to the
cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section 4.1 to the
Contract Officer. No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant
has provided OWD with Certificates of Insurance or appropriate insurance binders evidencing
the above insurance coverages and said Certificates of Insurance or binders are approved by
OWD.
Page 3 of 8
CANCELLATION:
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL MAIL THIRTY (30)
DAYS ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED THEREIN.
___________
Initials
The provisions of Section 4.1 shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to
which the Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or
property resulting from the Consultant's activities or the activities of any person or persons for
which the Consultant is otherwise responsible.
The insurance required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by
companies qualified to do business in California, rated A or better in the most recent edition of
Best Rating Guide, The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register, and only if they are of a
financial category Class VII or better, unless such requirements are waived by the Risk Manager
of OWD due to unique circumstances.
4.2. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify OWD, its directors,
officers, agents and employees against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless
from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties,
obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities, including applying any legal costs, attorneys fees, or
paying any judgment (herein “Claims or Liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any
person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work
or services of Consultant, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein,
or arising from the negligent acts or omissions of Consultant hereunder, or arising from
Consultant's negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision covenant or
condition of this Agreement, but excluding such Claims or Liabilities to the extent caused by the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of OWD.
5.0 TERM
5.1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2013. Unless
earlier terminated in accordance with Section 5.2 below, this Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect until December 31, 2013.
5.2. Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. Either party may terminate this
Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon ten (10) days written notice to the other
party. Upon receipt of the notice of termination, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work
or services hereunder except as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. In the
event of termination by OWD, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services
rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for such additional services
specifically authorized by the Contract Officer. OWD shall be entitled to reimbursement for any
compensation paid in excess of the services rendered.
Page 4 of 8
6.0 MISCELLANEOUS
6.1. Covenant Against Discrimination. The Consultant covenants that, by and
for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns and all persons claiming under or through them, that there
shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of
race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color,
creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry.
6.2. Non-liability of District Officers and Employees. No officer or employee
of OWD shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of
any default or breach by OWD or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to
its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
6.3. Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of OWD shall have any
financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee
participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his financial interest or the
financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or
indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation.
The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any
third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
___________
Initials
6.4. Notice. Any notice demand, request, document, consent, approval, or
communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person
shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of
OWD, to the General Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer, OWD, 2554
Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring Valley, CA 91978, and in the case of the Consultant, to the
person at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement.
6.5. Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either
party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might
otherwise apply.
6.6. lntegration: Amendment. It is understood that there are no oral
agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes
and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if
any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement
may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing.
6.7. Severability. If any part of this Agreement shall be declared invalid or
unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
Page 5 of 8
or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this Agreement which are
hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties
hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the
basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
6.8. Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a
nondefaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
A party's consent to or approval of any act by the other party requiring the party's consent or
approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the other party's consent to or
approval of any subsequent act. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and
shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this
Agreement.
6.9. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
the parties hereto warrant that (i) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement
on behalf of said party; (ii) the executing and entering into this Agreement does not violate any
provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound.
6.10. Governing Law/Venue. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall
be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any action or proceeding brought by any
party against any other party arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought
exclusively in San Diego County.
6.11. Confidential Information. OWD may from time to time communicate to
the Consultant certain confidential information to enable the Consultant to effectively perform
the services to be provided herein. The Consultant shall treat all such information as confidential
and shall not disclose any part thereof without the prior written consent of OWD. The Consultant
shall limit the use and circulation of such information, even within its own organization, to the
extent necessary to perform the services to be provided herein. The foregoing obligation of this
Section 6.11, however, shall not apply to any part of the information that (i) has been disclosed in
publicly available sources of information; (ii) is, through no fault of the Consultant, hereafter
disclosed in publicly available sources of information; (iii) is already in the possession of the
Consultant without any obligation of confidentiality; (iv) has been or is hereafter rightfully
disclosed to the Consultant by a third party, but only to the extent that the use or disclosure
thereof has been or is rightfully authorized by that third party; or (v) is subject to disclosure
pursuant to applicable laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the California Public
Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act
The Consultant shall not disclose any reports, recommendations, conclusions or other
results of the services or the existence of the subject matter of this Agreement without the prior
written consent of OWD. In its performance hereunder, the Consultant shall comply with all legal
obligations it may now or hereafter have respecting the information or other property of any other
person, firm or corporation.
Consultant shall be liable to OWD for any damages caused by breach of this condition,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.2.
Page 6 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this Agreement as
of the date first written above.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
__________________________
Mark Watton, General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel Shinoff, General Counsel
CONSULTANT:
By: ___________________________
Hector Mares
Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
All items described herein shall be provided by Consultant as part of his compensation to further
OWD's objectives regarding water delivery and supply, as such objectives are described below
and may be further described to Contractor by the Contract Officer in writing during the Term of
this Agreement:
1. Monitor and report from time to time on progress of the Mexican Colorado River
Aqueduct and associated facilities.
2. Provide research and a written report on the interest and viability of forming a committee
such as San Diego Dialogue to foster bi-national relations.
3. Monitor and report from time to time on existing bi-national committees and associations,
such as the San Diego Dialogue and the Institute of the Americas.
4. Provide oral and written reports on Mexicali, Mexico (MX) issues related to All-
American Canal lining and other water related activities.
5. Arrange and guide tours of Tijuana, MX water facilities involving appropriate Mexican
officials.
6. Provide a comprehensive report and analysis on Tijuana, MX water matters.
7. Arrange introductions for Tijuana, Rosarito Beach and Mexicali state and federal public
officials involved in water issues.
8. Arrange, organize, and invite Mexican water leaders and public officials for a tour of
OWD facilities.
9. Provide political analysis on Mexican water matters involving local, state and federal
jurisdictions.
10. Provide advice and analysis on the pending Rosarito Beach, MX desalination facility.
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
OWD shall pay Consultant a sum not to exceed $3,600.00 per month for a total sum not
to exceed $45,000.00 for all costs and services under this Agreement. Consultant shall submit
monthly invoices describing in detail the services and tasks performed during the prior calendar
month. Each invoice is payable within thirty (30) days of acceptance of the invoiced amounts by
OWD. Services under this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2013 and end on December
31, 2013.
Consultant will be reimbursed for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
performance of the work identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall request written pre-approval
of any single expense in excess of $100.00 or any monthly sum of expenses in excess of $250.00.
Consultant shall submit to the OWD detailed receipts and a detailed invoice for said out-of-
pocket expenses. Any entertainment or meal expenses must be pre-approved by the Contract
Officer. Failure to obtain pre-approval may result in a denial of reimbursement.
SD #4836-3574-6304 v1
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Environmental Compliance
Specialist
Ron Ripperger
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: P2494-
001101
DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Termination of Work on the Joint Water Agencies Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) recommend that the District, along with the three other
Joint Water Agencies (JWA), terminate all work on the JWA
Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
(JWA NCCP/HCP) (see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To provide the Board with the history and background of the JWA
Plan so that they can make a recommendation regarding the
termination of work on the JWA Plan.
AGENDA ITEM 6d
2
ANALYSIS:
In September, 2007 the District made the decision to pursue
becoming a partner in the Joint Water Agencies plan to produce a
NCCP/HCP. The three agencies that were a part of the JWA at
that time, Sweetwater Authority, Helix Water District, and Padre
Dam Water District had been working on putting together the
NCCP/HCP for about 10 years and were close to finishing the
Plan. The District recognized at that time that by becoming a
partner in the JWA Plan it would provide substantial benefits
for the biological permitting challenges of future CIP projects.
These benefits include the following:
Long-term self-permitting for habitat and species
impacts
Increased certainty with Project schedules, pre-
approved mitigation areas and mitigation ratios
Exchange or sale of mitigation credits among JWA
Partners
Reduced Wildlife Agency consultations
The JWA Partners supported the inclusion of the District, but
asked for a financial buy-in since the other three agencies had
expended a significant amount of money and time to get the Plan
to substantial completion. The District agreed and paid
$133,333 to each existing Partner, as approved by the Board in
January 2010. In addition, the District would fast-track the
preparation of its individual Sub-area Plan for the overall
NCCP/HCP and enter into contracts with the existing JWA Plan
Consultants to complete the NCCP/HCP.
The JWA NCCP/HCP covers approximately 8,388 acres in the
southwest quadrant of San Diego County, including lands within
the unincorporated area and the cities of Chula Vista, National
City, Santee, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, and El Cajon. The Plan
proposes coverage for 77 species (28 plants and 49 animals)
through coordinated conservation and management actions which
would be implemented within a 3,134 acre Conservation Easement
Area (CEA) dedicated on lands currently owned by the Partners,
including the District’s San Miguel Habitat Management Area.
The draft Plan which includes six components, a Sub-regional
Plan, a Conservation Plan, and four Sub-area Plans (one from
each Partner) was submitted to the California Dept. of Fish &
Game (CDFG) and the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), referred
to collectively as Wildlife Agencies (WLA’s), on March 7, 2011.
The JWA Partners and Consultants had been working with the WLA’s
3
throughout the process and were cautiously optimistic that it
would take three to six months to receive review comments from
the WLA’s because of their workloads. Unfortunately, the USFWS
sent a letter to the JWA Partners in December, 201l, saying that
their Agency would not be able to start the review of the
documents until April 2012 because of staffing issues, a backlog
of already submitted NCCP’s/HCP’s, and a priority shift that put
the review of any energy-related projects at the top of their
list. Although this news was discouraging, the JWA Partners’
staff members felt that having a start date for review was
positive.
In April, correspondence from USFWS indicated that they were
starting their review, but could only spend eight (8) hours per
week on the JWA Plan, which meant that the review period length
could be substantial because of the breadth of the Plan. The
JWA Partners staff met in May 2012 and again in July 2012 with
our General Managers to decide how to proceed. At the July
meeting, it was decided that the General Managers would meet
with representatives of the two agencies, CDFG and USFWS, to let
them know that the JWA Partners were considering not going
forward with the Plan.
The most significant concern that led the Partners to this
decision was the economics of moving forward. Current economic
conditions are such that the budgets for all four Agencies are
tight and CIP projects are being delayed and/or abandoned. The
costs associated with going ahead with the Plan include
additional consultant work to address the WLA’s review comments
and the associated CEQA/NEPA document and the more substantial
costs that would be incurred with the implementation of the Plan
upon approval. Implementation costs include the work associated
with setting up the conservation easements for mitigation lands
and the survey, management, and reporting for these lands on an
annual basis once they are established.
The District is in the unique position of having our conservation
lands already established, the District’s Habitat Management Area
(HMA). The District already manages, surveys, and reports on the
HMA. However, the WLA’s may have established other conditions
for the HMA land which would have needed to be met, increasing
our annual costs for this area. For the other three agencies,
the costs for this work would be significant and staff felt that
it would not be fiscally responsible to proceed.
The Partners’ General Managers met with the WLA representatives
in July 2012. The WLA’s asked that the General Managers delay
4
their decision for 60 days while they come up with a plan that
could reduce the costs associated with the conservation
easements. That deadline has come and gone without any word
from the WLA’s and the Partners have decided that it is in their
best interests to stop work on the Plan and abandon the JWA
NCCP/HCP.
Although the recommendation is to not go ahead with the JWA Plan
at this time, the work that has been done for the preparation of
the District’s Subarea Plan and the other JWA Plan documents can
still be used to explore other options for the District to
streamline our biological permitting in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total Project budget for CIP P2494 is $930,000, of which
$789,049 has been expended to date (see Attachment B for budget
detail). The committed funds for the Project are $934,017 which
exceeds the approved Project budget by $4,017 due to extended
effort by staff to monitor the ongoing review process.
Upon approval by the Board to terminate the work on the JWA
plan, the contracts for the JWA Plan consultants, TAIC, The Rick
Alexander Company, and A.D. Hinshaw would be terminated and
$65,905 of the committed budget amount would not be spent.
Staff will continue to work with the District’s Subarea Plan
consultant, RECON, to investigate how the District can
streamline our biological permitting.
The remaining fiscal issue concerns the payments that the
District made to the other three JWA Partners to “buy-in” to the
JWA Plan. Any refunds of this money to the District will be
worked out between the Partners’ General Managers.
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.
5
LCB/RR:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2494 MSCP\Staff Reports\BD 02-06-13, Staff Report, JWA Plan Termination, (LCB-RR).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Regional Location Map
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2494-001101
Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Termination of Work on the Joint Water Agencies Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on January 16, 2013 and the following
comments were made:
It was requested for the Board to recommend that the District,
along with the three other Joint Water Agencies (JWA), terminate
all work on the JWA Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan (JWA NCCP/HCP).
Staff provided a history of JWA NCCP/HCP that begun more than 10
years ago by Helix, Padre Dam and Sweetwater and indicated that
the Otay Water District (District) made the decision to join
their effort in 2007.
It was indicated that the three agencies supported the inclusion
of the District, but asked for a financial buy-in for the
District to become a JWA Partner because of all of the work that
had already been done in the preparation of the Plan documents.
The buy-in amount was $400,000 and was split evenly between the
three Districts and was approved by the Board in January 2010.
Staff indicated that the original plan was to amend the
District’s subarea plan into the overall plan once it was
adopted by the Wildlife agencies (WLAs), but timing for
submittal of the Plan was delayed. The District was able to have
its subarea plan ready to be included in the draft Plan that was
submitted to the WLAs in March 2011.
Staff noted that at the time the Plan was submitted, the JWA
partners were optimistic of receiving review comments in 3-6
months. However, in December 2011, the District received a
letter from the USFWS saying that they could not begin review
until April 2012.
In April 2012, the District received word that USFWS would begin
review of the District’s Plan for 8 hours per week. Considering
the length of the documents, that could have meant a 2-3 year
review period.
Staff stated that after JWA partners met to discuss the delay,
they met again with the Otay Water District’s General Manager
present. It was noted that the Partners were beginning to
consider not going forward with the Plan and the main driver for
this decision was cost and Wildlife Agencies (WLA) delays.
It was discussed that current economic conditions are such that
budgets are tight and CIP projects are being delayed or
abandoned. Staff stated that the costs of going ahead with the
project began to outweigh the benefits, especially for the other
Districts who would have to establish their conservation lands,
maintain, monitor and report on them annually. The costs for
this work are significant and staff felt that it was not
fiscally responsible to proceed.
The JWA GMs met with the WLA’s in July 2012 to let them know
that the Partners were planning on not going ahead with the Plan
and the reasons. The WLA requested that the Partners delay the
decision for 30-60 days while they came up with a plan that
could reduce the implementation costs. Staff indicated that the
deadline has come and gone without any words from the WLAs, and
the Partners have decided that it is time to stop work on the
Plan and abandon the NCCP/HCP.
Although it is recommended that the District terminates any work
on the JWA NCCP/HCP, staff would like to continue to work with
RECON (District’s subarea plan consultant) to determine what
options are available to use the Subarea Plan and the other JWA
Plan documents to streamline the District’s biological
permitting in the future.
Staff believes that state and federal funding cut-backs are the
main reason for the agencies’ inability to execute the Plan.
The Committee thanked staff for preparing the District’s Subarea
Plan and JWA Plan and stated that the collected data will be
beneficial to use as a reference in the future as the District
continues to work with WLAs independently.
The Committee recommended that the staff report be revised to
indicate that there are no residual funds from the “buy-in”
payments made by the Partners for the JWA Plan.
Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’
recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent
calendar.
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2494-001101
Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Termination of Work on the Joint Water Agencies Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
Date Updated: - 1/7/2013
Budget Committed Expenditures Outstanding
Commitment &
Projected Final
Cost Vendor/Comments
930,000
Planning
Construction Contracts 133,333 133,333 - 133,333 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
133,333 133,333 - 133,333 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER
133,333 133,333 - 133,333 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Consultant Contracts 20,202 14,450 5,752 20,202 RICK ALEXANDER COMPANY, THE
34,625 8,501 26,125 34,625 A D HINSHAW ASSOCIATES
3,000 3,000 3,000 DR MARY ANNE HAWKE
4,332 4,332 - 4,332 TRAC
254,331 175,267 79,064 254,331 RECON
76,451 42,422 34,028 76,451 TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES
Meals and Incidentals 31 31 - 31 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional Legal Fees 11,388 11,388 - 11,388 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
22 22 - 22 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Service Contracts 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY SERVICES
- 3,000 (3,000) - MATTHEW RAHN
4,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 RAHN CONSERVATION CONSULTING
Standard Salaries 119,654 119,654 - 119,654
Total Planning 932,035 787,067 144,968 932,035
Design 001102
Standard Salaries 1,982 1,982 - 1,982
Total Design 1,982 1,982 - 1,982
Grand Total 934,017 789,049 144,968 934,017
P2494-Multiple Species Conservation Plan
Otay Water District
P:\WORKING\CIP P2494 MSCP\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Regional Locations of Water Agency Lands Relative to Conserved Lands.mxd
JOINT WATER AGENCIES NCCP/HCPREGIONAL LOCATIONS OF WATER AGENCY LANDSRELATIVE TO CONSERVED LANDS
EXHIBIT A CIP P2494FNOT TO SCALE
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
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 2013 Calendar of Meetings
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
At the request of the Board, the attached Board of Director’s meeting
calendar for 2013 is being presented for discussion.
PURPOSE:
This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the
opportunity to review the 2013 Board of Director’s meeting calendars
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.
Attachments: Calendar of Meetings for 2013
G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar 2-6-13.doc
AGENDA ITEM 7a
Page 1 of 1
Board of Directors, Workshops
and Committee Meetings
2013
Regular Board Meetings:
Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd
Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted)
January 8, 2013
February 6, 2013
March 6, 2013
April 3, 2013
May 1, 2013
June 5, 2013
July 3, 2013
August 7, 2013
September 4, 2013
October 2, 2013
November 6, 2013
December 4, 2013
January 16, 2013
February 20, 2013
March 20, 2013
April 17, 2013
May 15, 2013
June 19, 2013
July 17, 2013
August 21, 2013
September 18, 2013
October 16, 2013
November 20, 2013
SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGS:
BOARD WORKSHOPS:
Budget Workshops:
Board Workshop:
G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar Attach A 2-6-13.doc
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY: 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: Water and Sewer Cost of Service Study Update
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To inform the Board of the potential changes in the rate structure
currently being examined, in the water and sewer cost of service
study performed by Karyn Keese of Atkins Global.
BACKGROUND:
On January 8, 2013, staff discussed the current cost of service study
being performed. This informational item is to inform the Board of
the changes being considered in this study. In March 2013, the final
recommendations will be brought forward for the Board’s
consideration.
Typically, rate studies are performed every three to five years
depending on changes in economic factors; price increases; water use
patterns; regulations; infrastructure; and other cost driver changes.
It has been four years since the District’s last water and sewer rate
study. The cost of service study is an important tool when setting
retail rates because as water use and cost drivers change over time,
imbalances may occur in the equity of how various customer classes
pay for water.
Another factor to consider is the requirements of Proposition 218,
whereby changes to the rate structure require a public hearing and
the protest procedures must be followed. The cost of the notice
requirements for the public hearing can be minimized by having a
AGENDA ITEM 8a
five-year rate increase notice and schedule. For this reason, and
the timing of the rate study, staff will be proposing a fair number
of changes at this time. These changes are based on the findings of
the rate study. These periodic updates also give stability in the
rate structure.
The majority of the rate increase will be for the pass-through cost
increases from our providers. These pass-through costs had no
limitations within the prior 218 process, while the internal causes
of the rate increases were set at a “not to exceed” percentage based
on the rate model projections.
For significant changes to the rate structure, the District has the
option of phasing in changes over time and incorporating the “phase-
in” into the Proposition 218 notice and hearing.
There are several purposes of performing a rate study. The first is
to maintain equity among the customer classes based on the cost of
service study. The second is to bring financial stability to the
agency by balancing fixed and variable charges so it can survive
swings in water sales volume. Lastly, is to encourage conservation
by adjusting both the tiered water rate structure and the strength
and flow rate structure for sewer customers.
The current rate study will examine equity and assign costs to the
various customer types. Financial stability will be a factor in
setting fixed and variable charges as well as best management
practices.
For the water cost of service study the following changes are being
considered:
1. Create a Recycled Commercial Rate for future customers.
2. Update the fire service fee to ensure equity among customers.
3. Examine master meter/irrigation and commercial/irrigation
customers to determine if they belong in a separate customer
class because of their mixed use meter.
4. Re-examine the tiers for all customer types to ensure they
match current consumption.
5. Examine the energy charge to ensure customers that cause a
higher energy cost pay a higher energy charge.
6. Evaluate water meter equivalencies using AWWA hydraulic
capacity factors for water customers.
For the sewer cost of service study the following changes are being
considered:
1. Eliminate the Assigned Service Unit (ASU) calculation for
commercial accounts. This would include the creation of a
system fee by water meter size plus the annual average water
consumption for the usage charge.
2. Adjust commercial sewer strengths to current industry
standards.
3. Ensure water meter equivalencies used for sewer base fees are
consistent with AWWA water meter equivalencies. (See No. 6
above.)
4. For multi-residential, charge the system fee on meter size
instead of the current ¾” system fee per dwelling unit.
5. Make the monthly base fee for SFR the same regardless of
meter size (¾” vs. 1").
6. Eliminate the special formulas for schools and churches and
charge them on the same proposed basis of other commercial
accounts.
In addition to the changes being proposed in the water and sewer cost
of service study, staff will be requesting the Board to consider an
additional change. Since this change requires a Proposition 218
hearing it will be presented with the study findings. The change is
to detach and attach Improvement Districts (ID) 25 to ID 20 and ID 19
to ID 22. The fees are identical for customers in the IDs being
combined and would allow the District to eliminate two IDs that are
no longer needed. Also, it would simplify the accounting and
administration currently required for these IDs.
In March 2013, staff plans to bring the findings and recommendations
to the Board, asking to incorporate these changes into the FY 2014
rate model. With the Board’s direction, staff will then incorporate
these recommendations into the FY 2014 rate model and budget. In May
of 2013, staff will request the Board to approve the budget and to
move forward with the Proposition 218 process. Only after the
Proposition 218 hearing is completed can the Board approve the rates
and rate structure changes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is an informational item only and has no fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The District ensures its continued financial health through sound
policies and procedures.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
A) Committee Action Form
B) Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Water and Sewer Cost of Service Study Update
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 22, 2013 and the
following comments were made:
Staff had presented at the January 8 board meeting the
reasons why rate studies should be performed and how often
they should be performed. The purpose of this update is to
provide the committee and members of the board an idea of
the topics and issues that are considered when determining
rates.
The study will provide for equity among the District’s
customer classes based on the Cost of Service Study (COSS),
financial stability for the District, and rate structures
that encourage conservation.
The Rate Study includes:
An analysis of the District’s revenue requirements
for operations based on expenses.
o The following equation is utilized to determine
the District’s revenue requirements:
+ Operations and Maintenance Expenses
+ Transfer Payments from Reserve Funds
+ Capital Projects Costs based on Rates
= Total Revenue Requirement
- Miscellaneous (1% property tax collection,
cell site leases, etc.)
= Net Revenue Requirement from Rates
Allocates the expenses (costs) to the various
customer classes based on the COSS.
o Identifies fixed and variable costs and
allocates the cost based on meter size, water
usage and other factors.
An analysis of the rate design to collect the target
level of service.
There are three classifications of cost that are allocated
to the District’s different customer classifications
(Residential, Multi-family, Commercial/Government, etc.)
which determines the customer classifications’ rate
structure:
Customer: Costs related to billing, collections,
meter maintenance, and costs that exist due to
adding a customer.
Commodity: Cost related to water purchases, power,
and employee costs to provide potable water to
customers.
Capacity: Fixed costs such as debt service, MWD
fixed charges, and actuarial pension obligations.
A slide was presented that provides definitions of
terminology associated with a Cost of Service analysis.
Staff indicated that they would not review the listed
terminology at this time, but would be happy to answer any
questions that the committee members might have after they
have had time to review the terminology.
To implement rate increases, the District must comply with
Proposition 218 which requires a public hearing and protest
procedures. Staff plans to present to the committee next
month a proposal for rates based on the findings of the
Rate Study.
It was noted that the proposed rates will be presented for
adoption following a Proposition 218 public hearing. Staff
is recommending a five (5) year rate increase notice as has
been done in the past. The notice will advise of pass-
through cost increases from the District’s suppliers and a
“not-to-exceed” percentage for District internal cost
increases.
It was discussed that if there is a significant
change/increase to the District’s rate structure, a “phase-
in” approach may be used to spread the impact of the
increase over multiple years. This will be noted in the
Proposition 218 notice to the District’s customers.
Currently, the District’s recycled customers are all
irrigation customers. However, the District is
anticipating new recycled commercial customers (a power
plant, rock quarry, and prisons) that will be converting
irrigation systems, laundry and toilet flushing to recycled
water. Because these new customers would use approximately
the same amount of water throughout the year versus
irrigation customers who peak during the summer months,
staff is proposing implementing a recycled commercial rate.
The implementation of a recycled commercial rate would:
Ensure equity between user classes as the peaking
factor for indoor use is much lower than the peaking
factor for irrigation use.
Ensures compliance with the CWA Recycled Credits
Agreement.
Encourages the use of recycled water as the rate for
recycled water is 85% of the potable rate which
would provide cost savings to recycled customers.
It was also noted that “peaking,” at any point in time,
drives the size of infrastructure. Thus, peaking factors
are a key factor in allocating costs to customer
classifications.
Staff also wishes to examine mixed-use meters. There are
several hundred meters that are mixed use (businesses or
multi-residential customers utilizing one meter for indoor,
outdoor, and sometimes also fire service). Most of these
are older customers. Today, the Disrict’s Code requires
that businesses/multi-residential customers install a
separate meter for both irrigation and fire service. Staff
is reviewing these customers to see if they should be
identified as a separate customer classification to assure
they are not over or under paying. Examples of these type
customers are strip malls, Home Owners’ Associations,
schools, etc.
The COSS will also re-examine the different tier rates to:
Ensure they match current consumption levels.
o The District uses industry standards which
utilizes winter and summer flows to determine
tier break points.
Ensures equity among customer classes.
Staff is proposing that the commercial class tiers be
retained. The commercial class rate has a very small
differential between the different tiers and pricing.
While this tiering of commercial class is not currently an
industry trend, retaining this structure is advantageous if
the District needs to implement a Stage II drought rate
structure, and promote conservation with expanded tiering.
Energy charges are also being reviewed. The District
currently charges a set rate per 100 feet of lift. The
review would assure that customers are in the correct
energy zones based on the infrastructure that serves them
and the cost allocation is correct.
Staff presented the sewer rate structure changes that are
being considered. It is proposed that the District
eliminate the ASU calculation for commercial accounts as it
is an antiquated method and, instead, create a system fee
based on water meter size and the customer’s average annual
water consumption. This calculation is different from
residential customers where the average winter months use
is utilized to determine sewer fees. This new method would
allocate costs more fairly based on usage. It was noted
that customers who utilize very little water (less than 1
ASU) will likely see lower sewer bills as all customers are
assigned 1 ASU even if they use very little water.
Because sewer fees will be based on water meter size
(similar to water), it will bring consistency between water
and sewer. The District’s rate structure will also be
brought to industry standard.
The study will also update sewer strength factors using
current industry standards. High strength commercial users
(ie., restaurants) may see an increase in their volumetric
rate per HCF if this factor has increased notably. This
will bring equity among the District’s user classes.
In response to an inquiry from the committee, staff
indicated that the sewer strength factors come from the
Water Resources Control Board. The District is also billed
similarly by its sewer treatment supplier, the Metro
Commission. The more concentrated the flow, the higher the
charge.
Staff explained, in response to an inquiry from the
committee, that meter size correlates closer to the number
of fixtures at a property than to the number of dwelling
units. It is proposed that multi-residential sewer
customers be charged a system fee based on their meter size
instead of the number of their dwelling units. This will
bring equity among the user classes. There are two charges
associated with the sewer system fee:
The fixed charge is based on capacity (size of the
meter) and costs driven by customer [one (1)
customer requiring one (1) meter read]
The variable charge is tied to the customer’s actual
water use.
It was further discussed that new fire regulations require
the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new homes and
buildings. The installation of fire sprinklers in
residential homes would require that the size of the meter
be increased from the normal ¾” meter to an 1” meter.
Because the upsizing of the meter is required for fire
service and not necessarily for increased residential water
use, staff is reviewing the fire service fee to ensure
equity among customers. There are costs associated with
providing fire service and the District wants to ensure
that it allocates the applicable costs to these customers.
Staff is proposing that the sewer system fee for single-
family accounts be the same for both ¾” and 1” meters as
meter size does not play a large role in sewer rates.
Single-family homes with a one inch (1”) meter are
generally new homes that require fire sprinkler systems or
homes on large lots requiring the larger meter for
irrigation purposes. This change will simplify the rate
structure.
Currently, the District utilizes special formulas based on
attendance to determine sewer service charges for schools
and churches. The Disrict is proposing that the special
formulas be eliminated and that sewer system fees for these
customers be based on meter size and average annual water
use; similar to commercial accounts. There are about three
(3) churches and five (5) schools within the District’s
sewer service area and it is believed with the new
methodology that many will see their sewer bills reduced.
The new methodology will also simplify the rate structure
and bring it to industry standard.
Staff also reviewed a change being proposed, which is
outside of water and sewer rates; the elimation of two (2)
Improvement Districts (ID). Staff wishes to merge ID 25
into ID 20; and ID 19 into ID 22. This change does require
compliance with Proposition 218 and it is felt that the
change could be included in the rate increase notices.
Currently, ID 25 has a reservoir, but there are no
customers or debt associated with the ID. The reservoir in
ID 25 serves mainly ID 20 and ID 1. Also, ID 19 has only
79 customers, but no infrastructure. The fees for ID’s 25
and 20; and ID 19 and 22; are the same. By merging the
ID’s it would simplify the accounting and administration
currently required for these IDs.
Staff explained, in response to an inquiry from the
committee, that in the past, ID’s were created for the
purpose of issuing debt for infrastructure. Any issued
debt would be placed on the tax roll and collected from
customers residing within the ID.
ID 25 was originally created to issue debt to build a
reservoir. After creating the ID and issuing debt, it was
decided that the reservoir was not yet needed. The
District defeased the debt, but the ID remained. It was
indicated that debt was never issued for ID 25.
Currently, the District has one ID (ID 27) in which general
obligation bonds were issued. The debt is collected
through the tax rolls. Customers annexed into ID 27 would
share in the payment of the debt. The rest of the
District’s debt is issued as Certificates of Participation
(COPs) which is paid through the rate structure.
Staff plans to present at the next committee meeting
recommended changes based on the Rate Study findings. Once
staff receives direction from the board, the proposed rate
structures will be incorporated into the District’s Rate
Model to produce the FY 2014 Budget. Once the FY 2014
budget is adopted, a Proposition 218 public hearing notice
will be forwarded to the District’s customers advising them
of the proposed rate increases and the date and time of the
public hearing where the District will receive the publics’
comments on the new proposed rates and charges. The
notices will explain the reasons why rates are increasing.
The board will be provided copies of the rate increase
notices prior to their being mailed. Following the
hearing, the Board has the ability to adopt the noticed
rate increase for FY 2014.
Director Thompson indicated that he has disclosed within
his Form 700 that he owns two (2) condominiums and a
single-family home within the District’s service area. He
indicated that he wished the District’s Attorney to
clarify, with regard to the adoption of the proposed rates,
that a conflict of interest does not exist for members of
the board as the rate changes would apply to a large number
of the District’s customers. Attorney Richard Romero
confirmed that that was correct. The committee requested
that Attorney Romero prepare an opinion on the matter to be
presented at the February board meeting for the record.
The committee discussed the rates for multi-family
customers and asked staff to compare the rates for multi-
family and single-family classifications to assure that
there is equity in their rate structures. The committee
also asked that staff review the rates for condominiums
versus apartments. Staff indicated that there has been
very large groupings of the different customer classes in
the past and staff is looking at breaking customers out by
adding more customer classes to assure equity among its
customers. Staff also noted that the COSS only looks at
factors that drive costs, excluding different ownership
structures. The study will look at what is driving costs,
which includes, capacity, meter size, usage and peaking.
Following the discussion, the committee supported presentation
to the full board as an informational item.
Informational Item
February 6, 2013
Attachment B
1
Introduction & Purpose
Introduced water and sewer cost of service study to the Board on January 8,
2013 and discussed reasons to reexamine the rate structure every 3 to 5 years
Economic Factors, Price Increases (elasticity), Environmental Changes and
Regulatory Changes
Purpose
Bring equity between customer classes based on cost of service
Financial stability (fixed vs. variable charges)
Encourage conservation
Tiered rate structure for water
Strength and flow rate structure for sewer
2
Overview of Rate Study Analysis
Revenue Requirement Analysis
Compares the sources of funds (revenue)
to the expenses of the utility to
determine the overall rate adjustment
required
Cost of Service Analysis
Allocates the revenue requirements to
the various customer classes of service
in a "fair and equitable manner
Rate Design Analysis
Considers both the level and structure of
the rate design to collect the target level
of service
3
Establishing a Revenue
Requirement
+ Operations and Maintenance
+ Transfer Payments
+ Capital Projects Based on Rates
= Total Revenue Requirement
- Miscellaneous Revenues
= Net Revenue Requirement from Rates
4
Cost of Service
5
FUNCTIONALIZATION CLASSIFICATION ALLOCATION
Total Revenue Req’ts.
-Source of Supply
-Treatment
-Transmission
-Distribution
-General Admin.
Capacity
Related $
Commodity
Related $
Customer
Related $
Residential
Multi-Family
Comm./Gov’t.
Residential
Multi-Family
Comm./Gov’t.
Residential
Multi-Family
Comm./Gov’t.
Residential
Rate
Multi-Family
Commercial/
Gov’t
Customer Related Costs – Billing, Collecting, Meter Maintenance, any costs that
exist due to adding a customer.
Commodity Related Costs – Purchased water, power, and employee costs to
provide potable water to customers.
Capacity Related Costs – Fixed costs such as debt service, MWD fixed charges,
and actuarial pension obligations.
Less Non-Operating $
Terminology of a Cost of Service Analysis
Terminology of a Cost of Service Analysis
Functionalization – The arrangement of the cost data by functional category (e.g. treatment, collection
etc.)
Allocation – Allocating the classified costs to each class of service based upon each class’s
proportional contribution to that specific cost component.
Commodity Costs – Costs that are classified as commodity related vary with the total flow of water (e.g.
chemical use at a treatment plant.
Strength Costs – Costs classified as strength related refer to the wastewater treatment function.
Typically, strength-related costs are further defined as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS).
Customer Costs – Costs classified as customer related vary with the number of customers on the
system, e.g. billing costs.
Capacity Costs – If all customers used the utility in the same way over time (average annual daily
volume flows), capacity costs would not need to be recognized. However various customer classes'
peaks are realized throughout the year and even throughout the day. Residential customers peak during
weekday mornings and commercial accounts tend to peak seasonally due to visitors (conventions or
summer visitors). The costs associated with peaking (capacity) are allocated to these customers
through the recognition of capacity costs. WW treatment plants and sewers are designed with peak
flows in mind and thus a portion of O&M costs can also be attributed to peak flows (using the design
basis cost allocation). Capacity cost can be more important when assigning capital costs to volume or
capacity since sewers and treatment plants are designed with capacity in mind.
Direct Assignment – Costs that can be clearly identified as belonging to a specific customer group or
group of customers.
Fire Protection Costs – Costs that are related to fire protection services (e.g. fire hydrants)
Customer Classes of Service – The grouping of customers into similar groups based usage
characteristics and/or facility requirements
6
Proposition 218 and “Phase-in” Option
Requirement of a public hearing and protest procedures
Additional cost of a 218 process
Recommended rate structure changes considered every 3 to 5
years with a rate study
Brings rate stability inline with rate setting methodology
Majority of rate increase is pass-through from providers
Internal rate increase will be set as “not to exceed” percentage based
on reasonable rate model projections
For significant changes to the rate structure a “phase-in”
approach may be used to spread the impact over multiple
years. This must be included in the Proposition 218 notice.
7
Water Rate Structure Changes
being Considered
8
Recycled Commercial Rate
Currently all recycled water is used for irrigation
Anticipation of new commercial customers such as
power plant and conversion of irrigation, laundry and
toilet flushing at prisons
Ensures compliance with CWA Recycled Credits
Agreement
Encourages use of recycled water
Ensures equity between user classes
Peaking factor for indoor use is much lower than
peaking factor for irrigation
9
Fire Service
Used for sprinkler systems in homes and buildings
Update the fire service fee to ensure equity among
customers
Examine mixed-use meters
Upsizing of the meter for fire service
Combined mixed use indoor/irrigation/fire
10
Mixed Use Meters
Examine the mixed use meters to determine if they
belong in a separate class of customers
Commercial/Irrigation
Multi-Residential/Irrigation
11
Re-examine Tiers
Ensure they match current consumption
Industry standard uses winter and summer flows to
determine tier break points
Ensures equity among customer classes
Retain tiers for commercial classes
This allows the District to easily implement drought
rates if necessary
12
Energy Charges
Examine the way energy charges get allocated to
pressure zones
Ensures those customers causing higher energy costs
to pay higher energy charges
13
Water Meter Equivalencies
Used to allocate fixed costs driven by capacity
Ensure compliance with AWWA hydraulic capacity
factors
Ensure equity among customer classes
14
Sewer Rate Structure Changes
being Considered
15
Commercial Accounts
Eliminate the ASU calculation for commercial accounts
Create a system fee by water meter size
Use annual average water consumption for the usage charge
More fairly allocates costs based on usage
Accounts with less than 1 ASU could see lower sewer bills
16
Adjust Sewer Strength Factors
Update strength factors using current industry
standards
Brings equity among user classes
High strength commercial users could see an increase
in their volumetric rate per HCF
17
Water Meter Equivalencies for
Sewer Base Charges
Ensure consistency with water meter equivalencies for
the purpose of allocating fixed charges based on
capacity
Brings consistency between water and sewer
Brings current rate structure to industry standard
18
Multi-Residential
Charge system fee based on meter size instead of
number of dwelling units
Brings equity among user classes
Multi-residential may see a decrease in the system fee
19
System Fee for Single-Family
Make monthly base fee for ¾” and 1” single-family
accounts the same
Meter size does not play a large role in sewer rates for
single-family
Simplifies rate structure
20
Schools and Churches
Eliminate the special formulas for schools and
churches based on attendance
Simplifies rate structure
Brings current structure into industry standard
Many will see their sewer bill reduced
21
Other Changes
Detach and attach Improvement District (ID) 25 to ID
20 and ID 19 to ID 22
The fees are identical for these customers
This allows the District to eliminate two IDs
22
Next Steps
Continue to review preliminary findings with consultant
Determine staff recommendations
Bring recommended rate structure changes to the Board
Incorporate new rate structure into FY2014 Rate Model
Adopt FY2014 Budget
Bring new rates and charges to Proposition 218 hearing
Adopt a five-year Proposition 218 set of rates and charges
Adopt the FY2014 rate increases
23
Questions???
24
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Kevin Koeppen, Finance
Manager
PROJECT: DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY:
Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Refinancing the 2004 Certificates of Participation (COPS)
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Informational report only. No action required.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
This is an information only item to inform the Board of Directors of
the potential savings from refinancing the 2004 COPs. The staff is
currently working on Requests for Proposals (RFPs) seeking proposals
for Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, and Disclosure Counsel related
to the refinancing.
BACKGROUND:
In 2004 the District issued Certificates of Participation and
received proceeds of $12,270,000. The proceeds of the 2004 COPS were
used to redeem the 1993 COPS, which were originally used for
reservoirs, pump stations and 50,000 feet of pipeline. The amount of
the 2004 COPS currently outstanding is $8,100,000 and is scheduled to
be paid-off in FY-2024. The amount to be refinanced would include
the current amount outstanding, plus any issuance costs.
AGENDA ITEM 8b
The District’s Debt Policy (Policy 45) states, “the District may
commence the refinancing process if a minimum five percent (5%)
present value savings, net of issuance costs, and any cash
contributions can be demonstrated. Beginning the process with at
least a 5% savings should provide the District with some level of
protection that it can achieve a minimum of three percent (3%) net
present value savings of refinancing the bonds when and if the debt
is issued.” Staff estimates the value savings would meet the 5%
requirement.
ANALYSIS:
Based on current interest rates, it is estimated that the District
will save $550,000-$600,000 over the remaining life of the debt.
Staff is evaluating alternatives to calculate the final savings. The
staff is not considering any options that would change the debts
duration or structure, meaning any refinancing would maintain the
maturity and fixed interest aspects of the current debt.
The duration of the refinance process is estimated to be
approximately three months.
Conclusions:
This is an information only item to inform the Board of Directors of
the potential savings from refinancing the 2004 COPs. To further
evaluate and confirm the savings, staff is working on RFPs seeking
proposals for Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, and Disclosure
Counsel.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
A preliminary estimated savings of $550,000-$600,000 over the
remaining life of the debt is expected, which meets the 5% required
by the policy to commence the refinancing process. The exact amount
will be determined when the proposed costs are finalized.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The District ensures its continued financial health through long-term
financial planning and debt planning.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
Attachment A – Committee Action Form
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Refinancing the 2004 Certificates of Participation (COPS)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee reviewed this
item at a meeting held on January 22, 2013 and the following comments
were made:
This report is to inform the board of potential savings from
refinancing the 2004 COPS.
Staff is currently working on RFP’s seeking proposals for a
Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, and Disclosure Counsel related
to the refinancing of the 2004 COPS.
It is estimated that the District will save between $550,000 to
$600,000 over a ten-year period. The exact amount will be
determined once all RFP’s are received and exact costs can be
calculated.
Staff is not looking at options that would extend the maturity
date or structure of the debt. The preference would be to pay
the debt off within the same maturity period. Staff, however, is
open to any suggestions that would secure the largest amount of
savings for the District.
The committee asked if staff could explain the required 5%
present value savings indicated within the District’s Debt Policy
versus the 3% net present value savings. Staff explained that
the net present value of the proposed savings, if the 2004 COPs
were refinanced, is approximately $500,000 or 5%. Five (5)
percent is the threshold where staff should look at refinancing
the debt per the District’s Debt Policy. The 3% is the minimum
net present value savings that staff would consider refinancing
the debt.
Once a Financial Advisor is selected, one of their tasks is to
look at structures of debt that would provide the District the
largest savings. Staff noted that the Financial Advisor does not
receive payment unless the debt is refinanced.
Staff indicated that there are other factors, other than interest
rates, that are considered when deciding to refinance debt.
Additionally, there is a date upon which the district may call
the debt. As that date is approached, it becomes more
financially advantageous to refinance.
It was indicated that the possible refinancing of this debt would
be included in the Rate Study.
The committee inquired what the current interest rate is on the
2004 COPS versus the estimated interest rate for the refinancing.
Staff followed up on this inquiry subsequent to the Finance
committee meeting. The average interest rate on the current debt
is 4.12% and the average interest rate anticipated on the
refinanced debt is 1.5%.
Following the discussion, the committee supported presentation to the
full board as an informational item.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
SUBMITTED BY: Adolfo Segura, IT Manager
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Geoff Stevens, Chief Information Officer
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: DISTRICT COMPUTER SECURITY STATUS
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see “Attachment A”.
PURPOSE:
To brief the Board on the current state of computer security at the
Otay Water District.
ANALYSIS:
The District follows technology security best practices and
implements, with the help of key vendors and IT support staff, a
comprehensive and layered approach to operations and system security.
Staff has always placed a very high priority on security of our
computer systems. With the assistance of excellent consultants, we
implemented a high level of security in the original design and all
subsequent upgrades. Staff has worked with external agencies, such
as the FBI and security testing firms, and as a result has made
additional changes (e.g., a revision of our procedure for Virtual
Private Network [VPN] access following our last security audit). We
have also been recognized by the Municipal Information Systems
Association of California (MISAC) and received “Excellence in
Operations” awards in 2010 and 2011, which includes an audit of our
AGENDA ITEM 8c
2
published security policies and procedures. While one can never be
completely free of risk, the District has systematically been
proactive in implementing appropriate security improvements and when
we have learned of threats or weaknesses, we have been aggressive in
making changes. Specific areas of concentration are:
Desktops/Laptops: The District operates a combination 150 Intel based
desktops and laptops, with the vast majority operating on a Windows 7
operating system and a small number running XP. For activity
protection, all desktops and laptops run the Symantec
Antivirus/Antispyware solution and are updated daily. In addition,
via Microsoft subscription service, IT staff routinely monitors for
the availability of required operating systems and security patches.
Business Servers: The District operates approximately 70 physical and
virtual servers. These servers run our financials, computerized
maintenance work order system, website, SCADA, phone system, work
group databases, network file & print and general user connectivity.
These servers are supported by IT staff and vendor support
agreements. For activity protection, all servers run the Symantec
Antivirus/Antispyware solution and are updated daily. In addition,
via Microsoft subscription service and vendor maintenance agreements,
IT staff routinely monitors for the availability of required
operating system and application patches. Our internet access is also
controlled by Websense software that blocks sites that are known
security risks or contain inappropriate content. As an additional
precaution, we use a third party credit card validation vendor that
allows us to not keep our customers credit card numbers. Likewise,
there are extra levels of protection for internal data, such as
employee social security numbers, that are restricted from access
without approval.
12-Month Otay Server Patch Summary: Report Generated 12/21/2012
3
Data Center and Network: The District operates one small data center
and five satellite communication rooms, which facilitate LAN and
remote site connectivity. These computer rooms are physically
protected behind door, lock/key and remote card, or FOB access.
These rooms are environmentally protected and contain fire
suppression systems and/or monitoring agents.
The District operates Cisco networking technology. The networking
equipment is supported by IT staff and service providers. Data
Center services and general network activity is monitored 24/7 via a
remote service provider (RMS). The RMS vendor assists with
preventive monitoring, patch deployment and technical support.
Security: Overall District computing security is layered from
desktop level to physical access. This layer strategy includes
operating system and database security patching, email anti-
virus/anti-spyware, web content filtering for Internet exploit
protection, Cisco firewalls for network and intrusion protection, and
physical security components to protect District technology assets.
In the wireless system that is under deployment, we use fully
encrypted point-to-point protocols that cannot be accessed by an
unauthorized party. When transmitting sensitive data, for example to
PERS or the IRS, we also employ high level encryption for data. We
have also outsourced our email system, which removes a lot of risky
access to our internal servers and are doing the same for our
external web site. To date, there has been zero network, operating
system, or application security breaches. In January 2013, via
security vendor Symantec, the District’s website was rated as “Very
Secure”.
The District did experience an unauthorized access of phone voice
mailboxes in November 2012. While no access to our internal systems
or data was obtained, the intruders did gain access to a long-
distance line. Staff is working with AT&T’s Fraud Prevention Unit
and should not be liable for these charges. To mitigate this
incident, passwords were changed, longer password strings enforced,
and a number of non-essential phone functions were disabled.
IT Operations: To enhance the stability and security of the
District’s computing environment, the IT team routinely meets
internally, and with key vendors, to review and apply functional and
security updates. Exercising planned Change and Control Management
best practices, the IT team has been able to provide computing
services at 99.99% up-time, which exceeds our Strategic Plan Measure
4.3.401 target rate of 99.2% (refer to graph on the following page).
This means that system downtime is limited to scheduled after-hours
maintenance windows.
4
99.2 99 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.2 99
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr YTD
Quarterly
Target
Quarterly
Result
Annual Target
YTD Average
Measure 4.3.401, Network Availability, aims to be above all set targets in order to
have an average of no less than 99.2% network availability per quarter in a single
year.
Network Availability 4.3.401
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This report is a requested deliverable under item 3.1.2.10,
Streamline and Improve Data Center Processes.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Report
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: DISTRICT COMPUTER SECURITY STATUS
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee reviewed this
item at a meeting held on January 22, 2013 and the following comments
were made:
Staff provided an update on the current state of the District’s
computer and network security.
It was indicated that the District follows technology best
practices for systems security. The District’s computers and
laptops are routinely monitored for the availability of required
operating systems and security patches and Symantec
Antivirus/Antispyware updates are run daily.
The District operates approximately 70 physical and virtual
servers. These servers run the District’s financials, website,
SCADA system, phone system, databases, and general network and
user connectivity. The servers are proactively updated with
security, operational and application patches. The District’s
servers have received over 5000 patches over the last 12 months.
The District also has firewalls in place which protect the
District’s network from unauthorized access.
The District’s physical assets (computer equipment, switches,
routers, networking and telephone equipment) are all protected
behind doors which require “key” and/or FOB access. Many of the
areas also have video cameras which monitor who is going in and
out of these areas.
Staff shared that the District did have one incident this past
November where there was unauthorized access of the District’s
voicemail boxes. The intruders were able to make long distance
calls from the District’s system. The voicemail system feature
that allowed this access has been disabled. The District was
notified of the unauthorized access through AT&T’s fraud team and
staff is working with them to remove the unauthorized charges
from the District’s bill. Recently, the intruder tried again to
access the District’s long distance lines through the same
method, but the District was able to repel the second attempt
because of changes that were implemented after the first attempt.
Staff indicated that Symantec, the District’s
Antivirus/Antispyware solutions provider tested the District’s
website by trying to access the District’s network through the
website. They provided the District a rating of “very secure.”
Currently, the District’s website is hosted internally. Staff is
planning to transition the website to an outside vendor, similar
to the District’s email system. This would remove the potential
threat of unauthorized access to the District’s production
systems. This transition is planned to occur in the next 30 to
60 days.
There has been no other unauthorized access to the District’s
system. Staff noted that the District’s SCADA System is not on
the public network/production system, as per Best Practice. It
is on a private internal stand-alone network.
In response to an inquiry form the committee, staff indicated
that employees can access the District’s private
network/applications systems from home through the District’s
Virtual Private Network (VPN). Employees are provided an
application that is loaded onto their laptop/desk top which
establishes a secure handshake from the employee’s laptop/desk
top to the District’s network services. It was indicated that
two (2) years ago the District tested the security on its VPN by
having a vendor try to “break” into the District’s system. They
were unsuccessful, but the District did receive recommendations
on how to further strengthen the VPN access. Those
recommendations were implemented. This type of testing is part
of the District’s normal cycle for systems security. Employees
are also required to change their passwords periodically.
Staff indicated in response to an inquiry from the committee that
operational control of the District’s infrastructure is through
the SCADA system. The SCADA system provides data to the
District’s network for analysis, however, there is no connection
back to the SCADA network. It is on its own private network, so
an intruder cannot access the SCADA network, even if they were
able to break into the District’s website. It was further
discussed that even if an employee were to cause some harm to the
system (ie., overflow a reservoir) alarms would go off to alert
staff. The employee would have had to sign into the SCADA
system, so the District would know who had caused the issue. It
was also noted that Employees go through a thorough
criminal/background check before they are hired.
It was discussed that the District’s data systems are backed up
each week and a full back-up tape is forwarded to an offsite
storage facility with a copy held at the District.
Staff indicated that the District’s Information Technology team
constantly reviews the security of the District’s system and
implements all available measures to secure the systems. This is
a continual process to assure the security of the District’s
systems.
Following the discussion, the committee supported presentation to the
full board as an informational item.
1
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Marchioro
Senior Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger
Engineering Manager
CIP./G.F. NO: P2434-
001102
DIV. NO. 2
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Update for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Development Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To update the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) on the progress of the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Development Project (Project).
ANALYSIS:
In 1997, the District purchased property along Rancho del Rey
Parkway within the City of Chula Vista with an existing brackish
groundwater production well on site (see Exhibit A for Project
location).
In 1999, the District split the property and sold the excess
land. The property modification was approved through the City
AGENDA ITEM 8d
2
of Chula Vista planning process that included preparing a tract
map with plans for a developer to build a childcare facility
(Childtime) and a common driveway to serve Childtime’s and the
District’s sites. The District acquired an access easement from
Childtime in 2001. At the time the property was purchased, the
Project was considered economically unfeasible. Consequently,
the Project was suspended until the cost of imported water began
to escalate in recent years.
In 2010, a new production well was constructed by AECOM
Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). After development of the
well, AECOM recommended that 450 gallons per minute (725 acre-
feet per year) maximum safe yield pumping rate be used for
design purposes. Subsequently, staff contracted with Separation
Processes, Inc. (SPI), a well-known membrane treatment firm, to
conduct a feasibility study for the Project.
In April 2011, the Board awarded a professional services
contract to Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) to design the
treatment plant facility. To date, Tetra Tech has completed the
90% design submittal. Tetra Tech is currently proceeding to the
100% design level. In parallel with Tetra Tech’s ongoing design
effort, staff has been working on the following components of
the overall Project:
1. Sewer: Waste will be transported through the City of Chula
Vista’s (Chula Vista) existing sewer collection system, the
County of San Diego’s (County) existing Spring Valley
Outfall, and the Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers
Authority’s (Metro) sewage system for treatment. The
District will utilize existing sewer capacity rights in the
County’s Spring Valley Outfall and in Metro’s South Metro
Interceptor and Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
District will be invoiced by Chula Vista, the County, and
Metro for Project sewer discharges separately.
Staff is working with Chula Vista to develop a new sewer
agreement to discharge brine to the sewer. Staff is also
working with the City of San Diego to obtain a new Metro
Industrial User Discharge Permit. The overall cost for the
sewer connection including Chula Vista, County, and Metro
fees is anticipated to be roughly $200/acre-foot.
2. Storm Drain: Staff is working with the City of Chula Vista
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain
coverage under existing National Pollutant Discharge
3
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for discharge of non-spec
potable water to the storm drain.
3. Hazardous Materials Storage/Handling: Staff met with the
City of Chula Vista Fire Department in December 2011 to
review the draft design. A County Hazardous Materials
Business Plan application was submitted to the County in
April 2012.
4. Operation Options: Staff is currently considering three
options for operation of the facility including: a)
operation by a private company, b) operation by District
in-house staff, and c) operation by the Sweetwater
Authority.
5. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Power Supply:
Coordination with SDG&E has been completed for the design
phase. Staff is working with SDG&E to gain a better
understanding of future changes in electricity rates.
6. Funding: District staff is working on a Bureau of
Reclamation funding application for up to 25% of the cost
of the Project ($2.18M in initial cost savings, which is
equivalent to a $223/acre-foot savings). Funding through
the San Diego County Water Authority’s (SDCWA) Local Water
Supply Development (LWSD) Program (up to $200/acre-foot)
and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(up to $250/acre-foot) is currently unavailable.
7. Design: Tetra Tech has designed the treatment facility to
the 90% design level and is currently proceeding to the
100% design level.
Staff considers it prudent at this time to complete the
following items:
Design phase
Lock in the City of Chula Vista sewer agreement
Permit the storm drain connection
Continue Agency coordination regarding hazardous
materials
Obtain a better understanding of future changes in
electricity rates
Secure available funding
4
However, once the design has been completed, the Project
construction phase should be put on hold due to the uncertainty
of the items summarized in the table below:
Assumption: Economic Impact: Reliability Impact:
SDCWA/Poseidon
Resources current
draft water
purchase agreement
moves forward
Increase in SDCWA
Rates would
increase Project
appeal
No change - regional
treated water supply
would increase; however,
the Project would remain
the sole non-SDCWA source
SDCWA and
Metropolitan Water
District of
Southern California
treated water rate
increases long-term
Increase in SDCWA
Rates would
increase Project
appeal Not applicable
Rosarito
Desalination
project moves
forward
Unknown
The additional non-SDCWA
source would decrease
Project appeal
SDG&E rate
increases per
November 7, 2012
District Staff
Report
Increase in
electricity cost
would decrease
Project appeal
Not applicable
Once staff has a better understanding of when the SDCWA all-
inclusive treated rate will approach the projected Project unit
cost (currently estimated at $2,000/acre-foot) continuing with
the construction phase could be re-evaluated (see presentation
attached as Exhibit B).
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
No fiscal impact. The total budget for CIP P2434, as approved
in the FY 2013 budget, is $8,700,000. CIP expenditures prior to
FY 2009 (prior to commencing the SPI feasibility study and prior
to drilling the new production well) were $551,303. CIP
expenditures to date (through October 24, 2012) were $3,481,978.
Total CIP expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are approximately $8,694,729. See Attachment B for
budget detail.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To
provide high value water and wastewater services to the
5
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/RR:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2434 - RDR Well\Staff Reports\BD 02-06-13, Attachment A, (JM-RR) (edits4).doc
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Presentation
6
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2434-001102
Informational Update for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater
Well Development Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 10, 2012 and
the following comments were made:
Staff provided a PowerPoint presentation on the progress of
the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
(Project).
Staff stated that the Project is a new 600 AFY Potable
Water Source with a new brackish groundwater production
well, nested monitoring well, and reverse osmosis treatment
plant that will discharge brine to the sewer.
The Project is located in the City of Chula Vista along
Rancho del Rey Parkway in a mostly residential community
adjacent to an existing daycare facility called Childtime.
It was noted that the District’s property shares a common
driveway that is owned by Childtime.
A slide was provided to show current architectural
elevations for the Project. Staff and the consultant
(Tetra Tech) incorporated architectural concepts to blend
in with Childtime and the surrounding residential homes.
The idea was for the structure to appear similar to a 2-
story home.
It was noted that staff, California Department of Public
Health (CDPH), and the value engineering and
constructability consultant (Arcadis) reviewed Tetra Tech’s
90% design level submittal. Tetra Tech is currently
proceeding to the 100% design level.
7
A map was provided that showed the sewer flow path to
Metro’s south interceptor. Staff indicated that brine will
be transported through the City of Chula Vista’s sewer
system, then through the County’s Spring Valley Outfall and
Metro’s South Metro Interceptor, and ultimately to the
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Staff noted that the District will pay three (3) separate
bills, one to Chula Vista, one to the County, and one to
Metropolitan Water District (Metro).
It was indicated that District and Chula Vista staff have
been working together for a couple years to study Chula
Vista’s sewer system and determine its hydraulic capacity
to support the Project. Based on the technical results,
staff drafted and negotiated a new sewer agreement that is
nearly complete. The draft Chula Vista sewer agreement
includes initial and reoccurring transportation costs, and
possible other costs like manhole lining and scale removal;
however, it’s unlikely that it will be needed. Staff stated
that working with the County and Metro has been
straightforward because the District will utilize existing
capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall and Metro Wastewater
pursuant to existing agreements. Existing County and Metro
agreements will be utilized for reoccurring County and
Metro costs. District staff is working with the City of San
Diego to secure an Industrial User Discharge Permit.
It was noted that staff is also working on development of a
new storm drain connection to discharge non-spec potable
water to the storm drain.
Staff stated that the District is working with the Chula
Vista fire department and the County regarding hazardous
materials which are especially sensitive since the Project
will be adjacent to a daycare facility.
There was a discussion about who will operate the plant.
Staff indicated that the health department requires two (2)
T3 certified operators familiar with reverse osmosis
equipment until the plant is deemed reliable for remote
operation. If the District decides to operate the plant
in-house, it would need to hire from the outside because
the District currently does not employ T3 certified
operators. Staff stated that there may be an opportunity
for an outside company to operate the plant, but the
drawback is that there are no similar operations nearby and
8
the private companies may have difficulty keeping the T3
operators busy when not working on the well. It was noted
that Sweetwater may be a good fit to operate the plant
since they have a similar facility nearby, but it’s not
clear if they are interested.
Staff stated that coordination with SDG&E has been
completed for the design phase; however, staff is working
with SDG&E to gain a better understanding of future changes
in electricity rates.
It was noted that District staff is working on a Bureau of
Reclamation funding application for up to 25% of the cost
of the Project.
Staff provided a slide that showed the current schedule for
the Project. Staff, including the Engineering, Operations,
and Finance departments, will meet with the City of Chula
Vista on January 17, 2013 to negotiate a few items in the
agreement.
It was noted that the Project will not be placed on hold
until the design has been completed. Staff feels it is
important to work through details of the design,
permitting, and agreements to facilitate resurrecting the
Project in the future.
Staff indicated that some of the drivers influencing the
decision to place the Project on hold include the
uncertainty of the SDCWA/Poseidon Resources water purchase
agreement, long-term SDCWA and Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California treated water rates, Rosarito
Desalination project, and future SDG&E rate increases.
Staff stated that Sycuan is showing an interest in the
Project.
In response to a question by the Committee, staff indicated
that the District has so far invested $3.5 million into the
Project and has committed $3.8 million. It was noted that
staff will pause the construction of the Project to ensure
that the District is investing in the right areas.
The Committee recommended that staff add to the PowerPoint
presentation some focal points that emphasize the Project’s
potential, such as Sycuan’s interest in the Project and the
production of water at 600 AFY for approximately $2,000.
9
Following the discussion, the EO&WR Committee requested
that this item be brought back to the EO&WR Committee
before going to the full Board.
The following was provided after the Committee meeting in
response to the Committee’s inquiries described above:
o On April 4, 2007, the District adopted the Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP outlined which measures the
District needed to “wean” itself from CWA by developing
several alternative water supplies, including
groundwater, desalination, recycled water supplies, and
conservation. Thirty (30) potential alternative water
supplies were considered including Rosarito Desalination,
SD17 Pump Station with the City of San Diego, North
District Recycled Water Concept, Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well, Otay 7 Well, Otay River Sweetwater
Wells, etc.
o In the FY 2008 budget, a CIP was created to allocate
funds for the planning, exploration, testing, and
preliminary investigation of groundwater wells to
develop treatment requirements to meet water supply
diversification and reliability goals. In FY 2010, the
Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project was
specifically identified as a production well development
of approximately 300 GPM for potable water use as the
Project needed to meet the IRP water supply goals.
o In January 2010, staff brought for Board consideration
the awarding of a contract to AECOM in the amount of
nearly $1.6 million for technical services including the
planning, design, construction, and testing of a
production and monitoring well at Project site.
Attachment C of the January 2010 staff report justified
the need of taking the next step towards development of
a production groundwater well at the Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well site. At the time the staff report was
prepared, it was understood that land use development
projects planned to be served by the District, however,
not within the jurisdictions of the SDCWA, would likely
require alternative water resources.
o In January 2011, staff presented two staff reports to
the full Board including an AECOM change order in an
amount of $176,805 and authorization to issue a RFP for
the Design of Phase 2 of the Project.
10
o In April 2011, staff brought for Board consideration the
awarding of a contract to Tetra Tech in the amount of
$724,000 for design engineering, permitting assistance,
construction support services, and operations training.
In February 2012, staff updated the Board on the
progress of the Architectural Design relating to the
Project.
o The following recent developments have influenced the
decision to pause the construction phase of the Project.
Staff will continue to develop a better understanding of
the issues and outcomes below before more funds are
committed.
1. The Rosarito Desalination Project, which has
recently gained momentum, would reduce the need for
more local supply. The Rosarito Desalination
Project would be preferred compared to the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project due to
its larger scale, probable lower unit cost of water,
and streamlined operations.
2. The impact of SDG&E rate increases per the
District’s November 7, 2012 Staff Report is unknown.
Electricity cost is very sensitive to the Project
since it’s currently estimated at $260,000 annually
which is equivalent to $430/acre-foot. Based on the
November 7, 2012 Staff Report, possible SDG&E rate
increases could add an additional $215/acre-foot to
the Project unit cost of water.
3. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California’s (MWDSC) $250/acre-foot local supply
rebate was made unavailable when SDCWA entered into
litigation with MWDSC over water rates. SDCWA’s
Local Water Supply Development (LWSD) Program’s
$200/acre-foot rebate was also made unavailable when
SDCWA did not include it in their FY 2011-12 budget.
4. The outcome of ongoing sewer connection
negotiations, partially related to unforeseen
existing hydraulic capacity issues in the City of
Chula Vista’s existing sewer system and other items,
are still unknown.
5. To partially mitigate City of Chula Vista sewer
capacity issues (see bullet #4 above) and discharge
off-spec potable water to the storm drain, the
11
Regional Water Control Board is currently reviewing
the District’s application for coverage under the
RWQCB’s General Permit for the Discharge of
Groundwater Extraction Waste to the Waters of San
Diego Bay, Order R9-2007-0034.
6. Staff is currently considering operation options in
response to the health department’s verbal
suggestion that they will require two (2) T3
certified operators with reverse osmosis experience
to operate the facility. If the District decides to
operate the plant in-house, it would need to hire
from the outside because the District currently does
not employ T3 certified operators. Appeal for an
outside company to operate the plant appears low
because there are no similar operations nearby and
the private companies may have difficulty keeping
the T3 operators busy when not working on the
Project.
7. Staff is also evaluating reimbursements to District
sewer customers for the Project to utilize existing
sewer capacity assets which were originally
purchased by sewer customers. These assets include
existing capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall and
Metro Wastewater pursuant to existing agreements.
If the District did not already own unused capacity
in Metro Wastewater, the City of Chula Vista would
charge the District an additional $802,276 one-time
payment based on Metro capacity rates per the City
of Chula Vista’s current (May 2005) Sewer Master
Plan. If the District did not already own unused
capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall, the pipeline
capacity one-time payment to City of Chula Vista
could double ($624,877 rather than $312,439). Based
on this, the internal reimbursement for the Project
to purchase capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall
and Metro from the District’s sewer customers would
be a one-time payment of approximately $1.1 million
which is equivalent to approximately $115/acre-foot
assuming 600 AFY. This internal reimbursement to
District sewer customers has not yet been included
in the Project cost model or Attachment B.
The Project’s potential might be realized through a
better understanding of the following items:
12
8. When the SDCWA all-inclusive treated rate will
approach the projected Project unit cost considering
SDCWA’s recent approval of the water purchase
agreement with Poseidon Resources.
9. Sycuan Indian Reservation may be interested in
contributing to funding of the Project because they
are seeking a source of water independent of MWDSC
and SDCWA supplies.
10. If and when Bureau of Reclamation funding for up to
25% of the cost of the Project ($2.18 million in
initial cost savings, which is equivalent to a
$223/acre-foot savings) will be available.
11. If and when SDCWA ends litigation with MWDSC and
MWDSC’s $250/acre-foot local supply rebate will
become available again.
Several San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) member agencies
have invested in potential alternate water supply projects at
risk in an attempt to increase reliability and lessen the impact
of supply shortages and regulatory restrictions that have
limited Southern California’s imported water supplies (Colorado
River and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta). Alternative
water supply projects have also become attractive as
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and SDCWA
have raised and will continue to raise wholesale water rates.
Recently, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD)
budgeted $19 million for the San Elijo Valley Groundwater
Project through FY 2016/FY 2017. OMWD’s project, which is
anticipated to produce up to 10% of their yearly demand
(approximately 2,000 AFY), is still in the early planning stage,
with a pilot test well recently installed. The City of San
Diego has budgeted approximately $100 million for their
Groundwater Asset Development Program and has installed and/or
is working to install several brackish groundwater monitoring
wells and pilot-production wells throughout San Diego County
(County). The City of Oceanside and Sweetwater Authority are
both working to expand their existing local brackish groundwater
supplies and treatment plants (Richard A. Reynolds Groundwater
Purification Facility and Mission Basin Groundwater Purification
Facility, respectively) and construct additional production
wells. There are several Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) projects
including the Helix Water District’s El Monte Valley Project
which was suspended in 2011. Once staff has a better
understanding of the issues described above, continuing with the
13
construction phase will be re-evaluated and staff will bring it
back to the Board for consideration.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item for the second time at a meeting held on
January 16, 2013. Following the discussion, the Committee
supported staffs’ recommendation to forward this staff report
and presentation to the full board as an informational item.
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2434-001102
Informational Update for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater
Well Development Project
Date Updated: October 24, 2012
Budget 8,700,000 Prior to FY 2009 001101
Labor 119,257 119,257 - 119,257
Land 326,092 326,092 - 326,092
Permits 125 125 - 125 CITY OF CHULA VISTA-DEPT. OFMaterials1,348 1,348 - 1,348 VARIOUSRental159 159 - 159 PENHALL COMPANYConstruction Costs 26,154 26,154 - 26,154 CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC.Service Contracts 6 6 - 6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
134 134 - 134 COURIER EXPRESS, INC.
205 205 - 205 USA SIGN CO.
3,226 3,226 - 3,226 QUALITY ASSURANCE LABORATORY
7,108 7,108 - 7,108 MULTI WATER SYSTEMS
1,955 1,955 - 1,955 BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP
5,665 5,665 - 5,665 EARTH TECH
3,344 3,344 - 3,344 CITY OF CHULA VISTA16,714 16,714 - 16,714 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION112 112 - 112 MONTGOMERY WATSON LABORATORIES2,500 2,500 - 2,500 ANDREW A. SMITH COMPANY2,000 2,000 - 2,000 ENARTEC ENGINEERING PLANNING
35,200 35,200 - 35,200 ALCEM FENCE COMPANY INC.Total Prior to FY 2009 551,303 551,303 - 551,303
Planning (FY2009-current)001101
Labor 233,027 233,027 - 233,027
Professional Legal Fees 5,619 5,619 - 5,619 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
Outreach Materials 1,876 1,876 - 1,876 MARSTON+MARSTON INC
Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Consultant Contracts 19,871 19,871 - 19,871 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
Consultant Contracts 13,825 13,825 - 13,825 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
Consultant Contracts 1,100 1,100 - 1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
Consultant Contracts 3,065 3,065 - 3,065 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOILConsultant Contracts 14,993 14,993 - 14,993 SEPARATION PROCESSES INCConsultant Contracts 6,930 6,930 - 6,930 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTConsultant Contracts 1,718,505 1,718,505 - 1,718,505 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INCService Contracts 5,100 5,100 - 5,100 S R BRADLEY & ASSOCIATES INC
Service Contracts 257 257 - 257 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Service Contracts 245 245 - 245 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
Service Contracts 2,500 2,500 - 2,500 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
624 624 - 624 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
0 399 399 - 399 REPROHAUS CORP
0 440 440 - 440 URBINA'S MASTER SWEEPING INCTotal Planning (FY2009-current)2,028,426 2,028,426 - 2,028,426
Design (FY2009-current)001102 002102Labor390,736 390,736 40,000 430,736
Professional Legal Fees 5,118 5,118 - 5,118 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Consultant Contracts 646,457 404,445 242,012 646,457 TETRA TECH INC
Consultant Contracts 7,847 7,847 - 7,847 PBS&J
Consultant Contracts 11,940 11,940 - 11,940 ATKINS
Consultant Contracts 6,130 6,130 - 6,130 MTGL INC
Consultant Contracts 3,200 3,200 - 3,200 ALTA LAND SURVEYING INC
Consultant Contracts 8,154 8,154 - 8,154 V & A CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Consultant Contracts 4,500 4,500 - 4,500 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC, THEConsultant Contracts 1,980 1,980 - 1,980 HERNDON SOLUTIONS GROUPConsultant Contracts 79,472 42,717 36,754 79,472 ARCADIS US INCService Contracts 294 294 - 294 REPROHAUS CORPService Contracts 130 130 - 130 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Service Contracts 343 343 - 343 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
20,000 20,000 Planset Reproduction/DistributionTotal Design (FY2009-current)1,166,300 887,534 338,766 1,226,300
Construction (FY2009-current)001103
Labor 14,715 14,715 200,000 214,715 101,785 101,785 101,785 TETRA TECH INC3,814,900 3,814,900 Treatment Plant Construction350,000 350,000 Construction Management407,300 407,300 Chula Vista Sewer Connection
Total Construction (FY2009-current)116,500 14,715 4,873,985 4,888,700
Grand Total 3,862,529 3,481,978 5,212,751 8,694,729
Otay Water District
Vendor/Comments
P2434 - Rancho Del Rey Well Development
Committed Expenditures Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
P:
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
C
I
P
P
2
4
3
4
-
R
D
R
W
e
l
l
\
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 DISTRICTRANCHO DEL REY WELL PROJECTLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A CIP P2434
F
0 75 150Feet
PROJECT SITE
TERR
A
NOV
A
D
R
RAN
C
H
O
CALLE L
A
G
A
S
C
A
DEL
REY
PKW
Y127
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTS
?ò
?ä
?Ë
;&s
!
DIV. 5
DIV. 2
DIV. 3
DIV. 1
DIV. 4
F
Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well
Development Project
Informational Update for:
February 6, 2013
Exhibit B
Presentation Outline
1.Project Overview
2.Recent Efforts
3.Costs
4.Schedule
2
Project Overview
New Potable Water Source (600 AFY):
Production well (900’ deep, 450 gpm)
Nested Monitoring Well (5 sub-monitoring wells)
RO Treatment Facility (80-90% recovery)
Discharge Brine to Sewer
3
4
5
Old Well
New Well
6
Childtime
7
Architectural Elevations
8
Tetra Tech 100% Design
•90% reviewed by District staff, CDPH, and Value
engineering and constructability consultant (Arcadis)
Sewer
•City of Chula Vista
•County
•Metro
Recent Efforts
9
Sewer Connection
10
City of Chula Vista
•New Agreement
•$406K in initial costs (pipeline capacity, shared sewer system
improvement costs, CCTV) and $11k+/- quarterly for conveyance
•Possible additional costs (scale removal, manhole relining)
County
•Utilize existing agreement & existing pipeline capacity in the County’s
Spring Valley Outfall
Metro
•Utilize existing agreement & existing pipeline and treatment capacity in
Metro’s South Metro Interceptor and Point Loma Wastewater
Treatment Plant
•Industrial User Discharge Permit
Sewer Connection
11
Storm Drain connection and NPDES Permit
Hazardous Materials Storage/Handling
•County Hazardous Materials Business Plan
•Chula Vista Fire Department
Operation Options
•Private Company (Veolia, Cal Am, United Water, Degremont, IDE)
•In-House (District hire two T3 Operators)
•Sweetwater Authority
Recent Efforts (continued)
12
SDG&E Power Supply
•Agreement
•Possible Rate Increases
Funding
•United States Bureau of Reclamation grant request
Recent Efforts (continued)
13
Initial (CIP Budget) $8.7M
•Treatment Facility $3.8M
•Expenditures to Date $3.8M
•Other (e.g., Admin, Construction Mgt.) $1.0M
•City of CV Sewer Connection $0.4M
Annual $650K/year
Cost of Water (600 AFY) $2,000/AF
Current Cost Model
14
Preliminary Design Report Oct 2011 (complete)
90% Design May 2012 (complete)
90% Design Review Aug 2012 (complete)
Final Design Mar 2013
Project Schedule
15
Rosarito Desalination Project gaining momentum
SDG&E rate increases
MWDSC $250/AF local supply rebate availability
Chula Vista’s sewer connection negotiations
RWQCB Storm Drain Connection
Operations Options
Sewer customer impact
Drivers for Placing Project on Hold
(after completion of design)
16
SDCWA all-inclusive treated rate approaches the
projected Project unit cost
Sycuan Indian Reservation
Funding (Bureau of Rec, MWDSC Rebate)
Project’s Potential Realized
17
Olivenhain Municipal Water District and City of San
Diego pilot test wells.
City of Oceanside and Sweetwater Authority existing
brackish groundwater supply expansions
Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) projects
Regional Examples of
Alternate Water Supply Projects
18
Questions?
19
STAFF REPORT
TYPE
MEETING:
Regular Board
MEETING
DATE:
February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED
BY:
Mark Watton
General Manager
W.O./G.F.
NO:
N/A DIV.
NO.
N/A
APPROVED BY:
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: General Manager’s Report
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
SDRMA Longevity Distribution – For the fourth year in a row,
the District will receive two longevity distribution checks,
totaling $22,915, for participating in the Property & Liability
and Workers’ Comp programs. The Longevity Distribution Policy,
approved by SDRMA’s Board of Directors, is to recognize and
reward members for their loyalty and commitment to SDRMA
programs.
Water Conservation and School Education:
Watersmart Landscape Programs - Promotion continues on the
Water Authority’s Turfgrass Replacement Program. A number of
Otay customers have already signed up for the program and are
in the process of replacing their front yard lawns with a water
smart landscape. For more details and to apply, please visit
http://turfreplacement.watersmartsd.org.
The District is wrapping up its own turfgrass replacement and
irrigation programs. To date, three properties have retrofitted
19,849 square feet of turfgrass and one site upgraded their
irrigation efficiency through our program. Staff submitted an
invoice to MET for $1 per square foot reimbursement.
School Education - Through the end of January, 27 Garden Tours
were completed and three more are scheduled to be completed
before the end of June 2013. The three tours completed this
month involved 156 3rd graders and 30 adults from the Corky
McMillin Elementary School in Chula Vista.
AGENDA ITEM 9
2
MET’s School Poster Contest – The winners’ posters will be on
display in the District lobby from February 7-14, 2013. The
District’s winner, Teresa Vasquez Alvizo, is featured in the
month of April. To see the winning posters, and learn more
about this year’s contest, go to www.otaywater.gov and click on
Education, then “For Students”.
Knott’s Soak City (Acquisition by Sea World) - District staff
approached Sea World regarding their recent acquisition of the
former Knott’s Soak City water park to see if there may be an
opportunity to create signage that promotes water conservation.
The District is meeting with Sea World staff in early February.
Chula Vista Green Business Recognition - On January 17th, the
District received recognition as a participant in Chula Vista’s
Green Business Challenge. Over 50 Chula Vista businesses
participated in the challenge.
Human Resources: Wellness Program - The District is pleased to announce the
sixth year of our Wellness Program. This year, we are
continuing the monthly challenges, lunchtime seminars, Weight
Management and Smoking & Tobacco Cessation Programs. Through
our medical provider, employees have access to additional
online tools and resources to help them meet their wellness
goals. The culture of the District has been influenced by the
health and wellness activities. Employees have experienced
positive health changes and there is continued interest in the
program.
Recruitments – HR is currently preparing to recruit for Safety
& Security Administrator, Construction Inspector II, Senior
SCADA/SCADA Instrumentation Technician, Engineering Manager,
and two Water System Operator positions.
New Hires – There were no new hires in the month of January.
Purchasing and Facilities:
Purchase Orders – There were 70 purchase orders processed in
January 2013 for a total of $4,319,632.04 (including one
purchase order for SDRMA for $3,200,000 for Employee Health
Administration Services from January 1, 2013 – December 31,
2013).
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING:
2014 Strategic Plan - Staff is preparing modifications of the
Strategic Plan for FY 2014. A series of workshops with each
department (and then further fine-tuning with the Senior Team)
3
will begin in February. This is the final year of the existing
2012-2014 plan. The output from this process will be presented
to the Board for review and comment as part of the annual
budget approval process.
Security Improvements with San Diego Sheriff’s Office
Collaboration – IT and Safety & Security staff met with the
Sheriff’s Office Critical Infrastructure Team (CIT) to review
the District’s 2011 general security assessment. The Sheriff’s
Office CIT would like to renew its relationship with the
District and continue to fine-tune the security assessment to
include tactical deployment planning of District security
assets and response protocol improvements. Onsite and field
visits are planned to commence in March.
Consolidation of Customer Information into GIS Viewer –IT has
streamlined the ability to access customer data within the
Customer Information System (CIS) via the GIS Dashboard Viewer.
Customer information such as meter number, account number,
customer name, APN, and site address, is now linked through the
dashboard. Consolidating these functions into one tool will
provide gained efficiencies for Customer Service staff to
quickly QA/QC account information, as well as assist
Engineering Front Counter staff to create permits.
FINANCE:
GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award - This year, in
addition to receiving the Distinguished Budget Presentation
Award from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
for the 9th year in a row, the Finance Department received two
Special Recognitions for the FY 2012-2013 Budget: 1) as a
Communications Device, and 2) as a Policy Document. These
special recognitions are rarely given to agencies. Last year,
only 13 of more than 1,350 agencies received the special
recognition for a Communications Device and only five agencies
received the special recognition for a Policy Document. Otay
is receiving both.
2004 COPS Refinancing RFPs – Request for Proposals (RFP) for a
Financial Advisor, related to the possible refinancing of the
2004 COPS debt, were emailed on January 23, 2013, to nine
firms. The selection will be done using the General Manager’s
contracting authority as the cost is expected to fall well
under his spending limit.
Accounts Payable Fraud Prevention - The District is adding
payee verification controls to its accounts payable process to
further prevent the misappropriation of A/P checks. The payee
verification process confirms when a check clears the bank and
4
that the name on the check matches the District’s records. If
the payee cannot be verified, the bank will reject the check.
This prevents fraud related to the misappropriation of checks
from someone changing the payee name. The District already has
controls in place to safeguard itself from fraud related to
changing the check amount or depositing a single check multiple
times.
Eden Software Upgrade - Staff has tested the new software
upgrade for customer service, which will be implemented on
January 30th. This upgrade is being tested thoroughly to
minimize any possibility of disrupting the high quality of
service to our customers. This is an annual process to keep
up-to-date on the software package used throughout the
District.
Bill Print Contract - The current contract with our bill print
vendor, InfoSend, will expire this fiscal year. Staff is
drafting an RFP, which will include information on bill payment
methods, web-based bill presentment, and phone payment options
as well as bill print options. By bundling these services, the
District may receive better pricing and reduce the number of
vendors involved in these processes.
Financial Reporting:
o For the six months ended December 31, 2012, there are total
revenues of $43,735,034 and total expenses of $41,364,958.
The revenues exceeded expenses by $2,370,076.
o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the
Investment Portfolio Details as of December 31, 2012 total
$85,149,492.38 with an average yield to maturity of 0.418%.
The total earnings year-to-date are $199,845.84.
ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS:
Engineering:
Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development: The design
consultant (Tetra Tech) is proceeding to the 100% design level.
District staff met on January 17, 2013 with the City of Chula
Vista to discuss several items in the agreement. Additional
activities are underway to secure an Industrial User Discharge
Permit from the City of San Diego, a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan from the County, a power supply from SDG&E, and a
storm drain connection for discharges into the storm drain
system. Staff is preparing a request for a grant from the
United States Bureau of Reclamation. Potentially, 25% of the
cost of the project could be offset if the funds are granted.
Staff will make a formal update of this project at the January
5
Engineering & OPS Committee Meeting and the February Board
Meeting. (P2434)
North District – South District Interconnection System: This
project consists of installing approximately 5.2 miles of 30-
inch diameter pipe from H Street in Chula Vista to Paradise
Valley Road in Spring Valley. On December 19, 2012, a meeting
was held with San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) staff in
follow up to the December 10, 2012 meeting with Supervisor Cox.
During the December 19, 2012 meeting, CWA staff gave the
impression that they might support the parallel encroachment
north of Jonel Way if the interconnect would be aligned through
private property south of Jonel Way. CWA requested that the
District contact the private property owner (Mr. Uwe Warner)
and acquire rights to align the interconnect through his
property. Mr. Warner mentioned in a January 4, 2013 phone
conversation that he was definitely not interested since he has
spent the last 20 years reconfiguring his property after CWA
came through and built Aqueduct Pipeline 4 in the 1990s. CWA
has been contacted and advised of Mr. Warner’s wishes. Staff
will continue to work with CWA and Supervisor Cox’s office on
an agreed upon alignment. (P2511)
30-Inch, 980 Zone, Hunte Parkway – Proctor Valley/Use Area:
This project consists of the installation of approximately
2,240 linear-feet of 30-inch steel pipe and appurtenances on
Hunte Parkway at Proctor Valley Road, at the entrance to the
Salt Creek Golf Course, in the City of Chula Vista. The
pipeline will increase total water delivery to reduce pressure
losses experienced during periods of high demand. The
Contractor, Sepulveda Construction, began installing pipe at
the intersection of Proctor Valley Road and Hunte Parkway on
October 2, 2012. They have installed approximately 2,000
linear-feet of pipe. Change orders requests have been
submitted by the contractor for changes associated with utility
conflicts and unanticipated soils conditions. The requests
have been evaluated by staff. A contract change order and a
request for additional funds will be presented at the February
2013 Engineering, Operations & Water Resources Committee
meeting for consideration. Construction is anticipated to be
completed in March 2013. (P2514)
944‐1R Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrades and System
Enhancement: This project consists of the installation of a
new pump, reconfiguration of the suction header piping,
upgrades to the instrumentation, SCADA system, and equipment at
the 944-1R pump station. The project also includes the
installation of three (3) Pressure Reducing Stations (PRS) on
Olympic Parkway, Eastlake Parkway, and Otay Lakes Road. Notice
of Substantial Completion was issued for the project as of
6
August 3, 2012. The Contractor, Sepulveda Construction,
submitted several change order requests subsequent to the
Notice of Substantial Completion. The Contractor’s
notification of these change order requests to the District are
considered late in accordance with the contract. Staff is
currently evaluating these requests to determine if entitlement
exists for the submitted requests. Project is within budget
and final acceptance is anticipated in March 2013. (R2091)
Avocado, Louisa, Calavo, Challenge, Hidden Mesa Sanitary Sewer
Replacement: This project consists of replacing approximately
4,500 linear-feet of sewer pipeline in Avocado Boulevard and
neighboring residential streets. Work is ongoing in Avocado
Boulevard by Garcia Juarez Construction. Contract change order
2 for $22,460 was approved by the Board at the January 8, 2013
Board Meeting. Project is within budget and anticipated to be
complete in May 2013. (S2019, S2020, S2022, S2026)
624-1 Reservoir Cover Replacement: This project consists of
replacing the floating cover on the 624-1 Reservoir. The
existing cover is at the end of its useful life and in need of
replacement. The Board awarded a contract to Layfield
Environmental Systems Corporation at the October 9, 2012 Board
Meeting. The Notice to Proceed was issued on November 16, 2012.
Project is within budget and anticipated to be complete in April
2013. (P2477).
12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline, East Orange Avenue, I-805
Crossing: This project consists of the installation of
approximately 1,915 linear-feet of 12-inch steel and PVC pipe
along with the associated appurtenances from the intersection of
Melrose Avenue and Orange Avenue, east across the I-805
overpass, to the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Oleander
Avenue in Chula Vista. This new pipeline is needed to meet fire
flow requirements while Caltrans reconstructs the Palomar Bridge
overpass, which contains a 10-inch pipeline that will be
temporarily out of service. At the January Board Meeting, the
Board approved increasing the budget by $100,000 and awarding a
construction contract to Basile Construction (Basile). The Pre-
Construction Meeting with Basile was held on January 15, 2013.
Project is within budget with the approved increase, and
anticipated to be complete in August 2013. (P2513)
803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coatings and
Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the
interior and exterior coatings of the 2.0 MG 803-3 Reservoir and
the 2.0 MG 832-2 MG Reservoir, along with providing structural
upgrades to ensure the tanks comply with both State and Federal
OSHA standards as well as American Water Works Association and
County Health Department standards. Bids were opened on
7
December 20, and Advanced Industrial Services (AIS) was the
apparent low bidder. Staff will recommend awarding a
construction contract to AIS at the January Engineering & OPS
Committee Meeting and the February Board Meeting. Project is
within budget and anticipated to be complete in August 2013.
(P2518 & P2519)
For the month of December 2012, the District sold 11 meters (11
EDUs) generating $100,944 in revenue. Projection for this
period was 27.6 meters (36.6 EDUs) with budgeted revenue of
$331,005. Total revenue for Fiscal Year 2013 through December
2012 is $1,986,032 against the annual budget of $3,972,064.
Water Operations:
Total number of potable water meters is 48,934.
The December potable water purchases were 1,835.5 acre-feet
which is 14.5% below the budget of 2,146.8 acre-feet. The
cumulative purchases through December is 17,387.4, acre-feet
which is 2.1% below the cumulative budget of 17,761.9 acre-
feet.
8
The December recycled water purchases and production was 132.0
acre-feet which is 29.0% less than the budget of 186.0 acre-
feet. The cumulative production and purchases through December
is 2,607.1 acre-feet which is 0.9% above the cumulative budget
of 2,583.4 acre-feet.
Recycled water consumption for the month of December is as
follows:
Total consumption was 206.9 acre-feet or 67,378,344 gallons and
the average daily consumption was 2,173,495 gallons per day.
Total recycled water consumption as of October for FY 2013 is
2743.4 acre-feet.
Total number of recycled water meters is 704.
Wastewater flows for the month of December were as follows:
Total basin flow, gallons per day: 1,759,228.
Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro, gallons per
day: 582,760.
Total Otay flow, gallons per day: 1,176,349.
Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling
Facility, gallons per day: 966,564.
Flow to Metro from Otay Water District, gallons per day:
209,904.
9
By the end of December there were 6,084 wastewater
connections/EDUs.
REVENUES:
Water Sales
Energy Charges
System Charges
MWD & CWA 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
CWA-Infrastructure Access Charge
CWA-Customer Service Charge
CWA-Emergency Storage Charge
MWD-Capacity Res Charge
MWD-Readiness to Serve Charge
Subtotal Water Purchases
Power Charges
Payroll & Related Costs
Material & Maintenance
Administrative Expenses
Legal Fees
Expansion Reserve
Betterment Reserve
Replacement Reserve
Transfer to Sewer Fund Reserve
Transfer to General Fund Reserve
Transfer to Sewer Replacement
Total Expenses
EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENSE)
F:/MORPT/FS2013-1212
Exhibit A
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY
FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012
Annual YTD YTD YTD
Budget Actual Budget Va,riance Var%
$ 39,110,200 $ 21,641,986 $ 21,531,400 $ 110,586 0.5%
1,809,500 1,158,658 1,132,300 26,358 2.3%
10,328,400 4,815,269 4,788,000 27,269 0.6%
9,705,800 4,996,145 4,958,400 37,745 0.8%
800,500 455,186 450,500 4,686 1.0%
61,754,400 33,067,244 32,860,600 206,644 0.6%
7,702,400 4,901,723 4,867,500 34,223 0.7%
2,555,200 1,244,162 1,257,000 (12,838) (1.0%)
112,200 51,531 56,100 (4,569) (8.1%)
1,180,600 618,272 610,300 7,972 1.3%
689,400 294,714 309,700 (14,986) (4.8%)
1,914,300 895,947 918,600 (22,653) (2.5%)
3,882,600 1,415,922 1,410,300 5,622 0.4%
105,700 34,719 42,900 (8,181) (19.1%)
879,500 439,800 439,800 0.0%
946,900 473,500 473,500 0.0%
595,000 297,500 297,500 0.0%
$ 82,318,200 $ 43,735,034 $ 43,543,800 $ 191,234 0.4%
$ 30,552,200 $ 16,515,906 $ 16,709,200 $ 193,294 1.2%
1,504,000 969,385 1,048,000 78,615 7.5%
1,818,000 898,278 898,200 (78) (0.0%)
1,687,800 826,481 826,200 (281) (0.0%)
4,086,000 1,911,893 1,911,600 (293) (0.0%)
504,000 271,553 271,800 247 0.1%
1,610,400 804,855 805,200 345 0.0%
41,762,400 22,198,351 22,470,200 271,849 1.2%
2,368,000 1,268,147 1,281,900 13,753 1.1%
18,856,200 8,761,555 9,096,067 334,512 3.7%
3,747,900 1,703,175 1,707,450 4,275 0.3%
4,424,900 1,912,429 2,010,062 97,633 4.9%
380,000 131,901 190,000 58,099 30.6%
3,936,000 1,968,000 1,968,000 0.0%
1,120,000 560,000 560,000 0.0%
743,000 371,500 371,500 0.0%
595,000 297,500 297,500 0.0%
2,285,800 1,142,900 1,142,900 0.0%
2,099,000 1,049,500 1,049,500 0.0%
$ 82,318,200 $ 41,364,958 $ 42,145,079 $ 780,121 1.9%
$ $ 2,370,076 $ 1,398,721 $ 971,355
1/28/2013 10:29 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW
DECEMBER 31, 2012
INVESTMENT OVERVIEW & MARKET STATUS:
The federal funds rate has remained constant now for over 4 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 ofbetween Zero and 0.25%" in response to the
nation's ongoing financial crisis, as well as banking industry pressure to ease credit and stimulate the economy. This marked the ninth
reduction in a row since September 18,2007, when the rate was 5.25%. There have been no further changes made to the federal funds
rate at the Federal Reserve Board's subsequent regular scheduled meetings, the most recent of which was held on December 12, 2012.
They went on to say: "The Committee currently anticipates exceptionally low levels jor the federal funds rate will be appropriate as
long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.25%. "
Despite the large drop in available interest rates, the District's overall effective rate of return at December 31 st was 0.40%, which was
a decrease of 13 basis points (0.13%) from the prior month. At the same time the LAIF return on deposits has fluctuated slightly over
the last several months, reaching an average effective yield of 0.326% for the month of December 2012. 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. Due to the high volume of Federal Agency Issue calls over
the past few years, the District's holdings in LAIF and the County Pool have risen in comparison to historical levels. In an effort to
achieve a portfolio mix that is more consistent with historical levels, the District has been more aggressive in purchasing Federal
Agency Issues. 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: December 31,2012
Investment State Limit Otay Limit Otay Actual
8.01: Treasury Securities 100% 100% o
8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Operations) $50 Million $50 Million $4.6 Million
8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Bonds) 100% 100% 4.79%
8.03: Federal Agency Issues 100% 100% 62.38%
8.04: Certificates of Deposit 30% 15% 0.10%
8.05: Short-Term Commercial Notes 25% 15% o
8.06: Medium-Term Commercial Debt 30% 15% o
8.07: Money Market Mutual Funds 20% 15% o
8.08: San Diego County Pool 100% 100% 26.03%
12.0: Maximum Single Financial Institution 100% 50% 1.34%
-----
OtayWater District
Investment Portfolio: 11/30/12
$1,220,375
1.43%
$53,097,004
62.38%
'-----------'-'
$30,794,798
Total Cash and Investments: $85,112,117 36.18%
C Banks (Passbook/Checking/CD) • Pools (LAIF &. County) DAgcncks & Corporalc Nolcs
Performance Measure F-12
Return on Investment
Target: Meet or Exceed 100% of LAIF
J!lc: Gl
0.80
0.70
I I
~ 0.60
~ c: 0.50
c: o 0.40
c:.. :::I0.30
Gl 0.20
0:: 0.10
0.00 1st Qtr I 2nd Qtr 4thQtr IstQtr
FYI2 FYI2 FYI2 FYI3
LAIF 0.39 0.39 U.36 0.36
_Otay
o Di fference
0.71
0.32
0.64
0.25
0.52
0.16
0.51
0.15 0.15
,-
0.48
0.12 0.0\1
M'onth
_LAIF _Otay o Difference
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
December 31, 2012
Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM
Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
Federal Agency Issues-Callable 53.095,000.00 53,111,275.05 53,097,004.06 6323 897 786 0.431 0.437
Certificates of Deposit· Bank 81,326.80 81,326.80 81,326.80 0.10 731 386 0.280 0.284
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 8,641,486.84 8,652,842.37 8,641,486.84 10.29 1 1 0.321 0.325
San Diego County Pool 22,153,311.58 22,165,000.11 22,153,311.58 26.38 , 1 0.426 0.432
Investments 83,971,125.22 84,010,444.33 83,973,129,28 100.00% 568 498 0.418 0.424
Cash
Passbook/Checking
(not included in yield calculations) 1,139,048.05 1,139,048.05 1,139,048.05 0.225 0.228
Total Cash and Investments 85,110,173.27 85,149,492,38 85,112,177.33 568 498 0.418 0.424
Total Earnings December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 29,030.50 202,584.00
Average Daily Balance 85,534,629.70 85,454,325.04
Effective Rate of Return 0.40% 0.47%
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 September 6, 2006. The
market value information provided by Interactive Data Corporation. The investments provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow requirements of the District for the next six months of
expenditures,
-7--=;Z'Y 1-IZ-i3
Joseph Beachem, Chief FinarfCial Officer
Reporting period 12/01/2012-12/31/2012 Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date: 01/1612013 15:10 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Portfolio Management Page 1
Portfolio Details -Investments
December 31, 2012
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 360 Maturity Date
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3135GOSQ7 2257 Fannie Mae 12124/2012 3,000,000.00 3,000,150.00 3,000,000.00 0.400 AA 0.395 904 06/24/201 5
3133EAEG9 2241 Federal Farm Credit Bank 05/09/2012 1,360,000.00 1,361,047.20 1,360,000.00 0.550 0.542 787 02127/2015
3133EAU30 2253 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/26/2012 3,000,000.00 2,999,910.00 2,998,613.90 0.320 AA 0.336 800 03/12/2015
3133EC2L7 2255 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/13/2012 3,000,000.00 3,000,540.00 3,000,000.00 0.440 AA 0.434 1,046 11/13/2015
3133EC6F6 2258 Federal Farm Credit Bank 12105/2012 3,000,000.00 2,999,430.00 3,000,000.00 0.350 AAA 0345 881 06/01/2015
3133EC7Hl 2260 Federal Farm Credit Bank 12117/2012 3,000,000.00 2,996,460.00 3,000,000.00 0.340 0.335 958 08/17/2015
3133ECA61 2261 Federal Farm Credit Bank 12118/2012 3,000,00000 2,996,130.00 2,999,260.83 0.320 0.325 898 06/18/2015
313380AV9 2248 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/13/2012 3,000,000.00 3,000,930.00 3,000,000.00 0.450 0.444 773 02113/2015
313380AV9A 2249 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/13/2012 1,030,000.00 1,030,319.30 1,030,000.00 0.450 0.444 773 02/13/2015
313380AV9B 2250 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/13/2012 2,705,000.00 2,705,838.55 2,705,000.00 0.450 0.444 773 02/13/2015
313380SU2 2252 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/15/2012 3,000,000.00 3,000,330.00 3,000,000.00 0.410 0.404 834 04/15/2015
3133762C8 2254 Federal Home Loan Bank 11109/2012 3,000,000.00 3,005,280.00 3,004,129.33 0.375 AA 0.438 330 11/27/2013
3134G3SS0 2232 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 03/2212012 3,000,000.00 3,002,850.00 3,000,000.00 0.540 0.533 629 09/22/2014
3134G3Y61 2256 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 12/10/2012 3,000,000.00 3,000,930.00 3,000,000.00 0.375 AAA 0.370 708 12110/2014
3134G32RO 2259 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 12/24/2012 3,000,000.00 2,998,650.00 3,000,000.00 0.400 AA 0.395 996 09/24/2015
3135GOKL6 2238 Federal National Mortage Assoc 04/30/2012 3,000,000.00 3,002,100.00 3,000,000.00 0.500 0.493 667 10/30/2014
3135GOKSl 2240 Federal National Mortage Assoc 05/10/2012 3,000,000.00 3,003,270.00 3,000,000.00 0.560 0.552 770 02110/2015
3135GOLF8 2242 Federal National Mortage Assoc 05/24/2012 3,000,000.00 3,003,480.00 3,000,000.00 0.500 0.493 692 11124/2014
3135GOLL5 2244 Federal National Mortage Assoc 06/04/2012 3,000,000.00 3,003,630.00 3,000,000.00 0.550 0.542 702 12104/2014--------
Subtotal and Average 44,936,270.15 53,095,000.00 53,111,275.05 53,097,004.06 0.431 786
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
2050003183-5 2229 California Bank & Trust 01/22/2012 81,326.80 81,326.80 81,326.80 0.280 0280 386 01/22/2014 --------
Subtotal and Average 81,326.80 81,326.80 81,326.80 81,326.80 0.280 386
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 4,566,662.48 4,572,663.40 4,566,662.48 0.326 0.322
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/21/2010 4,074,824.36 4,080,178.97 4,074,824.36 0.324 0320 --------
Subtotal and Average 14,407,615.87 8,641,486.84 8,652,842.37 8,641,486.84 0.321
San Diego County Pool
SO COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County 07/01/2004 22,153,311.58 22,165,000.11 22,153,311.58 0.432 0.426 --------
Subtotal and Average 22,153,311.58 22,153,311.58 22,165,000.11 22,153,311.58 0.426
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date: 01/16/2013 -15:10 PM (PRF]M2) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OlAY
Portfolio Management Page 2
Portfolio Details -Investments
December 31, 2012
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to
CUSIP Investment # Issuer DateBalance Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 360 Maturity
Total and Average 85,534,629.70 83,971,125.22 84,010,444.33 83,973,129.28 0.418 498
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 0111612013 -15:10 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details -Cash
December 31, 2012
Page 3
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Average
Balance
Purchase
Date Par Value Market Value Book Value
Stated
Rate S&P
YTM Days to
360 Maturity
Union Bank
UNION MONEY
PETTY CASH
UNION OPERATING
PAYROLL
RESERVE-10 COPS
RESERVE-10 BABS
UBNA-2010 BOND
UBNA-FLEX ACCT
9002
9003
9004
9005
9010
9011
9013
9014
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
07/01/2004
07/01/2004
07/01/2004
07/01/2004
04/20/2010
04/20/2010
04/20/2010
01/01/2011
10.012.03
2.950.00
996,448.68
27.971.60
6,484.01
17.650.98
70,015.05
7.515.70
10,012.03
2.950.00
996,448.68
27.971.60
6,484.01
17.650.98
70,015.05
7.515.70
10.012.03
2.950.00
996,448.68
27.971.60
6,484.01
17,650.98
70,015.05
7.515.70
0.010
0.250
0.010
0.010
0.147
0.010
0.000
0.247
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.145
0.000
Average Balance 0.00 1
Total Cash and Investments 85,534,629.70 85,110,173.27 85,149,492.38 85,112,177.33 0.418 498
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 01/16/2013 -15:10 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
OlAY
Portfolio Management Page 1
Interest Earnings Summary
December 31, 2012
December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
CD/CouponlDiscount 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
24,950.00
47,514.23
55,762.47)
0.00)
16,701.76
-316.60
0.00
16,385.16
121,239.43
47,766.57
58,13060)
0.00)
110,875.40
-300.97
1,633.33
112,207.76
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
0.00
0.00
0.00)
0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000)
0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cash/Checking Accounts:
Interest Collected 478.96 108,182.52
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 462,583.40 462,583.86
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period 450,417.02) 480,390.14)
Interest Earned during Period 12,645.34 90,376.24
Total Interest Earned during Period 29,347.10 201,251.64
Total Adjustments from Premiums and Discounts -316.60 -300.97
Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 1,633.33
Total Earnings during Period 29,030.50 202,584.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 0111612013 -15:35 PM (PRF]M6) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Activity Report
Sorted By Issuer
July 1,2012 -December 31,2012
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Percent
of Portfolio
Par Value_._-_.
Beginning
Balance
Current
Rate
Transaction
Date
_._0_'_'.-0' .____
Purchases or
Deposits
Par Value
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
---_.
Ending
Balance
Issuer: STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Union Bank
UNION MONEY
UNION OPERATING
RESERVE-l0 COPS
RESERVE-l0 BABS
UBNA-FLEX ACCT
9002
9004
9010
9011
9014
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Subtotal and Balance 1,445,116.45
0010
0.250
0010
0.010
70,481,052.37
5,437,838.88
1,035,795.99
2,722,233.75
21,000.00
79,697,920.99
70,481,046.25
5,732,358.62
1,030,000.00
2,705,000.00
55,584.52
80,003,989.39 1,139,048.05
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Subtotal and Balance 11,600,832.35
0326
0324
40,933,406.74
7,247.75
40,940,654.49
43,900,000.00
000
43,900,000.00 8,641,486.84
Issuer Subtotal 11.492% 13,045,948.80 120,638,575.48 123,903,989.39 9,780,534.89
Issuer: California Bank & Trust
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
Subtotal and Balance 81,326.80 81,326.80
Issuer Subtotal 0.096% 81,326.80 0.00 0.00 81,326.80
Issuer: Fannie Mae
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3135GOSQ7 2257 Fannie Mae
Subtotal and Balance 0.00
0.400 12124/2012 3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
0.00
0.00 3,000,000.00
Issuer: Federal
Issuer Subtotal
Farm Credit Bank
3.525%
~
0.00 3,000,000.00
-.
0.00 3,000,000.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 0111612013 -15:38 DA (PRF_DA) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Activity Report
July 1,2012 December 31,2012
Page 2
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Percent
of Portfolio
Par Value
Beginning
Balance
Current
Rate
Transaction
Date
- Purchases or
Deposits
Par Value._._--...
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
Ending
Balance
Issuer: Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Agency lssues-Callable
31331 KZFO 2219 Federal Farm Credit Bank
3133EAU30 2253 Federal Farm Credit Bank
3133EC2l7 2255 Federal Farm Credit Bank
3133EC6F6 2258 Federal Farm Credit Bank
3133EC7H1 2260 Federal Farm Credit Bank
3133ECA61 2261 Federal Farm Credit Bank
Subtotal and Balance 4,360,000.00
0.481
0.320
0.440
0.350
0340
0320
09/05/2012
10/26/2012
11/13/2012
12105/2012
12117/2012
12/18/2012
0.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
15,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,000,000.00 16,360,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 19.222% 4,360,000.00 15,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 16,360,000.00
Issuer: Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
313378KU4 2233
3133794G1 2239
313379JC4 2243
313379R84 2245
313379SP5 2246
313379UT4 2247
313380AV9 2248
313380AV9A 2249
313380AV9B 2250
313380BG1 2251
313380BG1 2251
313380SU2 2252
3133762C8 2254
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 Bank
Federal Home loan Bank
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.450
0.500
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.500
0.410
0375
09/1212012
07/15/2012
07/05/2012
07/13/2012
07/19/2012
07/27/2012
08/13/2012
08/13/2012
08/13/2012
08/13/2012
09/13/2012
10/15/2012
11/09/2012
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,000,000.00
1,030,000.00
2,705,000.00
3.000,000.00
0.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000.000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
Subtotal and Balance 18,000,000.00 15,735,000.00 21,000,000.00 12,735,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 14.963% 18,000,000.00 15,735,000.00 21,000,000.00 12,735,000.00
Issuer: Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3137EACK3 2146
3137EACK3A 2148
3137EACK3B 2149
Federal Home loan Mortgage
Federal Home loan Mortgage
Federal Home loan Mortgage
1.125
1.125
1.125
07/27/2012
07/27/2012
07/27/2012
000
000
0.00
2,000,000.00
1,030,000.00
2,707,000.00
Run Date: 01/16/2013 15:38
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DA (PRF_DA) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Page 3Activity Report
July 1, 2012 -December 31, 2012
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Percent
of Portfolio
Par Value-_.__.
Beginning
Balance
Current
Rate
Transaction
Date
--_.
Purchases or
Deposits
Par Value---_._---_..
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
_.._-_.._-.
Ending
Balance
Issuer: Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3134G3AC4
3134G3AQ3
3134G3BN9
3134G3Y61
3134G32RO
2226
2227
2228
2256
2259
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
0.600
0.710
0.770
0.375
0.400
12106/2012
11/30/2012
12105/2012
12/10/2012
12/24/2012
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
Subtotal and Balance 15,737,000.00 6,000,000.00 12,737,000.00 9,000,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 10.575% 15,737,000.00 6,000,000.00 12,737,000.00 9,000,000.00
Issuer: Federal National Mortage Assoc
--
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3135GOJG9 2234 Federal National Mortage Assoc
Subtotal and Balance 15,000,000.00
0520 09/26/2012 0.00
0.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00 12,000,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 14.099% 15,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 12,000,000.00
Issuer: San Diego County
San Diego County Pool
so COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County 0.432 44,092.36 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 22,109,219.22 44,092.36 0.00 22,153,311.58
Issuer Subtotal 26.029% 22,109,219.22 44,092.36 0.00 22,153,311.58
Total 100.000% 88,333,494.82 160,417,667.84 1&3,&40,989.39 85,110,173.27
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date: 0111612013 -15:38 DA (PRF_DA) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
GAS8 31 Compliance Detail
Sorted by Fund -Fund
July 1, 2012 -December 31, 2012
Adjustment in Value
CUSIP Investment # Fund
Investment
Class Maturity
Date
Beginning
Invested Value
Purchase
of Principal
Addition
to Principal
Redemption
of Principal
Amortization
Adjustment
Change in
Market Value
Ending
Invested Value
Fund: Treasury Fund
LAIF 9001 99 Fair Value 7,542,443.62 0.00 40,933,406.74 43,900,000.00 0.00 -3,186.96 4,572,663.40
UNION MONEY 9002 99 Amortized 10,005.91 0.00 70,481,052.37 70,481,046.25 0.00 0.00 10,012.03
PETIYCASH 9003 99 Amortized 2,950.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,950.00
UNION OPERATING 9004 99 Amortized 1,290,968.42 0.00 5,437,838.88 5,732,358.62 0.00 0.00 996,448.68
PAYROLL 9005 99 Amortized 27,971.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,971.60
SO COUNTY POOL 9007 99 Fair Value 22,089,000.00 0.00 44,092.36 0.00 0.00 31,907.75 22,165,000.11
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 99 Amortized 688.02 0.00 1,035,795.99 1,030,000.00 0.00 0.00 6,484.01
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 99 Amortized 417.23 0.00 2,722,233.75 2,705,000.00 0.00 0.00 17,650.98
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 Fair Value 4,072,537.60 0.00 7,247.75 0.00 0.00 393.62 4,080,178.97
UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 99 Amortized 70,015.05 000 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 70,015.05
3137EACK3 2146 99 Fair Value 07/27/2012 2,001,300.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,300.00 0.00
3137EACK3A 2148 99 Fair Value 07/27/2012 1,030,669.50 0.00 0.00 1,030,000.00 0.00 -669.50 0.00
3137EACK3B 2149 99 Fair Value 07/27/2012 2,708,759.55 0.00 0.00 2,707,000.00 0.00 -1,759.55 0.00
UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 99 Amortized 42,100.22 0.00 21,00000 55,584.52 0.00 0.00 7,515.70
31331KZFO 2219 99 Fair Value 12123/2013 3,000,030.00 000 000 3,000,00000 0.00 -30.00 0.00
3134G3AC4 2226 99 Fair Value 12/06/2013 3,000,600.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 -600.00 000
3134G3AQ3 2227 99 Fair Value 05/30/2014 2,001,980.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,980.00 0.00
3134G3BN9 2228 99 Fair Value 06/05/2014 2,003,140.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -3,140.00 0.00
2050003183-5 2229 99 Amortized 01/22/2014 81,326.80 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 81,326.80
3134G3SS0 2232 99 Fair Value 09/22/2014 3,003,870.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 -1,020.00 3,002,850.00
313378KU4 2233 99 Fair Value 09/12/2014 3,001,350.00 0.00 000 3,000,000.00 000 -1,350.00 0.00
3135GOJG9 2234 99 Fair Value 09/26/2014 3,003,000.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 -3,000.00 0.00
3135GOKL6 2238 99 Fair Value 10/30/.2014 2,993,970.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,130.00 3,002,100.00
3133794G1 2239 99 Fair Value 05/15/2014 2,998,560.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 1,440.00 0.00
3135GOKS1 2240 99 Fair Value 02110/2015 2,997,450.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,820.00 3,003,270.00
3133EAEG9 2241 99 Fair Value 02127/2015 1,361,632.00 0.00 0.00 000 000 -584.80 1,361,047.20
3135GOLF8 2242 99 Fair Value 11/24/2014 2,999,640.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,84000 3,003,480.00
313379JC4 2243 99 Fair Value 06/05/2014 3,000,060.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 -60.00 0.00
3135GOLL5 2244 99 FairValue 12104/2014 2,999,340.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 4,290:00' 3,003,630:00
313379R84 2245 99 Fair Value 06/13/2014 2,996,460.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,540.00 0.00
313379SP5 2246 99 Fair Value 12119/2013 2,996,610.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,390.00 0.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 01/16/2013 -15:39 GO (PRF_GO) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
GASB 31 Compliance Detail Page 2
Sorted by Fund -Fund
Adjustment in Value
CUSIP Investment # Fund
Investment
Class
Maturity
Date
Beginning
Invested Value
Purchase
of Principal
Addition
to Principal
Redemption
of Principal
Amortization
Adjustment
Change in
Market Value
Ending
Invested Value
Fund: Treasury Fund
313379UT4 2247 99 Fair Value 06/27/2014 2,998,230.00 000 000 3,000,000.00 0.00 1,770.00 000
313380AV9 2248 99 Fair Value 02113/2015 000 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 930.00 3,000,930.00
313380AV9A 2249 99 Fair Value 02113/2015 0.00 1,030,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 319.30 1,030,319.30
313380AV9B 2250 99 Fair Value 02/13/2015 0.00 2,705,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 838.55 2,705,838.55
313380BGl 2251 99 Fair Value 02/13/2015 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 000 0.00 000
313380SU2 2252 99 Fair Value 04/15/2015 000 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 3,000,330.00
3133EAU30 2253 99 Fair Value 03/1212015 0.00 2,998,500.00 000 0.00 0.00 1,410.00 2,999,91000
3133762C8 2254 99 Fair Value 11/27/2013 0.00 3,004,788.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 492.00 3,005,28000
3133EC2l7 2255 99 Fair Value 11/13/2015 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 540.00 3,000,540.00
3134G3Y61 2256 99 Fair Value 12110/2014 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 930.00 3,000,930.00
3135GOSQ7 2257 99 Fair Value 06/24/2015 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 3,000,150.00
3133EC6F6 2258 99 Fair Value 06/01/2015 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -570.00 2,999,430.00
3134G32RO 2259 99 Fair Value 09/24/2015 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1,350.00 2,998,650.00
3133EC7Hl 2260 99 Fair Value 08/17/2015 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,540.00 2,996,46000
3133ECA61 2261 99 Fair Value 06/18/2015 000 2,999,250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,120.00 2,996,130.00
Subtotal 88,327,075.52 39,737,538.00 120,682,667.84 163,640,989.39 0.00 43,200.41 85,149,492.38
Total 88,327,075.52 39,737,538.00 120,682,667.84 163,640,989.39 0.00 43,200.41 85,149,492.38
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 0111612013·15:39 GO (PRF_GO) 7 1 1
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Duration Report
Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type
Through 12/31/2012
Investment Book Par Market Current YTM Current Maturityl Modified
Security ID Investment # Fund Issuer Class Value Value Value Rate 360 Yield Call Date Duration
3134G3Y61 2256 99 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,930.00 .3750000 0.370 0.313 12110/2014 1.763
3134G32RO 2259 99 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,998,650.00 .4000000 0.395 0.417 09/24/2015 2.712
3134G3SS0 2232 99 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,002,850.00 .5400000 0.533 0.485 09/2212014 1.712
3135GOLF8 2242 99 Federal National Mortage Assoc Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,003,480.00 5000000 0.493 0.439 11/24/2014 1885
3135GOKS1 2240 99 Federal National Mortage Assoc Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,003,270.00 .5600000 0.552 0.508 02/10/2015 2.089
3135GOLL5 2244 99 Federal National Mortage Assoc Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,003,630.00 .5500000 0.542 0.487 12104/2014 1.911
3135GOKL6 2238 99 Federal National Mortage Assoc Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,002,10000 .5000000 0.493 0.462 10/30/2014 1819
313380AV9A 2249 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 1,030,000.00 1,030,000.00 1,030,319.30 .4500000 0.444 0.435 02113/2015 2.100
313380SU2 2252 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,330.00 .4100000 0.404 0.405 04/15/2015 2.273
3133762C8 2254 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,004,129.33 3,000,000.00 3,005,280.00 .3750000 0.438 0180 11/27/2013 0.903
313380AV9 2248 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,930.00 .4500000 0.444 0.435 02113/2015 2.100
313380AV9B 2250 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 2,705,000.00 2,705,000.00 2,705,838.55 .4500000 0.444 0.435 02/13/2015 2.100
3133EAEG9 2241 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 1,360,000.00 1,360,000.00 1,361,047.20 .5500000 0.542 0.514 02127/2015 2.136
3133EC7H1 2260 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,996,460.00 .3400000 0.335 0385 08/17/2015 2.612
3133EC6F6 2258 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,999,430.00 .3500000 0.345 0358 06/01/2015 2.404
3133ECA61 2261 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 2,999,260.83 3,000,000.00 2,996,130.00 .3200000 0.325 0373 06/18/2015 2.450
3133EAU30 2253 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 2,998,613.90 3,000,000.00 2,999,910.00 .3200000 0.336 0.321 03/1212015 2.185
3133EC2L7 2255 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,540.00 .4400000 0.434 0.434 11/13/2015 2844
3135GOSQ7 2257 99 Fannie Mae Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,150.00 .4000000 0.395 0.398 06/24/2015 2.465
2050003183-5 2229 99 California Bank & Trust Amort 81,326.80 81,326.80 81,326.80 .2800000 0.280 0.280 01/22/2014 1055
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 4,074,824.36 4,074,824.36 4,080,178.97 .3240000 0.320 0324 0.000
LAIF COPS07 9009 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 000 0.00 0.00 1.530000 1509 1.530 0000
LAIF 9001 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 4,566,662.48 4,566,662.48 4,572,663.40 .3260000 0.322 0.326 0.000
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date: 01/16/2013 -15:41 Page 1 DU (PRF_DU) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
0.000
1.347
OTAY
Duration Report
Sorted 'by 'Investment Type -Investment Type
Through 12/31/2012
Investment Book Par Market Current YTM Current Maturltyl Modified
Security ID Investment # Fund Issuer Class Value Value Value Rate 360 Yield Call Date Duration
SDCOUNTY 9007 99 San Diego County Fair 22,153,311.58 22,153,311.58 22,165,000.11 .4320000 0.426 0.432
Report Total 83,973,129.28 83,971,125.22 84,010,444.33 0.404
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 0111612013 -15:41 Page 2 DU (PRF_DU) 7.1 1
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Interest Earnings
Sorted by Fund -Fund
December 1, 2012 -December 31, 2012
Yield on Beginning Book Value
CUSIP Investment # Fund
Security
Type
Ending
Par Value
Beginning
Book Value
Ending
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current Annualized
Rate Yield
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Interest Amortizationl Adjusted ,Interest
Earned Accretion Earnings
Fund: Treasury Fund
LAIF 9001
UNION MONEY 9002
UNION OPERATING 9004
SO COUNTY POOL 9007
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011
LAIF BABS 2010 9012
UBNA-2010 BOND 9013
3134G3AC4 2226
3134G3BN9 2228
2050003183-5 2229
3134G3SS0 2232
3135GOKL6 2238
3135GOKS1 2240
3133EAEG9 2241
3135GOLF8 2242
3135GOLL5 2244
313380AV9 2248
313380AV9A 2249
313380AV9B 2250
313380SU2 2252
3133EAU30 2253
3133762C8 2254
3133EC2L7 2255
3134G3Y61 2256
3135GOSQ7 2257
3133EC6F6 2258
3134G32RO 2259
3133EC7H1 2260
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
LA1
PA1
PA1
LA3
PA1
PA1
LA1
PA1
MC1
MC1
BCD
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
MC1
Me1
MC1
MC1
-.---
4,566,662.48
10,012.03
996,448.68
22,153,311.58
6,484.01
17,650.98
4,074,824.36
70,015.05
0.00
0.00
81,326.80
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
1,360,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
1,030,000.00
2,705,000.00
3,000,000,00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000,00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
15,616,662.48
10,005.08
831,679.98
22,153,311.58
6,484.01
17,650.98
4,074,824.36
70,015.05
3,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
81,326.80
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
1,360,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
1,030,000.00
2,705,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,998,561.33
3,004,509.33
3,000,000.00
0.00
0.00 -0.00
0.00
0.00
4,566,662.48
10,012.03
996,448.68
22,153,311.58
6,484.01
17,650.98
4,074,824.36
70,015.05
000 12106/2013
0.00 06/05/2014
81,326.80 01/2212014
3,000,000.00 09/2212014
3,000,000.00 10/30/2014
3,000,000.00 02/10/2015
1,360,000.00 02/27/2015
3,000,000.00 11/24/2014
3,000,000.00 12/04/2014
3,000,000.00 02/13/2015
1,030,000.00 02/13/2015
2,705,000.00 02/13/2015
3,000,000.00 04/15/2015
2,998,613.90 03/12/2015
3,004,129.33 11/27/2013
3,000,000.00 11/13/2015
3,000,000.00 12110/2014
3,000,000.00 06/24/2015
3,000,000.00 06/0112015
3,000,000.00 09/24/2015
3,000,000.00 08/17/2015
0.326
0.010
0.250
0.432
0.010
0.010
0324
0.147
0.600
0.770
0.280
0.540
0.500
0.560
0.550
0500
0.550
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.410
0.320
0.375
0.440
0.375
0.400
0.350
0.400
0.340
0.216
1.398
0.728
0.432
0.011
0.010
0.324
0.147
0.608
0.781
0.284
0.530
0.491
0.549
0.540
0.491
0.540
0.442
0.442
0.442
0.402
0.335
0.218
0.432
0.363
0.355
0.342
0.355
0.322
2,860.91
11.88
514.15
8,128.14
0.06
0.15
1,121.31
8.74
250.00
171.11
19.61
1,350.00
1,250.00
1,400.00
623.33
1,250.00
1,375.00
1,125.00
386.25
1,014.38
1,025.00
800.00
937.50
1,100.00
656.25
233.33
758.33
233.33
396.67
000
0.00
q.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
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
52.57
-380.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,860.91
11.88
514.15
8,128.14
0.06
0.15
1,121.31
8.74
250.00
171.11
19.61
1,350.00
1,250.00
1,400.00
623.33
1,250.00
1,375.00
1,125.00
386.25
1,014.38
1,025.00
852.57
557.50
1,100.00
656.25
233.33
758.33
23333
396.67
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale: 01/1612013 -15:17 IE (pRF_IE) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY
Interest Earnings
December 1, 2012 -December 31, 2012
Page 2
Adjusted Iinterest Earnings
CUSIP Investment # Fund
Security
Type
Ending
Par Value
Beginning
Book Value
Ending
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current Annualized
Rate Yield
Interest
Earned
Amortizationl
Accretion
Adjusted Interest
Earnings
Fund: Treasury Fund
3133ECA61 2261 99 MC1 3,000,000.00 0.00 2,999,260.83 0611812015 0.320 0.311 346.67 10.83 357.50
Subtotal 85,071,735.97 82,960,030.98 85,073,740.03 0.389 29,347.10 -316.60 29,030.50
Total 85,071,735.97 82,960,030.98 85,073,740.03 0.389 29,347.10 -316.60 29,030.50
Portfolio OTAY
AP
R~n Date: 0111612013·15:17 IE (PRF_IE) 7.2.0
Report Ver. 7.3.3b
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035736 01/09/13 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 3488 10/17/12 PROGRAMMING SERVICES (ENDING 7/30/12) 3,125.00
3538 11/14/12 PROGRAMMING SERVICES (ENDING 11/11/12) 2,500.00
3549 11/21/12 PROGRAMMING SERVICES (11/5/12-11/19/12) 2,415.00
3584 12/18/12 PROGRAMMING SERVICES (12/5/12-12/12/12) 1,696.25
3592 12/26/12 PROGRAMMING SERVICES (12/13/12-12/19/12) 1,610.00 11,346.25
2035853 01/23/13 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 3613 01/03/13 PROGRAMMING SERVICES (12/21/12-12/28/12) 1,667.50 1,667.50
2035737 01/09/13 13901 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SVCS INC 00013781 12/12/12 RETAINAGE RELEASE 14,685.00 14,685.00
2035738 01/09/13 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1124 12/14/12 DEVELOPER PLANCHECKS (11/3/12-11/30/12) 8,659.39
1036 12/14/12 PLAN CHECKING (10/1/12-11/30/12) 5,002.37 13,661.76
2035739 01/09/13 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131270601 12/11/12 AQUA AMMONIA 3,289.11
131270600 12/11/12 AQUA AMMONIA 1,692.99 4,982.10
2035854 01/23/13 13753 AIRGAS USA LLC 9906954573 12/31/12 BREATHING AIR 39.25 39.25
2035740 01/09/13 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES # 509 0509005015964 12/25/12 TRASH SERVICES (JAN 2013) 570.38
0509005017684 12/25/12 TRASH SERVICES (JAN 2013) 26.47 596.85
2035741 01/09/13 06166 AMERICAN MESSAGING L1109570NA 01/01/13 PAGER SERVICES (DEC 2012) 162.16 162.16
2035803 01/16/13 00107 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN 7000586126 11/27/12 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL (3/1/13-2/28/14) 5,642.00 5,642.00
2035690 01/02/13 00002 ANSWER INC 7619 12/21/12 ANSWERING SERVICES (MONTHLY) 1,100.00 1,100.00
2035742 01/09/13 08967 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS EAP 41104 12/21/12 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (JAN 2013) 323.35 323.35
2035691 01/02/13 14597 APG FUND ONE Ref002425911 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000194877 168.36 168.36
2035804 01/16/13 14611 ARTURO MILAN Ref002426138 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000183616 10.49 10.49
2035743 01/09/13 05758 AT&T 082164572811251211/25/12 PHONE SERVICES (11/25/12-12/24/12) 2,312.78
61942256051112 11/20/12 PHONE SERVICES (11/20/12-12/19/12) 53.93
33784130451212 12/07/12 PHONE SERVICES (12/7/12-1/6/13) 31.71 2,398.42
2035744 01/09/13 05758 AT&T 61969851401112 11/24/12 PHONE SERVICES (MONTHLY) 32.65
61967053091112 11/15/12 PHONE SERVICES (MONTHLY) 20.95 53.60
2035745 01/09/13 07785 AT&T 000003907379 12/02/12 PHONE SERVICES (11/2/12-12/1/12) 5,671.16
000003909597 12/02/12 PHONE SERVICES (11/2/12-12/1/12) 15.66 5,686.82
2035855 01/23/13 05758 AT&T 082164572812251212/25/12 PHONE SERVICES (12/25/12-1/24/13) 2,312.78
61942256051212 12/20/12 PHONE SERVICES (12/20/12-1/19/13) 54.66 2,367.44
2035856 01/23/13 05758 AT&T 61967053091212 12/15/12 PHONE SERVICES (MONTHLY) 32.65
61969851401212 12/24/12 PHONE SERVICES (MONTHLY) 32.65 65.30
Page 1 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035857 01/23/13 07785 AT&T 000003991789 01/02/13 PHONE SERVICES (12/2/12-1/1/13) 15.71 15.71
2035746 01/09/13 08330 AT&T INTERNET SERVICES 8547826251112 11/22/12 INTERNET BANDWIDTH (11/21/12-12/20/12) 2,028.00 2,028.00
2035858 01/23/13 08330 AT&T INTERNET SERVICES 8547826251212 12/22/12 INTERNET BANDWIDTH (12/21/12-1/20/13) 2,028.00 2,028.00
2035859 01/23/13 13947 ATI 40252 01/03/13 HARDWARE MAINTENANCE 725.00
40266 01/03/13 HARDWARE MAINTENANCE 75.00 800.00
2035747 01/09/13 12810 ATKINS 1157316 12/20/12 W&S RATE STRUCTURE (10/29/12-12/2/2/12) 4,949.00 4,949.00
2035805 01/16/13 12810 ATKINS 1157297 12/20/12 DESIGN SERVICES (NOVEMBER 2012) 8,034.19 8,034.19
2035860 01/23/13 13392 AZTECA SYSTEMS INC 7705 10/04/12 SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS(11/15/12-11/15/13) 8,395.00 8,395.00
2035861 01/23/13 08024 BACKGROUND PROFILES INC 4969 12/31/12 BACKGROUND CHECK 92.00 92.00
2035748 01/09/13 06859 BILCO COMPANY, THE 847867 12/19/12 BILCO LADDERS 1,978.81 1,978.81
2035692 01/02/13 14600 BRENDA PORRAS Ref002425914 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000196251 75.00 75.00
2035749 01/09/13 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI261611 12/13/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1 416 54203574901/09/13 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI261611 12/13/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,416.54
BPI261424 12/12/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,174.99
BPI262695 12/17/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,095.19
BPI260566 12/10/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 971.69
BPI261423 12/13/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 882.06
BPI262696 12/17/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 569.46
BPI260567 12/10/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 511.53
BPI263757 12/20/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 462.34
BPI263756 12/20/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 462.34
BPI260349 12/10/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 420.81
BPI265336 12/20/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 114.76 8,081.71
2035862 01/23/13 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI266518 01/03/13 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,097.68
BPI265089 12/27/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,021.97
BPI265807 12/31/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 917.04
BPI264385 12/24/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 671.11
BPI265088 12/27/12 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 615.36
BPI266517 01/03/13 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 556.50 4,879.66
2035863 01/23/13 10792 BROOKFIELD SAN DIEGO BUILDERS 004073 01/17/13 TEMP METER DEPOSIT REFUND 2,046.00 2,046.00
2035693 01/02/13 13345 BURGUENO-GOMEZ, MARIANA 004033 12/20/12 COMPUTER LOAN 888.00 888.00
2035806 01/16/13 14609 C B R E FAMILY TRUST Ref002426136 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000160290 572.01 572.01
2035864 01/23/13 02920 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL 123261 12/06/12 ASPHALT 3,903.74 3,903.74
Page 2 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035865 01/23/13 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 7614 01/01/13 RECORDS MGMT SVCS (DEC 2012) 332.25 332.25
2035750 01/09/13 02026 CHULA VISTA ELEM SCHOOL DIST AR041278 12/13/12 GARDEN TOURS (11/1/12-11/29/12) 660.00 660.00
2035751 01/09/13 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 65194 12/19/12 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 106.67 106.67
2035866 01/23/13 13900 COMMUNITY BANK 8 01/04/13 RETENTION/GARCIA (ENDING 12/31/12) 10,465.60 10,465.60
2035807 01/16/13 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE 14405760 11/30/12 TONER CARTRIDGE 2,008.93
14534770 12/21/12 TONER 641.94 2,650.87
2035808 01/16/13 02612 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 004063 01/14/13 MEETING REGISTRATION (1/15/12) 50.00 50.00
2035752 01/09/13 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - DPW 162554 11/30/12 EXCAVATION PERMITS (NOV 2012) 1,959.88 1,959.88
2035809 01/16/13 02756 COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO 28811212 12/30/12 INTERNET SERVICES (12/29/12-1/28/13) 1,500.00
27171212 12/30/12 INTERNET SERVICES (12/29/12-1/28/13) 1,500.00 3,000.00
2035753 01/09/13 11150 DARNELL & ASSOCIATES INC 024301 12/11/12 TRAFFIC SERVICES (11/15/12-12/11/12) 6,750.00 6,750.00
2035810 01/16/13 14606 DAVID SHERMO Ref002426133 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000068852 108.65 108.65
2035867 01/23/13 14008 DELL AWARDS 191716 12/18/12 PLAQUE & NAME TAGS 242.98 242.98
2035694 01/02/13 14594 DEMETRI LETTSONE Ref002425908 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000187710 22.42 22.42
2035811 01/16/13 03744 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 949611 01/04/13 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES (DEC 2012) 98.00 98.00
2035868 01/23/13 00319 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 1291082 12/19/12 RECYCLED WATER FEES # 3790034 554.40 554.40
2035812 01/16/13 08676 DEPT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS E1063540SD 12/18/12 CONVEYANCE INSPECTION (12/10/12) 225.00
E1063542SD 12/18/12 CONVEYANCE INSPECTION (12/10/12) 225.00
E1063541SD 12/18/12 CONVEYANCE INSPECTION (12/10/12) 225.00 675.00
2035754 01/09/13 03417 DIRECTV 19388625348 12/19/12 SATELLITE TV (12/18/12-1/17/13) 6.00 6.00
2035813 01/16/13 03417 DIRECTV 19507160655 01/05/13 SATELLITE TV (1/4/13-2/3/13) 18.00 18.00
2035695 01/02/13 14579 DONNA HENSLEY Ref002425893 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000007160 36.00 36.00
2035869 01/23/13 13714 EAST COUNTY CALIFORNIAN, THE 00014546 12/27/12 NOTICE OF INTENT 157.50 157.50
2035870 01/23/13 14616 EAST COUNTY GAZETTE 1184 12/27/12 NOTICE OF INTENT 75.00 75.00
2035871 01/23/13 02447 EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION 1554581212 12/31/12 RECYCLING SERVICES (DEC 2012) 90.00 90.00
2035696 01/02/13 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0058870IN 11/30/12 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (NOV 2012) 680.00 680.00
Page 3 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035872 01/23/13 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0059184IN 12/31/12 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (DEC 2012) 687.50 687.50
2035755 01/09/13 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 2120480 12/10/12 RECYCLED WTR ANALYSIS (11/27/12-11/30/12 335.00
2120793 12/20/12 RECYCLED WTR ANALYSIS (12/7/12-12/12/12) 300.00 635.00
2035873 01/23/13 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 3010236 01/02/13 RECYCLED WTR ANALYSIS(12/13/12-12/18/12) 550.00 550.00
2035874 01/23/13 07596 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS INC 1000296999 01/04/13 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 2,036.54 2,036.54
2035756 01/09/13 14320 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL INC L0107669 12/18/12 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES 255.00 255.00
2035875 01/23/13 14320 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL INC L0109110 01/01/13 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (12/11/12) 375.00
L0108819 12/27/12 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (12/12/12) 260.00
L0109051 12/28/12 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (12/19/12) 75.00 710.00
2035757 01/09/13 00645 FEDEX 212120780 12/21/12 MAIL SERVICES (12/18/12) 11.81 11.81
2035876 01/23/13 00645 FEDEX 212864614 12/28/12 MAIL SERVICES (12/21/12) 16.99 16.99
2035758 01/09/13 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0423593 12/13/12 INVENTORY 3,964.40
0420864 12/17/12 4" AIR-VAC 3,113.98
0424281 12/17/12 INVENTORY 2 847 57042428112/17/12 INVENTORY 2,847.57
04242811 12/20/12 INVENTORY 492.92 10,418.87
2035877 01/23/13 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0425401 12/27/12 INVENTORY 2,248.70
0425576 01/01/13 INVENTORY 874.61 3,123.31
2035878 01/23/13 12187 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003401212 12/31/12 ONLINE DOCUMENTS (12/1/12-12/31/12) 99.00 99.00
2035759 01/09/13 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES - SD 210681 12/18/12 COFFEE SUPPLIES 283.66 283.66
2035760 01/09/13 11962 FLEETWASH INC X69695 12/07/12 VEHICLE/FLEET WASHING SERVICE 109.50 109.50
2035697 01/02/13 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2425928 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 90.00 90.00
2035698 01/02/13 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2425934 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 81.00 81.00
2035814 01/16/13 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2426195 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 90.00 90.00
2035815 01/16/13 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2426201 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 81.00 81.00
2035699 01/02/13 14580 FRED PAYNE Ref002425894 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000046282 60.83 60.83
2035761 01/09/13 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER 152 12/22/12 GARDEN TOURS (DEC 2012) 1,860.00 1,860.00
2035700 01/02/13 14593 GABRIEL WRIGHT Ref002425907 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000187682 31.79 31.79
Page 4 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035879 01/23/13 13716 GARCIA JUAREZ CONSTRUCTION INC 8 01/04/13 CALAVO GARDENS (ENDING 12/31/12) 198,846.42 198,846.42
2035816 01/16/13 14615 GERALD MICHOLS Ref002426142 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000195747 26.02 26.02
2035762 01/09/13 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 10288 12/11/12 WOOD CHIPS 619.00 619.00
2035880 01/23/13 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 10370 12/27/12 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (DEC 2012) 8,650.00
10380 01/04/13 WEED ABATEMENT 2,889.00 11,539.00
2035881 01/23/13 03773 GTC SYSTEMS INC 34685 01/02/13 NETWORK SERVICES (JAN 2013) 3,173.00
34651 12/31/12 NETWORK SERVICES (12/4/12-12/26/12) 1,706.25 4,879.25
2035763 01/09/13 02795 HARTFORD INSURANCE CO, THE 72ETB2004171212 01/09/13 ACCIDENT INS RENEWAL (1/1/13-1/1/1/14) 750.00 750.00
2035764 01/09/13 05986 HAVS INCORPORATED 68772 12/18/12 AUDIO/VIDEO UPGRADE 1,481.92 1,481.92
2035817 01/16/13 05986 HAVS INCORPORATED 69431 01/09/13 BOARDROOM MAINTENANCE 150.00 150.00
2035818 01/16/13 14604 HECTOR JIMENEZ Ref002426131 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000046642 123.67 123.67
2035882 01/23/13 02096 HELIX WATER DISTRICT 0000292400113 01/16/13 TEMPORARY METER (11/29/12-12/27/12) 171.74 171.74
2035819 01/16/13 14612 HOME OF GUIDING HANDS Ref002426139 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000186449 199 28 199 28203581901/16/13 14612 HOME OF GUIDING HANDS Ref002426139 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000186449 199.28 199.28
2035820 01/16/13 14613 HOME OF GUIDING HANDS Ref002426140 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000186450 147.62 147.62
2035765 01/09/13 12335 HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES LLC U3018442 12/11/12 CREDIT CARD PYMT SVC (NOV 2012) 2,741.20 2,741.20
2035883 01/23/13 01649 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 265143696 01/04/13 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 4,500.34 4,500.34
2035766 01/09/13 08969 INFOSEND INC 64224 12/11/12 QUICKPAY SVCES 350.00 350.00
2035884 01/23/13 08969 INFOSEND INC 64751 12/31/12 POSTAGE-DEC 2013 13,111.61
64750 12/31/12 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (DEC 2012) 5,367.90
64849 01/03/13 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (DEC 2012) 4,945.00 23,424.51
2035885 01/23/13 02372 INTERIOR PLANT SERVICE INC 3071 12/31/12 PLANT SERVICES (DEC 2012) 186.00 186.00
2035701 01/02/13 13899 INTERMEDIA.NET INC 12120088 12/01/12 EXCHANGE OUTSOURCING (11/2/12-12/1/12) 4,390.55 4,390.55
2035886 01/23/13 13899 INTERMEDIA.NET INC 13010097 01/01/13 EXCHANGE OUTSOURCING (12/2/12-1/1/13) 2,746.08 2,746.08
2035887 01/23/13 03077 JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA INC SDO12120166 12/01/12 JANITORIAL SERVICES (DEC 2012) 1,119.82 1,119.82
2035767 01/09/13 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 568601 CREDIT MEMO (3,000.00)
568560 12/12/12 CHLORINE 3,225.20 225.20
2035888 01/23/13 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 570120 CREDIT MEMO (2,000.00)
Page 5 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
570088 01/02/13 CHLORINE 4,837.80 2,837.80
2035889 01/23/13 14619 JEAN COFFEY 004072 01/17/13 WATER SMART LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 1,453.50 1,453.50
2035768 01/09/13 01010 JOBS AVAILABLE INC 1226020 12/18/12 JOB POSTING 490.00 490.00
2035890 01/23/13 01010 JOBS AVAILABLE INC 1301015 12/31/12 JOB POSTING 560.00 560.00
2035702 01/02/13 14587 JOHN HUNNICUTT Ref002425901 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000163290 32.38 32.38
2035769 01/09/13 03172 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0091202 12/11/12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT (10/1/12-11/23/12) 12,185.00 12,185.00
2035703 01/02/13 14586 JOSE CARLOS BAUTISTA Ref002425900 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000161152 121.96 121.96
2035821 01/16/13 14607 JOSE GARCIA Ref002426134 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000080496 90.34 90.34
2035822 01/16/13 14608 JUAN ROJA AVILA Ref002426135 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000095423 48.10 48.10
2035704 01/02/13 14583 JULIE TONG Ref002425897 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000069027 127.83 127.83
2035705 01/02/13 14599 KIRK PAVING INC Ref002425913 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000196065 1,673.04 1,673.04
2035770 01/09/13 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 5270 12/11/12 PAVING SERVICES 5 871 00203577001/09/13 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 5270 12/11/12 PAVING SERVICES 5,871.00
5271 12/11/12 PAVING SERVICES 2,784.00 8,655.00
2035771 01/09/13 14036 KRATOS / HBE SM40049 12/19/12 ACCESS CONTROL REPAIR 4,866.68 4,866.68
2035891 01/23/13 14036 KRATOS / HBE SM39986 12/14/12 ALARM MONITORING (MONTHLY) 55.00
SM39987 12/14/12 ALARM MONITORING (MONTHLY) 55.00
SM39985 12/14/12 ALARM MONITORING (MONTHLY) 40.00 150.00
2035823 01/16/13 14460 KUBE ENGINEERING TEQE581 12/17/12 YSI TSS METER 14,880.94 14,880.94
2035772 01/09/13 01859 LA PRENSA SAN DIEGO 24010 12/21/12 JOB POSTING 60.00 60.00
2035892 01/23/13 01859 LA PRENSA SAN DIEGO 24027 01/05/13 JOB POSTING 48.00 48.00
2035773 01/09/13 06497 LAKESIDE LAND COMPANY 267747 12/20/12 LANDFILL 50.60 50.60
2035706 01/02/13 14592 LANI SYLVAS Ref002425906 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000186978 31.87 31.87
2035824 01/16/13 09511 LAYFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS E04349 12/21/12 COVER MAINTENANCE (DEC 2012) 64,416.00 64,416.00
2035707 01/02/13 14584 LIHUA GUAN Ref002425898 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000140389 82.36 82.36
2035893 01/23/13 03019 LOPEZ, JOSE 70101212 01/10/13 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (DEC 2012) 52.17 52.17
2035708 01/02/13 10512 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC OWD7879 11/20/12 RATE NOTICES PRINTING/PROCESSING 5,741.85 5,741.85
Page 6 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035709 01/02/13 14588 MARIA GABRIELA LAFARGA Ref002425902 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000177169 37.68 37.68
2035894 01/23/13 02902 MARSTON+MARSTON INC 201321 01/02/13 COMMUNITY OUTREACH (DEC 2012) 5,000.00
201322 01/02/13 SPEC PROJ-COMMUNITY OUTREACH (DEC 2012 405.00 5,405.00
2035774 01/09/13 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0076470IN 12/12/12 REPROGRAPHICS SERVICES 134.69 134.69
2035825 01/16/13 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0076626IN 12/19/12 REPROGRAPHICS SERVICES 167.01 167.01
2035710 01/02/13 14581 MEI XIAN LIANG Ref002425895 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000057507 92.00 92.00
2035775 01/09/13 03268 MERCHANT, MARCIANO 004059 01/08/13 SAFETY BOOTS 150.00 150.00
2035776 01/09/13 01824 MERKEL & ASSOCIATES INC 1212001 12/10/12 ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS (11/1/12-11/30/12) 4,275.55 4,275.55
2035711 01/02/13 14590 MICHAEL KREBS Ref002425904 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000185563 7.19 7.19
2035712 01/02/13 14582 MIGUEL DIAZ Ref002425896 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000067854 68.59 68.59
2035777 01/09/13 01577 MINARIK CORPORATION I0999621DD 12/18/12 BANNER RADIOS 3,010.76 3,010.76
2035713 01/02/13 14589 MISTY CONNELLY Ref002425903 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000182906 44 88 44 88203571301/02/13 14589 MISTY CONNELLY Ref002425903 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000182906 44.88 44.88
2035778 01/09/13 02764 MYRON L COMPANY 338049 12/12/12 EQUIPMENT REPAIR 530.06 530.06
2035714 01/02/13 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2425926 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 12,635.76 12,635.76
2035826 01/16/13 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2426193 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 12,976.38 12,976.38
2035895 01/23/13 08656 NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 203549 12/11/12 WASTE DISPOSAL, ABS PIPE 880.00 880.00
2035779 01/09/13 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 637945260001 12/21/12 OFFICE SUPPLIES 214.16
637468277001 12/19/12 OFFICE SUPPLIES 135.67 349.83
2035780 01/09/13 03149 ON SITE LASER LLC 47285 12/19/12 PRINTER SERVICES 273.73
47272 12/17/12 PRINTER SERVICES 69.00 342.73
2035781 01/09/13 02334 OTAY LANDFILL - 4531 0000013258 12/15/12 WASTE DISPOSAL 91.74 91.74
2035896 01/23/13 02334 OTAY LANDFILL - 4531 0000013301 12/31/12 WASTE DISPOSAL 445.81 445.81
2035715 01/02/13 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2425922 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 679.00 679.00
2035827 01/16/13 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2426189 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 686.00 686.00
2035782 01/09/13 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 157417 12/18/12 VAULT HINGES 1,919.89
157404 12/11/12 PULL-THRU ADAPTER 1,330.37 3,250.26
Page 7 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035897 01/23/13 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 157722 12/27/12 AVK FLOWGAURD 4,444.69
157401 12/27/12 METER LIDS 3,955.18
157429 12/27/12 VICTAULIC CAP 204.91 8,604.78
2035716 01/02/13 14598 PATTI MCKELVEY Ref002425912 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000195067 47.07 47.07
2035898 01/23/13 05497 PAYPAL INC 21297855 12/31/12 PHONE PAYMENT SERVICES (DEC 2012) 54.10 54.10
2035783 01/09/13 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 004056 01/08/13 PETTY CASH 980.54 980.54
2035717 01/02/13 07290 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW 7799424 11/08/12 LEGAL EXPENSES 118.75 118.75
2035828 01/16/13 00053 PITNEY BOWES INC 314627 12/22/12 INK CARTRIDGE 152.95 152.95
2035899 01/23/13 13059 PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES 33272 12/01/12 JANITORIAL SERVICES (DEC 2012) 3,504.00 3,504.00
2035718 01/02/13 14595 PROPERTY SALES LLC Ref002425909 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000187993 28.59 28.59
2035719 01/02/13 07860 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO 1027881212 12/10/12 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS 10,893.50 10,893.50
2035784 01/09/13 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30306797 12/13/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 401.26
30308105 12/20/12 UNIFORMS TOWELS & MATS 361 133030810512/20/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 361.13
30306796 12/13/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 193.75
30308104 12/20/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 193.75
30306798 12/13/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 173.33
30308106 12/20/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 173.33
30306169 12/11/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 109.53
30307465 12/18/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 109.53
30306799 12/13/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 53.87
30308107 12/20/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 53.87
30306168 12/11/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 44.71
30307464 12/18/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 44.71 1,912.77
2035829 01/16/13 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30309514 12/27/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 533.00 533.00
2035900 01/23/13 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30311268 01/03/13 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 682.03
30309513 12/27/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 208.29
30311267 01/03/13 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 208.29
30309515 12/27/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 173.33
30311269 01/03/13 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 173.33
30308800 12/25/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 109.53
30310565 01/01/13 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 109.53
30309516 12/27/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 53.87
30311270 01/03/13 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 53.87
30308799 12/25/12 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 44.71
30310564 01/01/13 UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MATS 44.71 1,861.49
Page 8 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035785 01/09/13 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2425920 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 155,376.40 155,376.40
2035901 01/23/13 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2426187 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 156,823.99 156,823.99
2035786 01/09/13 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 30801900 12/12/12 SAFETY JACKETS 376.05 376.05
2035787 01/09/13 12337 RANCHO SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION 004058 12/26/12 WATER SMART LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 9,000.00 9,000.00
2035720 01/02/13 00766 RANROY PRINTING COMPANY 017209 10/30/12 ATLAS BOOKS 3,095.66 3,095.66
2035902 01/23/13 14578 RAP ENGINEERING INC 1331 01/04/13 PAVING SERVICES 29,150.00 29,150.00
2035721 01/02/13 02950 RDO EQUIPMENT CO 462936 12/05/12 TRAILER PURCHASE 41,390.00 41,390.00
2035788 01/09/13 00521 RICK POST WELDING & 9393 12/17/12 RICK POST WELDING 2,059.28 2,059.28
2035830 01/16/13 14610 ROBERT DUGGAN Ref002426137 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000168426 18.81 18.81
2035903 01/23/13 06412 ROMERO, TANYA 004071 01/15/13 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 935.49 935.49
2035789 01/09/13 09148 S & J SUPPLY COMPANY INC S100018864001 12/12/12 INVENTORY 2,973.90 2,973.90
2035722 01/02/13 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 8607 10/30/12 WELDING SEWER RESPONSE TRAILER 4 900 00203572201/02/13 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 8607 10/30/12 WELDING-SEWER RESPONSE TRAILER 4,900.00
8597 10/22/12 WELDING SERVICES 1,445.00
8651 11/30/12 WELDING SERVICES 1,360.00 7,705.00
2035831 01/16/13 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER 0000000655 01/07/13 SOCAL WATERSMART (NOV 2012) 120.00 120.00
2035904 01/23/13 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER 0000000652 01/07/13 SOCAL WATERSMART (OCT 2012) 1,535.00
0000000654 01/07/13 SOCAL WATERSMART NOV 2012) 1,470.00 3,005.00
2035790 01/09/13 00247 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 343456 12/20/12 NOTICE OF INTENT 155.10 155.10
2035791 01/09/13 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 004053 12/26/12 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 49,769.58
004052 12/24/12 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 49,417.66
004050 12/18/12 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 22,731.43
004051 12/21/12 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 782.23 122,700.90
2035905 01/23/13 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 004061 01/03/13 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 37,122.73
004064 01/04/13 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 2,989.09 40,111.82
2035792 01/09/13 03273 SAN DIEGO READER 172403 12/13/12 JOB POSTING 89.15 89.15
2035906 01/23/13 03273 SAN DIEGO READER 173353 12/27/12 JOB POSTING 83.90 83.90
2035723 01/02/13 07676 SAN MIGUEL FIRE PROTECTION 004048 12/13/12 TEMPORARY LABOR (OCT 2012) 6,829.30
003845 07/23/12 TEMPORARY LABOR (JUNE 2012) 6,778.60
004035 08/28/12 TEMPORARY LABOR (JULY 2012) 6,761.38
Page 9 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
004047 10/17/12 TEMPORARY LABOR (SEPT 2012) 6,650.96
003897 09/17/12 TEMPORARY LABOR (AUG 2012) 6,571.13 33,591.37
2035907 01/23/13 07676 SAN MIGUEL FIRE PROTECTION 004068 01/17/13 TEMPORARY LABOR (DEC 2012) 6,770.44
004067 01/08/13 TEMPORARY LABOR (NOV 2012) 6,716.69
SMG22730 01/10/13 ANNUAL BUSINESS INSPECTION 394.00 13,881.13
2035908 01/23/13 03514 SANTOS, MARCIANO 004070 01/15/13 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 182.00 182.00
2035832 01/16/13 05523 SARNO, ROM 004062 01/10/13 COMPUTER LOAN 1,189.92 1,189.92
2035909 01/23/13 12333 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION 8103337216 12/01/12 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE (DEC 2012) 416.00 416.00
2035910 01/23/13 07442 SCHULTZ, ALEXANDER 004069 01/18/13 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 2,840.00 2,840.00
2035911 01/23/13 12421 SCS ENGINEERS 0203624 12/31/12 CALARP AUDIT (DEC 2012) 100.00 100.00
2035833 01/16/13 13565 SHEA HOMES 004065 01/16/13 CUSTOMER REFUND 796.43 796.43
2035834 01/16/13 13327 SILVA-SILVA INTERNATIONAL 1301 01/10/13 PROJECT CONSULTANT (DEC 2012) 4,000.00 4,000.00
2035835 01/16/13 12281 SIR SPEEDY PRINTING 3943 12/19/12 BUSINESS CARDS 41.05 41.05
2035836 01/16/13 14605 SOR POH Ref002426132 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000062818 60.30 60.30
2035912 01/23/13 11618 SOUTH COAST COPY SYSTEMS AR119665 12/26/12 COPIER MAINTENANCE (JAN 2013) 1,680.96 1,680.96
2035793 01/09/13 03103 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & 287780 12/13/12 AC MAINTENANCE 370.00
C50080 12/17/12 AC MAINTENANCE (DEC 2012) 205.00 575.00
2035913 01/23/13 03103 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & C50079 12/17/12 AC MAINTENANCE (DEC 2012) 1,068.00 1,068.00
2035794 01/09/13 13754 SOUTHLAND WATER TECHNOLOGIES 112612123 11/26/12 GPRS CELLULAR WIRELESS RTU 3,320.03 3,320.03
2035837 01/16/13 14614 SOUZA AND SOUZA CONSTRUCTION Ref002426141 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000187971 2,013.86 2,013.86
2035724 01/02/13 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 934758 12/07/12 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL (12/6/12-1/2/13) 98.15 98.15
2035838 01/16/13 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 935495 12/14/12 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL(12/14/12-1/10/13) 79.96
935723 12/17/12 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL(12/15/12-1/11/13) 79.96
935493 12/14/12 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL(12/14/12-1/10/13) 79.96
935494 12/14/12 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL(12/14/12-1/10/13) 79.96 319.84
2035914 01/23/13 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 936245 12/26/12 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL(12/26/12-1/22/13) 79.96 79.96
2035915 01/23/13 09711 SPATIAL WAVE INC 11064890 12/28/12 GIS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (10/3/12-12/28/12) 3,180.00 3,180.00
2035839 01/16/13 10343 SPECIALTY DOORS AND AUTOMATION 38527SD 11/30/12 GATE REPAIR 809.37 809.37
Page 10 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035840 01/16/13 06510 SPRINT NEXTEL 901500243076 01/12/13 WIRELESS SERVICES (12/9/12-1/8/13) 3,511.30 3,511.30
2035795 01/09/13 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 17854 12/19/12 SECURITY MAINTENANCE (12/18/12) 95.00 95.00
2035916 01/23/13 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 17808 12/10/12 SECURITY MONITORING (NOV-DEC 2012) 2,705.00 2,705.00
2035796 01/09/13 07448 STANLEY STEEMER 1195807 12/14/12 CARPET CLEANING 438.00 438.00
2035797 01/09/13 13564 STAR-NEWS PUBLISHING CO, THE 00014526 12/21/12 JOB POSTING 123.50 123.50
2035725 01/02/13 06281 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2425932 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 206.61 206.61
2035726 01/02/13 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2425924 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69
2035727 01/02/13 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2425930 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 802.15 802.15
2035728 01/02/13 08533 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2425936 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 258.00 258.00
2035841 01/16/13 06281 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2426199 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 206.81 206.81
2035842 01/16/13 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2426191 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69
2035843 01/16/13 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2426197 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 802.15 802.15
2035844 01/16/13 08533 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2426203 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 258.00 258.00
2035917 01/23/13 00097 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 440221330113 01/16/13 MAINTENANCE FEE (JAN-DEC 2012) 780.02 780.02
2035918 01/23/13 12809 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF 90435 12/24/12 LEGAL SERVICES (NOV 2012) 26,335.80 26,335.80
2035798 01/09/13 02750 SUPERIOR READY MIX LP 541659 12/20/12 CRUSHED ROCK 218.20 218.20
2035919 01/23/13 02750 SUPERIOR READY MIX LP 543569 01/04/13 CRUSHED ROCK 235.37 235.37
2035920 01/23/13 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 380770 12/26/12 DIESEL FUEL 20,610.72
380769 12/26/12 UNLEADED FUEL 18,233.83 38,844.55
2035845 01/16/13 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 2438 12/26/12 MISC SCADA SERVICES 3,712.50
2437 09/18/12 MISC SCADA SERVICES 2,822.00 6,534.50
2035846 01/16/13 12080 THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE 305733 01/01/13 JOB POSTINGS (11/9/12-12/8/12) 398.00 398.00
2035847 01/16/13 03071 THE SOCO GROUP INC 110062 12/10/12 MOTOR OIL 1,875.11 1,875.11
2035921 01/23/13 13564 THE STAR-NEWS PUBLISHING CO 00014762 01/04/13 JOB POSTING 114.00
00014847 01/11/13 JOB POSTING 104.00 218.00
Page 11 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2035729 01/02/13 14596 TJRF ASSOCIATES Ref002425910 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000188688 91.42 91.42
2035848 01/16/13 14603 TOM PENDLETON Ref002426130 01/14/13 UB Refund Cst #0000009277 14.67 14.67
2035922 01/23/13 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 1220120457 01/01/13 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (DECEMBER 2012) 171.00 171.00
2035730 01/02/13 07674 US BANK O0000000021 11/23/12 CALCARD EXPENSES 13,066.44
a000034 12/26/12 CAL CARD EXPENSES MONTHLY 10,172.58
004034 10/22/12 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 195.51 23,434.53
2035799 01/09/13 07674 US BANK 004057 11/23/12 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 1,438.92
E000022 12/24/12 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 80.00 1,518.92
2035849 01/16/13 07674 US BANK E000023 12/24/12 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 2,582.25
004066 12/24/12 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 865.66 3,447.91
2035800 01/09/13 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 915525 11/30/12 SECURITY SERVICES (NOV 2012) 219.75 219.75
2035923 01/23/13 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 960394 12/31/12 SECURITY SERVICES (DEC 2012) 131.95 131.95
2035924 01/23/13 13048 V & A CONSULTING ENGINEERS 13746R 11/30/12 CORROSION SERVICES (9/1/12-11/30/12) 17,813.00
13819 12/31/12 CORROSION SERVICES (12/1/12-12/31/12) 14,107.50 31,920.50
2035925 01/23/13 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTSD100130 12/31/12 CONSTRUCTION MGMT (12/1/12-12/31/12) 13,570.00 13,570.00
2035731 01/02/13 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2425918 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 13,062.22 13,062.22
2035732 01/02/13 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2425916 01/03/13 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 12,743.42 12,743.42
2035850 01/16/13 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2426185 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 13,336.98 13,336.98
2035851 01/16/13 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2426183 01/17/13 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 13,213.59 13,213.59
2035801 01/09/13 03329 VERIZON WIRELESS 1148769834 12/21/12 WIRELESS SERVICES (11/22/12-12/21/12) 5,840.11 5,840.11
2035926 01/23/13 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL 79369 12/04/12 BEE REMOVAL 115.00
79477 12/04/12 BEE REMOVAL 115.00
79967 12/28/12 BEE REMOVAL 115.00 345.00
2035802 01/09/13 14544 WEBCAMPROSHOP.COM 2407 12/21/12 SOFTWARE LICENSES 16,000.88 16,000.88
2035733 01/02/13 00125 WESTERN PUMP INC W10914 11/30/12 DUSTO INSPECTIONS (NOV 2012) 400.00 400.00
2035852 01/16/13 00125 WESTERN PUMP INC W10889 11/30/12 APCD TEST 594.25 594.25
2035734 01/02/13 14591 WILLIAM DE RIDDER Ref002425905 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000186236 15.53 15.53
2035735 01/02/13 14585 YASSARETTE VALDIVIA Ref002425899 12/28/12 UB Refund Cst #0000156277 146.28 146.28
Page 12 of 13
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2035690 THROUGH 2035926
RUN DATES 1/2/2013 TO 1/23/2013
Check # Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
GRAND TOTAL 1,496,874.18 1,496,874.18
Page 13 of 13