HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-12 Board Packet (Part 1)1. ROLL CALL
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
January 4, 2012
3:30P.M.
AGENDA
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ELECTION OF BOARD PRESIDENT
As per Chapter 2, Section 1.03.B, Procedure for Election, of the District's Code of
Ordinances, the General Manager shall chair the proceedings for election of the
President. The newly-elected President shall assume office immediately and shall
chair the proceedings for the election of the Vice President and T reasurer.
4. ELECTION OF BOARD VICE PRESIDENT
5. ELECTION OF BOARD TREASURER
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
7. RECESS FOR A PRESENTATION TO OUTGOING BOARD PRESIDENT AND
RECEPTION
8. RECONVENE OTAYWATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
10. RECESS OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
11. CONVENE OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING
12. ROLL CALL
1
13. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 100 OF THE OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION TO
AMEND THE CORPORATION BYLAWS TO ADD AN OFFICER WITH THE TITLE
OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO SHALL BE IN CHARGE OF THE DAY-TO-DAY
OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION
14. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
a) PRESIDENT
b) VICE-PRESIDENT
c) TREASURER
15. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
a) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
b) CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
c) SECRETARY
16. ADJOURN OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING
17. RECONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
18. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER
7, 201 1, OCTOBER 5, 2011, AND NOVEMBER 2, 2011; AND SPECIAL MEETING
OF NOVEMBER 30, 2011
19. REDISTRICTING WORKSHOP I
a) RECEIVE REPORT REGARDING THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS AND
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, CONSIDER APPROVING THE RECOMMEND-
ED CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT'S FIVE DIVI-
SIONS (REDISTRICTING MAP), AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROVIDE
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE DISTRICTS INTENT TO CHANGE THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE DIVISIONS OF THE DISTRICT AND TO HOLD A
HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE NEXT REGULAR BOARD
MEETING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §74431 AND §74432
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
20. THIS ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS:
a) UPDATE ON DIRECTOR'S EXPENSES FOR THE 1sT QUARTER OF FIS-
CAL YEAR 2012
b) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT FOR THE 1sT
QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2012
2
c) INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE DISTRICT'S CONSULTANT
SELECTION PROCESS
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 PAR-
TICULAR ITEM:
a) REJECT ALL CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE 30-INCH POTABLE WA-
TER PIPELINE IN HUNTE PARKWAY
b) TERMINATE CONTRACT WITH AS-NEEDED TRAFFIC CONSULTANT,
INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERS
c) APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO ARCA-
DIS/MALCOM PIRNIE FOR VALUE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTA-
BILITY REVIEW FOR THE RANCHO DEL REY GROUNDWATER WELL
AND OTAY INTERCONNECT PIPELINE PROJECTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-
TO-EXCEED $153,628
d) APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO SAN DIEGO
FREIGHTLINER IN THE AMOUNT OF $107,216.36 FOR THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1) CLASS 7 DUMP TRUCK
e) APPROVE T HE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO TUTTLE CLICK
TRUCK CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $104,216.20 FOR THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1) CLASS 4 SERVICE LINE TRUCK
f) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4191 TO REVISE AND UPDATE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS POLICY NO.s 48, ADA/FEHA DISABILITY POLICY, AND 50,
ANTIFRAUD POLICY
ACTION ITEMS
22. BOARD
a) DISCUSSION OF 2012 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
REPORTS
23. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
a) SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
24. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
25. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
3
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
26. CLOSED SESSION
a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGA COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9]
(I) SALT CREEK GOLF, LLC UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURTt CASE NO. 11-13898-LA11
b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING UTIGATION [GOV-
ERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)]
(0 MULTIPLE CASES RELATED TO THE FENTON BUSINESS CEN!-
TER AND F :LED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED UNDER CASE NO. 37-2007-
00077024-CU-BC-SC
RETURN TO OPEN SESSI'ON
27. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
28 . ADJOURNMENT
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action. may be deli-
berated and may be subject to action by the Board.
If you have any disabifty which would require accommodation in order to enable you to
partic1ipate in this meeting, p'lease call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24 hours
pri'Of to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on December 29, 2011 , 'I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near
the regu lar meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being
at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government
Code Section §54954.2}.
Executed at Spring Valley, California on December 29, 201 1.
4
AGENDA ITEM 13·
TYPE N EETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4 1 2 012
DIV. NO. SUBMITTEOBY: Mark watton 1 General Manager W.O.IG.F. NO:
APPROVED BY:
SUElJECT: Adopt Ordinance No. 100 Amending the Bylaws of the Co rporation
to Designate an additional Off icer with t he Titl e o f Executive
Director
RECOMMENDATI ON :
That t he Board adopt Ordinance No . 100 amending Section 5. 01
and adding section 5 .10 t o the byl aws of t h e Corporation to
design ate an additional officer of the Corporation \llith t he
t itle of Executive Director who shal l be i n charge of the day-
to-day operations o£ the Corporation.
COMMITTEE ACT!ON:
N/A
P'URPOSE:
To prese nt fo.r t he Board's considerati on Ordinance No . 100 for
adoption to amend Secti on 5. 01 and add Section 5 .10 to t h e
bylaws of the Corporation to designat e an additio.nal officer
of the Co r porat.ion with t h e title of Executive Dire ctor who
shall be in charge of t he day-to-day ope rations of t he
Corporation.
ANALYSIS:
Under t he existing prov~sJ.ons of the Corporation's bylaws, the
officer t i t le of Executi ve Director was not designated. The
adoption of Board of Directors Ordinance No. 0 0 \·lould add the
officer title of Executive Director to Article V, Officer ,
within the Corpor ation's bylaws. The Execut i ve Director shal
be the designated officer in charge of day-to-day operat · ons
of the Corporation, subj ect to the control of the Board o f
Directors . Tbe Executive Direct or, in general, wi ll perform
all duties inci dent to faci l i tating the conduct o £ the
C'orpor t ion • s opera ion n
tim -t.o-time, be ass gne
D ec ors or Prea"dent.
o e a s e.
en a s ·ime.
uc specific d ··t · es
to sue office by th
Attachment A: Ordinance No. 100, w'ith the
eJ::.·tachment:
may, from
o of
o owing
Exh bit 1. -Section 2.10 of he Corporation Bylaws,
S r ke-thru
2
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. ~00
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION
AMENDING SECTION 2.01 AND ADDING SECTION 2.10,
OF ARTICLE V, OFFICERS, OF THE CORPORATIONS BYLAWS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the Otay
Service Corporation that the language within Article V,
Officers, Section 5.01, Number and Qualifications, be amended;
and Section 5.10, Executive Director, be added; to the bylaws of
the Corporation as per Exhibit 1 attached to this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the amendments to
Section 5.01 and addition of Section 5.10 to the Corporation
Bylaws shall become effective i mmediately upon adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
the Otay Service Corporation at a regular meeting duly held this
4th day of January, 20~2, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
President
Page 1 of 2
A'l":TEST:
Page 2 of 2
BYLAWS
OF
OTAY SERVlCE CORPORATION
ARTICLE I
NAME, ORGANlZATION AND PURPOSE,
PRINCIPAL OFFICE, SEAL
EXHIBIT I
Section 1.(11. Name. The name of this corporation is "Otay Service Corporation"
(hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation").
Section 1.02. Organization, Purpose and Use of Funds. The activities of the Comoration
shall be limited to the activities described in its Articles of Incomoration. No gains, profits or
dividends shall be distributed to any member of the Board of Directors or officers of the Corporation,
and uo part of the net eamings, funds or assets of the Comoration shall inure to the benefit of any
member of the Board of Directors, officer or individual or any other person, firm or comomtion
excepting only the United States of America, the State ofCalifomia, or any municipal corporation or
political subdivision thereof, or to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation which is organized and
operated exclusively for charitable or social welfare purposes and which has established its tax-
exempt status under Section 50 I (c)(3) or 50l(c)(4) of the Jntemal Revenue Code of 1986.
Section 1..03. Pr·in cipal Office. The principal office of the Comoration for its transaction
of business is located at I 0595 Jamacha Boulevard, Spring Valley, California 91977.
Section 1.04. Chnngc of Principal Office. The Board of Directors is hereby granted full
power and authority to change the principal office of the Corporation from one location to another in
and around Spring Valley, Califomia. Any such change shall be noted by the Secretary in an
appendix to tllese Bylaws, but no such appendix shal l be considered an amendment of these Bylaws.
Section 1.05. Seal. The corporate seal of the Corporation shall set forth the name of the
Corporation and shall have inscribed thereon the words "Incorporated June 21,1993, California".
ARTICLETI
MEMBERSEUP
Section 2.01. The Corporation shaH have no members. Any action which would otherwise
require approval by a majority of all members or approval by the members shall require only
approval of U1e Board of Directors. All rights which would otherwise vest in the members shall vest
in the Board of Directors.
DOCSOC/1498S48v~y:200077-0004
ARTICLE In
DIRECTORS
Section 3.01. Number. Subject to Section 3.03 of these Bylaws, the Corporation shall have
fi ve (5) trustees. Collectively, the Directors shall be known as the "Board of Directors."
Section 3.02. Ounliticntions. The Board of Directors of the Corporation shall be residents
of the State of California. No person shall be eligible lo serve as a member of the Board of Directors
of the Corporation unless such person has been approved by resolution of the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District (the "District Board ofDirectors").
Section 3.03. Designation of Directors. The Corporation's Board of Directors shall
always consist of the then current members of the District Board of Directors, and each current and
future member of the District Board of Directors shall serve, during their tenure as a member of the
District Board of Directors, as a director of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
Section 3.04. Term of Office. All members of the Board of Directors shall hold office
until the expiration of their term as a member of the District Board of Directors.
Section 3.05. J~lace of Directors' Meetings. Meetings of the Board of Directors shall be
held at the office of the Corporation unless a different place is designated in the notice of such
meeting.
Section 3.06. Regular Meetings. The Board of Directors by resolution may provide fo r the
holding of regular meetings and may fix the time and place of holding such meetings.
Section 3.07. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called
in accordance with the provisions of Section 54956 of the Ooverrm1ent Code of the State of
California.
Scction3.08. Q uorum and Manner of Action. A majority of the members of the Board of
Directors shall constitute a quorwn for the transaction of business by the Board of Directors, except
that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. No action may be taken by the Board of
Directors except upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board of Directors.
Section 3.09. Notice; Conduct of Meeting. All meetings of the Board of Directors shall
be called, noticed, held and conducted subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter
9 of Part I of Division 2 of Title 5 of the QovemmentCode of the State of California, being Sections
54950-54962 thereof). The President or, in his or her absence, the Vice President, or, in the absence
of the Vice President, a chair chosen by a majority of the directors present, shall preside at all
meetings of the Board of Directors.
Section 3.1.0. Compensntion of Directors. No member of the Board of Directors shall be
entitled to receive any compensation for serving as a director or as an officer of the Corporation,
except that any director or officer may be reimbursed for expenses duly incurred in the performance
of duties as director of officer or the Corporation, upon approval ofthe Board of Directors.
DOCSOC/1498548v+Y200077.0004
ARTICLE IV
POWERS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 4.01. General Powers of Board of Directors. All corporate powers shall be
exercised by or under the authority of, and the business, property and affairs of the Corporation shall
be controlled by, the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors may delegate the management of
the activities of the Corporation to any person or persons, management company or conunittee,
however composed, provided that the activities and affairs of the Corporation shall be managed and
all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction of the Board of Directors.
Section 4.02. Indemnification. To the fullest extent pennitted by law, the Board of
Directors may authorize indemnification by the Corporation of any person who is or was a member
of the Board of Directors, officer, employee or other agent of the Corporation, and who was or is a
party or is threatened to be made a party to a proceeding by reason of the fact that such person is or
was such a member of the Board of Directors, officer, employee or other agent of the Corporation,
against expenses, judgments, fines, settlements and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred
in connection with such proceeding, if such person acted in good faith and in a manner such person
reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Corporation and, in the case of a criminal
proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe the conduct of such person was unlawful and, in the
case of an action by or in the right of the Corporation, acted with such care, including reasonable
inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.
Section 4.03. Incurring of Indebtedness. The Board of Directors, on behalf of the
Corporation and in furthe~ance of its proper purposes, may incur such indebtedness, any issue bonds,
notes, debentures and other evidences of indebtedness of the Corporation, may secure the home by
mortgage, transfer in trust, pledge or other encumbrance of the whole or any patt oftbe assets of the
Corporation, may establish funds and make other provisions for the payment of such indebtedness
and interest thereon, and may otherwise act or enter into other agreements in connection therewith, in
each case as shall be deemed necessary or appropriate by tl1e Board of Directors.
Section 4.04. Loa ns and Othcl' Agr·ccments. Subject to the provisions of the California
Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, the Board of Directors, on behalf of the Corporation and
in furtherance of its proper purposes, may make loans to, enter into leases or subleases with, or
otherwise enter into agreements with, any person, and may take such collateral or other security with
respect thereto and may otherwise act or enter into other agreements in connection therewith, in each
case as shall be deemed necessary or appropriate by the Board of Directors.
ARTICLEV
OFFICERS
Section 5.01. Number and Qualifications. The officers of the Corporation shall be a
President, a Vice President, a Secretary-4._.·10 Executive Director and a Chief Financial Officer and
such subordinate officers, including one or more assistant secretaries and assistant financial officers,
as the Board of Directors may appoint. Only members of the Board of Directors shall be qualified to
hold the office of President or Vice President. NeiiluwNone of the Secretary. the Executive Director
nor the Chief Financial Officer may serve concurrently as the President.
DOCSOC/t498548v+y200077..Q()()4
Section 5.02. Election, Term of Ofl1 ce. Except as provided in Section 5.01, each officer
shall be appointed by the Board of Directors, or, in tbe case of the initial officers, designated by the
incorporator, and shall hold office until his or her successor shall have been appointed and qualified,
or until the death, resignation or removal of such oflicer.
Section 5.03. Resignations. Any officer may resign at any time by giving written notice to
the President or to the Secretary of the Corporation. Any such resignation shall take effect at the time
specified therein and, unless otherwise specified therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not
be necessary to make it effective.
Section 5.04. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal,
disqualification or any other cause, shall be filled in the manner prescribed in these Bylaws for
regular appointment to such office.
Section 5.05. President. The President shall be the chief executive officer of the
Corporation and shall have general supervision over the business of the Corporation, subject,
however, to the control of the Board of Directors. The President sha.ll preside at aU meetings of the
Board of Directors. The President may sign and execute, in the name of the Corporation, deeds,
mortgages, leases, bonds, contracts and other instmments duly authorized by the Directors, and
generally shall perform all duties incident to the oflice of Presideot and such office by the Board of
Directo.rs. At each meeting of the Board of Directors, the President shall submit such
recommendation and infonnation as he or she may consider proper concerning the business, affairs
and policies of the Corporation.
Section 5.06. Vice President. At the request of the President or in case of his or her
absence or disability, the Vice President shall perform all duties of the President and, when so acting,
shall have all the powers of, and be subject to all restrictions upon, the President. In addition, the
Vice President sball petform such other duties as may ti·om time to time be assigned to that office by
the Board of Directors or the President.
Section 5.07. Sccrctlll)'. The Secretary shall:
(a) Certify and keep at the office of the Co1poration, or at such other place as the Board
of Directors may order, the original or a copy of these Bylaws, as amended or otherwise altered;
(b) Keep at the office of the Corporation, or at such other place as th.e Board of Directors
may order, a book of minutes of all meetings of the directors, recording therein the time and place of
holding, whether regular or special, and, if special, how authorized, the notice thereof given, and the
proceedings thereat;
(c) See that all notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws
or as required by law;
(d) Be custodian of the records and seal of the Corporation;
(e) Exhibit at all reasonable times to any director, upon application, these Bylaws and the
111inutes of the proceedings of the directors of the Corporation; and
(f) lo general, perform all duties of the office of Secretary and such other duties as may
from lime to time be assigned to such ot'fice by the Board of Directors or the President
OOCSOCII498548v+Y200077-0004
Section 5.08. Chief Financial Officer. Subject to the prOviSions of the proceedings
authorizing any debt or other obligation of the Corporation which may provide for a trustee to
receive, have the custody of and disburse Corporation funds, the Chief Financial Officer shall receive
and have charge of all funds of the Corporation and shall disburse such funds only as directed by the
Board of Directors. The Chief Financial Officer shall, in general, perform all duties incident to the
office of Chief Financial Officer and such other duties as may from time to time be assigned to such
office by the Board of Directors or the President. Tbe Chief Financial Officer shall have the
additional title of"Treasurer."
Sectl.on 5.09. Subordinate Officers. Subordinate officers shall perfom1 such duties as
shall be prescribed from time to time by the Board of Directors or the President.
Section 5.10. Executive 1>irector. The Executiye Director shall be tbe officer in...duu:g~
of day to d ay onerations of thf!i Gor.pru:ati.lln. subject. however. to the control of the Board of
Directors. T he Executive Director shall. in generaL perform all.d.utics incident to facilitating
the conduct of the Corporation's operations and such specific duties as may from time to time
be assirned to such office by the Board of Djrecton or the President.
ARTICLE VI
DISSOLUTION
Section 6.0 l. The Corporation shall not be voluntarily dissolved, except by approval of the
Board of Directors. In the event of dissolution of the Corporation in any manner and for any cause,
after the payment or adequate provision for the payment of all of its debts and liabilities, all of the
remaining funds, assets and properties of the Corporation shall be paid or distributed as provided in
the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation.
ARTiCLE Vll
GENERAL
Section 7.01. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall begin July l and end
June 30 of each year, except the first fiscal year which shall run from the date of incorporation to
June 30, 1993.
Section 7.02. Construction and Definitions. Unless otherwise provided herein or in the
Articles of Incorporation, the general provisions, rules of construction and defmitions contained in
the General Provisions of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law and in the California Nonprofit
Public Benefit Corporation Law shall govern the construction of these Bylaws.
DOCSOC/1498548v+Y200077-0004
ARTICLE VITI
AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS AND
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
Section 8.01. Amendment of Bylaws. Any of these Bylaws may be amended or repealed,
and new Bylaws may be adopted, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board
of Directors.
Section 8.02. Amendmen.t of Articles of Tncol'pomtion. The Articles of Incorporation of
the Corporation may be amended by unanimous vole of the Board of Directors.
DOCSOC/1498548v+y-200077-0004
AGENDA ITEM 18
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
September 7, 2011
1. The meeting was called to ord er by Presid ent Bonilla at 3:32 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
Directors Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Asst. General Manager of
Administration and Finance German Alvarez, Asst. General
Manager of Engineering and Water Operations Manny
Magana, 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
A moment of silence followed the Pledge of Allegiance to recognize the 10-year
Anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Twin Towers and
the Pentagon In Washington and in memory of the victims of the attacks.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
None
to approve the agenda.
5. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 4, 201 1 AND
SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 16,2011
A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by Director Gonzalez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
1
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 4, 2011 and special meeting
of May 16, 2011.
6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATIER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
No one wished to be heard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS
MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR TH E PU BLI C TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
None
to approve the following consent calendar items:
a) APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO ROO
EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,527.56 FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE (1) REPLACEMENT TREATMENT PLANT PUMP
ENGINE FOR THE RALPH W. CHAPMAN WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
b) AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH COX BUSINESS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$108,000 TO COVER A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT FOR INTERNET
BACK-UP SERVICES
ACTION ITEMS
8. BOARD
a) AU THORIZE BOARD PRESIDENT, JAIME BONILLA, TO AUTHOR AND
TRANSMIT A LETIER TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION CONCERNING T HE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
REGARDING THE EMPLOYEE HEAL THCARE PROGRAM
2
A motion was made by Director Bonilla, seconded by Director Gonzalez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, and Lopez
None
Director Robak
None
to authorize Board President, Jamie Bonilla, to author and transmit a letter to the
San Diego County Taxpayers Association concerning the dissemination of
information regarding the Employee Retiree Healthcare Program.
The floor was opened for members of the public to provide comments.
Mr. Chris Cate, Vice President of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association
(SDCTA), addressed the Board and indicated that he is neither in favor nor in
opposition to this agenda item. He discussed the SDCTA's assumptions and
calculations of the actuarial study for the Otay Water District's Employee Retiree
Healthcare Program in which he and Ms. Lani Lutar (SDCTA President) had
presented at the District's Board meeting on August 10. He stated that he
understands that Bartel & Associates has been engaged by the District to review
the savings presented in the District's staff report and the numbers that SDCT A
presented at the District's August 10 board meeting. He indicated that the savings
calculation was one of the SDCT A's concerns and they would look forward to
discussing the outcome of Bartel and Associates review. Mr. Cate also indicated,
with regard to the San Diego Taxpayers Educational Foundation's (SDTEF) August
3, 2011 labor costs study and letter to the San Diego County Water Authority
(CWA), that the study is a draft of CWA's labor costs between Fiscal Years 1999 to
2009 and indicated that as part of SDCT A's protocol process, the purpose of the
letter and draft study is to provide CWA the opportunity to review and respond to
SDTEF's findings prior to making it available to the public.
b) AUTHORIZE AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO THE RATEPAYERS
Director Bonilla recommended that the District provide its ratepayers information
about the Employee Healthcare Program and requested General Counsel's advice
for the appropriate course of action to distribute the information.
General Counsel Dan Shinoff stated that the District is allowed to provide
information to its ratepayers as long as it complies with state law that indicates only
informative and factual information be provided to customers and does not engage
in any political activities.
A motion was made by Director Bonilla, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Directors Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, and Lopez
None
3
Abstain:
Absent:
Director Robak
None
to authorize an informational communication to the ratepayers.
c) DISCUSSION OF 201 1 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
Director Bonilla recommended that the Board and staff members consider the
cancellation of the December 7, 2011 Board meeting as has been the practice in
past years due to the holidays. He stated that discussion concerning the December
board meeting will be presented at the next regular meeting.
No action was taken by the board on this item.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
9. ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS.
a) BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES FOR THE 4TH QUARTER OF FISCAL
YEAR 2011
Mr. Sean Prendergast, Finance Supervisor for Payroll/Accounts Payables, provided
each of the directors' expenses from April 1, 2011 thru June 30, 2011 . He indicated
that directors' expenses totaled $5,195.34 for the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2011
and total expenditures for Fiscal Year 2011 was $22,628.99.
He noted that the directors' expenses have declined more than 78% from 1999 to
2011 (from $103,678 in 1999 to $22,629 in 2011 ) and the average annual expense
for the same time period was $47,162.
b) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE 4TH QUARTER OF
FISCAL YEAR2011 UPDATE
Associate Civil Engineer Dan iel Kay presented the fourth quarter CIP update in
which he highlighted the status of CIP expenditures, significant issues and progress
milestones on major projects.
He indicated that the Fiscal Year 2011 CIP consists of 82 projects totaling $28.6
million and that the overall expenditures through the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year
2011 totaled approximately $17.4 million, wh ich is about 61% of the District's fiscal
year budget.
Assoc.iate Civil Engineer Kay noted that the Board approved a $250,000 increase to
the 2011 CIP Budget to cover un-anticipated costs for the Ralph w. Chapman
Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade Project (CIP R2096). This action slightly
increased the total FY 2011 CIP budget to $28.6 million.
4
He presented a slide depicting a map showing the District's major CIP projects, their
status and their location within the District's service area. He stated, of the 22
projects depicted, twelve are in design, eight are in construction and two have been
completed and are in service during the fiscal year. He reviewed the status of the
District's flagship projects which included the 1296-1 and 2 Reservoirs Coating
Project and the 657-1 and 2 Coating and Upgrades Project. He noted that the
design phase for CIP P2466 Regional Training Facility has been completed and the
project is currently in construction. He also noted that community outreach has
commenced for the North District/South District Interconnect Project (CIP P251 1 ).
Associate Civil Engineer Kay also presented slides that provided the status of the
various consultant contracts for planning, design, public services,
construction/inspection and environmental. He also presented slides providing a
listing of all CIP projects planned in Fiscal Year 2011 and the status of each.
In response to a question from Director Robak, Mr. Kay stated that the 1296-1 and
2 Reservoirs Coating Project (C IP P2490 and P2492) is now complete and that both
reservoirs are in service.
Director Croucher indicated that due to the current economic situation, staff
continually reviews projects to determine if there are opportunities to increase
savings and efficiencies for the District. He noted that although savings and
efficiencies are important, he believes it is also important for staff to focus on the
maintenance of District facilities to avoid the high costs of major repairs.
c) FISCAL YE.AR 201 1 YEAR-END STRATEGIC PLAN AND PERFORMANCE
MEASURES UPDATE REPORT
Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens ind icated that the District is starting
the development of its fourth, three-year Strategic Plan, and is in its ninth year of a
twelve-year cycle. Prior to presenting the results of the FY 2011 Strategic Pian, he
provided a review of what the Strategic Planning process has accomplished over
the last nine years and how this current three-year plan is built upon this. The
2012-2014 Strategic Plan is focused on busin ess processes and how the District
can improve those business processes (Optimize).
He provided the year-end FY 2011 Strategic Plan results which indicated that the
District's objectives and performance measures are meeting the set targets with:
• Thirty (30) or thirty-two (32) objectives completed, ahead of schedule or on
target (or 94%); the target was 90%
• Thirty-six (36) of forty-four (44) performance measures completed, ahead of
schedule or on target (or 82%); the target was 75%
Director Jose Lopez stated that he is Impressed with the District's Strategic Plan
and how much it has evolved in the last nine years and commended staff for their
instrumental role inh executing the Plan.
5
Director Gonzalez commended staff for their dedicated efforts to carry out the vision
of the District and stated that customers/ratepayers can refer to the Strategic Plan
to get an idea of the District's future direction.
In response to a question from Director Robak, General Manager Watton stated that
the District has participated in the American Water Work Association's (AWWA)
Self-assessment and Peer Review Program and accomplished the majority of its
objectives. He stated that the District no longer participates In the program, but
indicated that the District does participate in other similar programs.
d) INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE UPGRADED BILLING
SYSTEM AND THE NEW BILL PRINT FORMAT
Customer Service Manager Andrea Carey indicated that this item is a follow-up to
the presentation that was provided to the Board at its regular meeting in January
2011. At that time, the Board suggested an additional enhancements to the
District's billing format. Those enhancements have been incorporated and are as
follows:
REPORTS
• The usage history was expanded from thirteen (13) months to twenty-four
(24) months
• A standard water conservation message was added to direct customers
to the District's Water Conservation Garden's website which provides
information on how to reduce water usage
• A contact number for City of Chula Vista's sewer customers
10. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
General Manager Watton reported that he spoke with San Diego County Taxpayer
Association's (SDCTA) president, Lani Lutar, to discuss the District's Employee
Retiree Healthcare Program's actuarial study. He indicated that he expressed to
Ms. Lutar his concerns and issues with SDCT A's continued misrepresentation of the
study with the use of only one (1) of the employee groups in their calculations to
manufacture large percentages of increases while ignoring the fact that the District's
study was intended to show the healthcare program with all District employees
participating. He stated, in a few weeks, he planned to meet with Ms. Lutar to
review the actuarial study with her in hopes that it will provide SDCT A a better
understanding of the report. He noted that the San Diego County Water Authority
(CWA) is experiencing similar activities with the Taxpayers Education Foundation
who is commencing a study of CWA's labor costs where they had apparently
misused and miscalculated information provided by CWA.
General Manager Watton highlighted information from his report that included an
update on water conservation programs, Municipal Information Systems Association
6
of California (M ISAC), and the FY 2011 Financial Audit wh ich he indicated will be
delayed for about 1 month as the auditors attempt to complete all necessary work to
complete the audit. It is expected that the financial report will be presented to the
Board at the November 2, 2011 regular meeting. He also provided an update on
the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development and indicated that the project
remains on schedule and will be completed in the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2013.
An update on the North District/South District Interconnect Project was also
provided.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
Director Croucher provided additional information concerning CWA's issues with the
San Diego County Taxpayer Association. He indicated that, of the 209 data points
in the Taxpayers Education Foundation's study of labor costs for CWA, nearly 81%
of the study was incorrect.
11. DI RECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
Director Croucher thanked District staff for their support and donations to the San
Diego Blood Bank and also commended staff who participated in the Beads of
Courage's Annual Golf Tournament Charity event that helps children with cancer
and other serious illnesses.
Director Robak reported that the Metro Commission had recently met to discuss the
City of San Diego's Recycled Water System Study and stated that the City seems to
be apprehensive towards the idea of investing in the system. He commended
District staff for their instrumental role of providing the City valuable input for the
Recycled Water System Study. He staled that where this issue goes is not certain
at this point. He reported that he attended the City of Chula Vista's Centennial
Celebration In recognition of the City's 1001h birthday and indicated that he learned
more about Otay Water District's establishment in 1956 and its history. He noted
that he purchased the "1911 to 2011 Chula Vista Centennial" book for the District to
share with its employees and customers.
Director Lopez reported that he attended the District's Annual Picnic and enjoyed
his time with staff. He also reported that wh ile attending community events, he had
the opportunity to respond to questions from the public regarding the District's
Employee Retiree Healthcare Program. As a result, he believes that the public has
gained a better understanding of the program and may be more supportive of it.
Director Gonzalez indicated that he will be attending a Special District and Local
Government Institute Finance Seminar Series that will be held September 8-10,
201 1 in Monterey, California.
12. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Director Bonilla reported on meetings he attended during the month of August 201 1
and indicated that on August 17 he attended an agenda briefing meeting to discuss
7
items to be presented at the September board meeting. He stated that on August 19
he attended a meeting of the Ad Hoc Legal Matters Committee to discuss various
legal matters. He met with General Manager Watton on August 21 to discuss
District issues and the possibility of focus groups. On August 23 he met with
community leaders to receive their feedback with regard to the District. He met with
General Counsel Dan Shinoff on September 1 to discuss legal matters.
Director Bonilla expressed his concerns about the San Diego County Taxpayer
Association's (SDCTA) and the Union Tribune's misrepresentation of the District's
actuarial study for the Employee Retiree Healthcare Program. He noted that due to
the misrepresentation of the program, he has received approximately 100 emails
from irate individuals and that several of them threatened the lives of his and other
board members' families.
Director Bonilla felt that SDCTA should have indicated that they made a mistake in
their calculations related to the District's actuarial study for the Employee Retiree
Health care Program. Instead, he believes SDCTA is backing off from their previous
comments made at the District's August Board meeting. He stated that the majority
of the Board made its decision to support the District's healthcare program based
on accurate information. He indicated that he felt that It was the right thing to do as
it benefits both the employees and the ratepayers (reduces District expenses). He
stated that the SDCT A actions and comments with regard to the Employee Retiree
Healthcare Program were unprofessional and dishonest. He stated that he plans to
respond to the comments made by SDCTA.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
13. The board recessed to closed session at 4:55p.m. to discuss the following matters:
a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)]
(I) MULTIPLE CASES RELATED TO THE FENTON BUSINESS
CENTER AND FILED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED UNDER CASE NO. 37-
2007 -00077024-CU-BC-SC
b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9)
(I) SALT CREEK GOLF, LLC, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT, CASE NO. 1113898-LA11
2 CASES
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
a
14. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ADDITIONAL AC TIONS ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED
SESSION
The board reconvened at 5:28 p.m. and General Counsel Shin off indicated that the
Board took no reportable actions in closed session.
15. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board, President Bonilla adjourned the
meeting at 5:28p.m.
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
9
AGENDA ITEM 18
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
October 5, 201 1
1. The meeting was called to order by President Bonilla at 3:35p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
Directors Absent: Croucher (assigned to the Julian fire}
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton , Asst. General Manager of
Administration and Finance German Alvarez, Asst. General
Manager of Engineering and Water Operations Manny
Magana, General Counsel Daniel Shinoff, Chief of
Information Technology Geoff Stevens, Chief Financial
Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Eng ineering 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 Gonzalez, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Roba k
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve the agenda.
5. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 1, 2011 AND
SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 9, 2011
A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by Director Gonzalez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
1
to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of June 1, 2011 and special meeting
of May 9, 2011.
6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
Mr. Jon Gardner of La Jolla indicated that he had read some articles in the paper
and, because of these articles, he wished to attend today's meeting to speak in
support of the District's board. He stated that he is part of an engineering group
which is focused on promoting the need to conserve water, primarily in Southern
California. He had a chance to meet with some members of the District's board and
he was very impressed with their professionalism and experience. He stated that
water issues have been getting more complicated and addressing these issues will
require experience. He stated that his group was very impressed with the District
and decided that they wished to start their project working with the Otay Water
District.
CONSENT ITEMS
7. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WiTHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST iS
MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
A motion was made by Director Lopez to approve the consent ca lendar. President
Bonilla indicated that he would second Director Lopez' motion if would amend his
motion to pull item 6d, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4190 TO REVISE AND
UPDATE THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT BOARD POLICIES: 1) USE OF DISTRICT
VEHICLES AND CAR ALLOWANCE (POLICY NO. 14); 2) STAFF TRAVEL AND
BUSINESS RELATE D EXPENSES (POLICY NO. 34}; and 3) POLICY AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
(POLICY NO. 47). Director Lopez accepted the amendment and the motion carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve the following consent calendar items:
a) APPROVE ADJUSTING THE WHEELING RATE FOR THE DELIVERY OF
TREATY WATERS TO THE CITY OF TIJUANA TO $65.39 PER ACRE-
FOOT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2012
b) AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ABLEFORCE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
2
$161,500 TO COVER THE COST OF 1900 HOURS OF PROGRAMMING
SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 30,2012
c) AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH HARTFORD, WHICH MAY BE EXTENDED UP TO
THREE YEARS, TO PROVIDE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM
D ISABILITY (STD/L TO} INSURANCE BASED ON THE RATE OF $0.043
PER $100 OF MONTHLY PAYROLL FOR STD AND $0.51 FOR L TO FROM
JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH/UP TO DECEMBER 2014
e) CONSIDER CASTING VOTES FOR AN ALTERNATE SPECIAL DISTRICT
MEMBER ON LAFCO'S COMMISSION AND EIGHT (8} SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITIEE MEMBERS IN THE LAFCO SPECIAL
DISTRICTS 2011 ELECTION
f) APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH 3-D ENTERPRISES,
INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $53,500 FOR HVAC
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE 803-1 AND 850-2 PUMP STATIONS
g) APPROVE AN AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
CONTRACT WITH ATKINS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2013
h) APPROVE AN AS-NEEDED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND
INSPECT ION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH VALLEY CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000 FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2012 AND 2013
I) APPROVE AN AS-NEEDED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
CONTRACT WITH INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERS IN AN AMOUNT
NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000 FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2013
President Bonilla presented Item 6d for discussion. He indicated that the District received
a public records request asking that Board Policy No. 14, Use of District Vehicles and Car
Allowance, be agendized for discussion by the board. The request was not for the same
reason that staff has placed the policy on the agenda for discussion, but for another
reason. The Board Secretary, Susan Cruz, was directed to contact the requestor to advise
him that the policy would be agendized for discussion at today's meeting and, if he wished,
he may address the board on his concerns with the policy. President Bonilla stated that
the District is receiving requests under the California Public Records Act that are more of
questions rather than requests for documents as is the intent of the Act. He stated that the
District is willing to provide information requested as long as it is channeled and requested
properly. He indicated, however, if the requestor's intent is to use the system to distract or
to send staff in a different direction than their normal work and responsibilities, that it is not
acceptable. He asked General Manager Watton to explain the California Public Records
Act.
3
General Manager Watton indicated that a request was received with regard to District
officials and employees who have car allowances and assigned vehicles. The record
responsive to the inquiry was sent to the requestor. The District then received a follow-up
request from the requestor asking why the General Manager was not listed on the
document. General Manager Watton indicated that he wished to clarify that the follow-up
request is not a request under the California Public Records Act, as it is a question, as
opposed to a request for documents. He stated that the District is happy to answer the
question, however, he wished to clarify that the California Public Records Act is a request
for documents and not a request to answer questions. He wanted to make it clear so there
is no confusion. The reason the General Manager was not listed on the document
produced is that he does not have a car allowance or an assigned vehicle. It was
discussed that the District is answering this inquiry in public as it was felt that the response
to the original request was pretty clear, however, it had generated another question. The
District knows who submitted the request, but is not certain who the actual requestor is
and if they would like additional information. The District is required to be open and is
asking whoever is behind the requests to be open and forthright with their interest in the
District. No one wished to address the board on this item.
Director Lopez indicated that this item was discussed at the District's Finance,
Administration and Communications Committee on September 19, 2011 and the
discussion has been documented in Attachment A to staffs' report. He stated that the
committee supports staff recommendation.
A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by President Bonilla and carried with the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
Abstain: None
Absent: Director Croucher
to approve the following consent calendar item:
d) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4190 TO REVISE AND UPDATE THE
FOLLOWING DISTRICT BOARD POLICIES:
• USE OF DISTRICT VEHICLES AND CAR ALLOWANCE (POLICY
NO. 14)
• STAFF TRAVEL AND BUSINESS RELATED EXPENSES (POLICY
NO. 34)
• POLICY AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT AND
COMPLAINT PROCEDURE (POLICY NO. 47)
ACTION ITEMS
8. ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS
4
a) APPROVE THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED JULY
2011 FOR THE PIO PI CO ENERGY CENTER PROJECT AS REQUIRED
BY SENATE BILL 610
Senior Civil Engineer Bob Kennedy indicated that since lhe first of the year, the
board has approved four (4) Water Supply Assessment Reports. He stated that he
was presenting for the board's approval, the Water Supply Assessment Report for
the Pia Pica Energy Center Project (PPEC). Senior Civil Engineer Kennedy
indicated that the primary intent of Senate Bill 610 and 221 (SB 610 and 221) is to
improve the link between water supply availability and land use decisions. SB 610
requires the water purveyor to prepare a Water Supply Assessment Report (WSAR)
fo r inclusion in the agency CEQA documentation. He noted that SB 221 does not
apply to this project as it is an industrial development.
He indicated that PPEC Project is a 300 Megawatt natural gas fired power
generating facility that is expected to run up to 4,000 hours per year. It is located in
East Otay Mesa on the southeast corner of Alta Road and Calzada de Ia Fuente.
Construction is expected to start in February 2013 and is estimated that the plant
would go online in May 2014. The facility will be designed to utilize recycled water
for cooling. Since recycled water is currently not available, the PPEC Project will
rely on potable water for cooling. The projected demand is 369 acre feet a year
(AFY) and the onsite domestic and sprinkler use will bring the total interim potable
water demand for the project to 372 AFY. Once recycled water is available to the
site, it is expected to utilize 379 AFY of recycled water and less than 2 AFY of
potable water for on site domestic use.
The WSAR for the PPEC Project states that the regional and local water supply
agencies acknowledge the challenges in the water supply and recognize additional
water supplies are necessary and portfolios need to be reassessed and
redistributed with intent to serve existing and futu re needs. He stated that the report
also documents the actions necessary to develop the supplies for a 20-year
planning horizon and presented the various local water supply projects that were
included in the WSAR (please see attached copy of presentation). He also
presented a slide which provides data from the District's 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan. It projects the District's demand for a single dry year and
multiple dry years and is based on meeting SBX7-7's conservation goal of a 10%
per capita water use reduction by 2015 (please see attached copy of presentation).
Senior Civil Engineer Kennedy indicated that the WSA for the PPEC Project
demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are
intended to be available over the next 20 years.
Director Lopez indicated that the Engineering, Operations and Water Resources
Committee was concerned with the project's initial use of potable water. It was
discussed that there is an existing recycled water main right along the street near
the front of the project, however, there is a gap between this recycled water main
and the existing recycled water mains that have actual recycled water flowing
5
through them of about 2.8 miles. The committee discussed, and felt, that there is
sufficient water to move forward with the project.
It was indicated in response to an inquiry from Director Robak that the District is
currently not receiving all the recycled water that it requires from the City of San
Diego and has been working with the City on the price and supply of recycled water.
It is expected that recycled water would be utilized by the plant in approximately two
years. This is the reason the WSA is based on providing potable water to the
project initially with the prospect of providing recycled water once it is available.
A motion was made by Director Robak, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve staffs' recommendation.
9. BOARD
a) DISCUSSION OF 20 11 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
President Bonilla indicated that the last meeting of the Board in 201 1 will be held on
November 2, 201 1. He stated that there would be no meeting in December 2011 .
b) DISCUSSION OF RETIREE HEALTHCARE BENEFITS
General Manager Watton indicated that this item has been agendized to respond to
comments made by the public and Taxpayers Association regarding the recently
adopted Retiree Healthcare Benefits and to questions concerning who did the
actual work that identified the savings that the District would realize with the
implementation of the program. He explained that the Actuary had performed the
work that identified the cost of the healthcare benefits. The District's Chief Financial
Officer had prepared the calculations of the savings the District would realize with
employees paying their share of pension costs. He stated that Mr. Ron Dahlgren,
an Administrator of Grossmont Hospital, had attended the District's August board
meeting. Mr. Dahlgren had suggested at that meeting that the District engage
another actuary, Milliman, Inc., to review the Actuary Report prepared by Bartel &
Associates. General Manager Watton indicated that th is practice of a "peer review"
is fairly common among actuarial companies and the District decided to act on the
suggestion and retained Milliman to perform a peer review of Bartel & Associates
work. He stated that this agenda item is intended to respond to questions that have
been asked regarding the program and entertain any additional questions that the
public may have. It was noted that both the Taxpayers Association and Mr.
Dahlgren have received copies of the actuary report and all other information
requested.
6
Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem introduced Mr. John Bartel, Bartel Associates,
who has been very involved in the calculation of the cost of the employee
healthcare benefits enhancement. He stated that the purpose of today's
presentation is to:
• Substantiate the current actuarial report
• Validate that the enhancement of the retiree healthcare benefits is fully
funded by increased employee contributions
• Highlight the proper use of an actuarial report
He stated that the employee groups had proposed to pay a greater share of their
PERS retirement cost, via payroll deduction, in return for an enhancement to their
retiree healthcare benefits. Bartel Associates was hired to calculate the added cost
of the retiree medical benefit. The payroll deductions were then set at an amount
greater than the added cost of the retiree healthcare benefits. The proposal was
approved by the District's Board based on an understanding that customers would
not be negatively impacted by the proposed healthcare benefits.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that the Taxpayers Association
questioned the legitimacy of the Actuarial Study prepared by Bartel Associates and
a member of the public, who attended the District's meeting with the Taxpayers
Association, recommended that the District engage Milliman, Inc. to perform a "peer
review" of the Actuarial Report prepared by Bartel Associates. The District hired
Milliman and in their findings, they stated that Bartel Associates had used
reasonable methods and assumptions in their report, substantiating the Actuarial
Report prepared by Bartel Associates. He read an excerpt from the Milliman report:
"Since the plan participates in California Employees' Retirement Benefit Trust
Fund, many of the assumptions and methods must conform with CaiPERS
OPEB assumption model. Based on our review of the reports, the valuation
does conform with this requirement. Where CaiPERS OPEB assumption
model allows for some latitudes, the assumptions described in their report
seem reasonable and conform with GASB 45 requirements and Actuarial
Standards and Practices."
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that the Taxpayers Association also
questioned the legitimacy of the net savings as calculated by District staff which
challenges the District's assertion that the customers will not be financially
impacted. The District engaged Bartel Associates to recalculate the net savings
using actuarial methods and the results of their findings validates that the
enhancement to the retiree healthcare benefits is fully funded by employee
contributions. He indicated that the annual net savings beginning in 2013, as
calculated by Bartel Associates, is $140,000 and projected to increase over time.
He also explained the proper use of an Actuarial Study. He stated that the
Taxpayers Association pulled a subset of the employees (Tier Ill only) in their
calculation. The Actuarial Study covers all three categories of employees (Tiers I, II
7
and Ill). He stated by only utilizing a subset of the employees in their calculation,
the Taxpayers Association misrepresented the Board's action in its entirety. Based
on the results of the Actuary Report "peer review" and validation of staff's
calculation of savings to the District, the criticisms by the Taxpayers Association are
without merit.
Director Robak inquired if the District involved the Taxpayers Association in the
"peer review" to see if their questions had been answered. General Manager
Watton indicated that staff had advised the Taxpayers Association of the District's
plan to move forward with the "peer review" and it was agreed that the District would
share with them the findings of the review. They were also invited to participate in
today's meeting. It was noted that the agreement with the Taxpayers Association
was that a second opinion would be garnered on the Actuary Report and the
District's calculation of the savings that will be realized by the District. Both have
been accomplished.
President Bonilla asked Mr. Bartel his opinion of the Taxpayers Associations
calculation. Mr. Bartel indicated that the Taxpayers Association took a component
of their Actuary Report and did some calculations to come up with results that gave
the impression that it was consistent with their point of view. He stated that he felt
what they did was not appropriate and was an improper use of his firms Actuary
Report.
It was noted that the District would be forwarding a letter to the Taxpayers
Association Board with the findings of the Peer Review the calculation of savings to
the District.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
10. ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ON LY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS.
a) REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT'S REGIONAL POWER OUTAGE REPORT
Chief of Operations Pedro Porras Indicated that he was very pleased to share with
the board that the District's operations did very well du ring the power outage on
September 8, 2011. He stated that, though the power was out for approximately 10
hours, the District was able to continue to meet Its mission to provide safe/quality
water to the District's customers and there was no interruption in service during the
outage. He stated that, however, there is always room for improvement. Staff
performed a post power outage review and identified areas that the District could
further enhance to improve services during an emergency. He introduced
Operations Manager Gary Stalker who would provide a review of the District's
operations and actions taken during the outage and the enhancements that staff
had identified to improve services during emergencies.
Operations Manager Stalker stated that during the outage the District was never in
danger of losing pressure in its systems. All generators at District pump station
8
facilities started up and ran as they should. He indicated that staff is confident that
it could have continued to meet the District's mission for a more extended outage.
He noted that the District did have two pump stations on portable generators as
these pump stations cannot be permanently hooked to the existing generators due
to Air Pollution Control District regulations. District electricians had connected the
portable generators to the two pump station and they ran just as they should. He
noted that the District does have two generators included in the fiscal year budget
and staff is presently requesting quotes for the purchase of both generators.
Operations Manager Stalker indicated that the primary issue that the District faced
was that most of the SCADA system radio communications had gone down about
30 minutes after the outage. These radios were initially put into service with small
UPS battery back-up to handle localized short-term power outages with the plan to
install more robust battery back-up when security improvements were implemented.
This did not cause a large issue as two water system operators visited reservoir
sites and checked their levels and manually started pumps as needed. He noted
that once the reservoir is at its peak level, the pumps will automatically shut-off.
He stated the longer term plan is to assure that the SCADA system is powered by
the back-up generators at pump station with back-up generators. Remote reservoir
sites will also be augmented with at least three (3) days of back-up battery power.
Staff will also be exploring partnering with the cellular phone vendors who have cell
equipment at District facilities to utilize their generators to power the District's radio
systems.
He stated that the District's Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center
generators started and ran as they should and the District's major computer
systems were not impacted by the power outage. The District did lose Verizon
cellular service for approximately an hour, but staff was able to communicate using
the mobile and handheld radios. He stated that the power outage was a very good
test for the District's communications systems and it verified that the back-up
systems worked very well and where enhancements could be made.
He also noted that the Treatment Plant generator started properly, however, it
overheated as it became overloaded. After staff shutdown all non-critical load on
the generator, it started up and continued running throughout the outage period. He
further shared that the replacement generator for the Treatment Plant had already
been purchased and would be installed during the low recycled water demand
months.
Staff also suggested additional improvements that they wou ld be evaluating to
improve efficiency during a similar emergency. He reviewed each item (see
attached copy of staffs' report) and indicated that, overall, the power outage
provided a very good test of the District's emergency systems and the outcome was
very good for the District. There was no interruption of service to District customers
and all customers received full water service at normal pressure.
9
It was discussed that the District has enough fuel to run back-up generators for
approximately eight (8} days with normal water usage. It was noted that, during a
power outage, usage would likely be lower as customers cannot utilize their
dishwashers or washing machines. President Bonilla indicated that he is proud of
staff and how operations are run . He stated that he would like staff to continue to
look ahead and be prepared should an emergency or outage occur for a longer
period. Directors Gonzalez., Lopez and Robak echoed President Bonilla's
commendations to staff for their forethought in being prepared for any emerg ency.
Director Robak added that he discussed with General Manager Watton how all
agencies are interconnected (i.e., Metropolitan Water District [MWD], San Diego
County Water Authority [CWA], etc.) and we rely on each other to be prepared
during emergencies. He inquired if staff has addressed the reliability of our
suppliers. Operations Manager Stalker indicated that staff has considered this and
all treatment plants who deliver water to the District have emergency back-up power
to be able to continue to treat water. The whole system is also gravity delivered. In
this situation, water supply was never an issue. However, during a major
earthquake, supply would be a major concern to assure that we continue to receive
water deliveries to serve our customers. It was noted that this is the reason that
MWD and CWA (enlarging the San Vicente Reservoir) have developed projects that
expand storage for emergencies.
b) INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING CUSTOMER NOTICES OF THE
APPROVED WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASES EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 2012
Customer Service Manager Alice Mendez-Schomer indicated that, attached to
staffs' report, are the rate increase notices that will be mailed to District customers
regarding the increase in sewer and water rates which will be effective with any
water use starting January 1, 2012 and thereafter. The board had approved a draft
version of the notices when they approved the Fiscal Year 2012 budget last May
2011 . Attached to staffs' report are the final notices that will be mailed to customers
beginning in November 2011 . She stated the majority of the District's customers
will receive the notices via bill inserts and a small portion will be directly mailed the
notices.
It was noted that the District has always mailed notices to its customers. It is not
only a legal requirement, but the District believes that its customers should be
notified of how the rate Increases will impact them. She noted that a majority of the
District's customers are residential customers.
She stated the District's water rate increase th is year is 7.7% and noted that the
rate from the District's supplier, CWA, will increase by almost 10%. The District,
due to a variety of cost cutting measures, has been able to hold its rate increase
down and will only pass thru a portion of the increase (7.7%) to its customers. She
stated that, similarly, the District's sewer rate increase from its supplier, City of San
Diego, is 9.5% and the District will be passing thru a portion of that rate increase,
7.5%, to its customers. Customer Service Manager Mendez-Schomer indicated the
board may recall that staff presented in August 2009, a five-year plan which
10
projected the District's rate increases. Both these rate increases fall well within the
limits presented at that time.
Director Robak inquired what context the District is referring to the County of San
Diego in a statement within the District's rate increase notices to Its sewer
customers, "while the County of San Diego decreased its rates for service, this
positive action was offset by a 9.4% increase from the City of San Diego for
wastewater disposal." General Manager Watton ind icated that the District has
agreements with the County of San Diego to transport sewage through some of
their facilities to the Metro Commission system. They have consolidates some of
their districts which allowed them to reduce their rate.
Director Gonzalez indicated that the District has been exploring ways th at it can
reduce the impact of wholesale rate increases to its customers and, one such way,
is developing Independent water resources, such as, the desalination and the
Rancho del Rey Well Project. Such projects would help reduce the District's
reliance on its wholesale providers and impacts from their increases.
REPORTS
11 . GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
General Manager Watton indicated that there was nothing new to report with reg ard
to CWA.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
General Manager Watton highlighted information from his report that included an
update on Benefits Open Enrollment, RFP for banking services, the North/South
Interconnect Project, USBR Title XVI funding, meter sales, and the ending of the
District's agreement with the County of San Diego for power from their micro
turbines at the District's Treatment Plant (see attached copy of the General
Manager's Report).
12. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
Director Lopez indicated that is has been a busy month. He has been involved in
meetings with the community regarding the North/South District Interconnect
Project. He also shared that there will be some changes in the leadership at the
Water Conservation Garden due to a retirement. He noted that the Garden Board
now meets on a quarterly basis. He also thanked Director Gonzalez for filling in for
him in a meeting with County of San Diego Supervisor Greg Cox.
Director Gonzalez indicated that he attended the Special District Institute
conference in early September. He stated that it was the last of the three training
seminars and he had earned his certificate from their program. He also shared that
11
he attended a couple San Diego Hispan ic Chamber of Commerce events and a
National City Chamber event to hear about their projects and initiatives. He also
attended meetings with elected officials to provide them an update on Otay matters.
13. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Bonilla thanked the District Directors for their work on District committees.
He indicated that much of the work is done at the committee level and he wished to
thank them for their time serving on the committees. He reported on meetings he
attended in September 2011 and Indicated that on September 9 he met with The
Star News editor, Mr. Carlos Davalos to update him on the retiree health benefits
issue and other Otay matters. He stated that it was a very productive meeting and
Mr. Davalos was very supportive of the District's projects. He noted that he met
with the City of El Cajon Mayor, Mark Lewis, and they discussed various District
issues. He stated that Mayor Lewis was also very supportive of the District. On
September 15 he met with Councilmember Patricia Aguilar and updated her on the
retiree benefits matter and reviewed the calculations with her. She indicated that
understood the position the board had taken. He stated that on September 22 he
met with former Otay Director, Larry Breitfelder, and updated him on the Rosarito
Desalination Project and the retiree benefits matter. He met with Mr. Enrique
Morones, Puentes Latinos, on September 30, and they discussed focus group
meetings. He also met with General Manager Watton, Chief Financial Officer
Beachem and General Counsel Dan Shinoff to discuss items that will be presented
at the October board meeting. Following the October board agenda briefing, he
attended the Ad Hoc Legal Matters Committee. The committee discussed various
District legal matters, pending and potential litigation matters.
RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to a Closed Session at 5:12p.m.
14. CLOSED SESSION
a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9]
(I) SALT CREEK GOLF, LLC, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT, CASE NO. 11-13898-LA11
2 CASES
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
15. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
The Board returned to open session at 5:55 p.m. General Counsel Dan Shinoff
indicated that no reportable actions were taken in closed session.
12
16. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board, President Bonilla adjourned the
meeting at 5:55 p.m.
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
13
AGENDA ITEM 18
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETIN G OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
November 2, 2011
1. The meeting was called to order by President Bonilla at 3:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
Directors Absent: Croucher (Assigned to monitor fire at the US Border)
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Asst. General Manager of
Administration and Finance German Alvarez, Asst. General
Manager of Engineering and Water Operations Manny
Magana, Attorney Jeff Morris, 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 Gonzalez, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve the agenda.
5. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF JULY 15, 2011
AND AUGUST 10, 2011
A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by Director Robak and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
1
to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of July 15, 2011 and August 10,
2011.
6. PRESENTATION OF EXCELLENCE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AWARD
FROM THE MUNICIPAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bill Jenkins, Information Technology (IT) Operations Manager, indicated that the
District's IT Department received the Excellence in Information Technology Award
from the Municipal Information Systems Association of California (MISAC). He
stated that MISAC established the award program in 1999 to recognize public
agencies for their exemplary IT practices and is an award from the District's peers.
He explained in order to be considered for this award, the District was required to
submit an "audit" that includes information on the District's budget, strategic
planning, purchasing, operation staffing, customer satisfaction, internet security,
GIS, etc. These requirements are to ensure that agencies are meeting the
standards for local and municipal governance in the state of California. He noted
that there were twenty-one (21) agencies who received the award this year. The
awardees included sixteen (16) cities and five (5) special districts.
General Manager Mark Watton announced that Mr. Jenkins would be retiring
December 28, 2011 after approximately ten (1 0) years of service to the District.
7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION-OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATIER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODA Y'S AGENDA
Mr. Herb Abell of Jamul addressed the Board concerning his request for the District
to refund a construction deposit he posted for the George Barber Improvement
Plans Project, TPM 20012 (APN 597170-34). Mr. Abel provided a background of
the matter and submitted documentation to the Board and asked that the Board
consider his request for a refund.
President Bonilla indicated that Mr. Abell's request would be considered by the
Board during the closed session portion of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS
MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBUC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
A motion was made by Director Lopez, seconded by Director Gonzalez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
2
Absent: Director Croucher
to approve the following consent calendar items:
a) AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF A NEW CIP PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $210,000 AND APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH
SKYLINE SERVICES, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $109,195
FOR THE RECYCLED FORCE MAIN ACCESS ROAD REPAIRS
b) APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT
TO MERKEL & ASSOCIATES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND
MONITORING OF THE SAN MIGUEL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA
AND CIP-ASSOCIATED MITIGATION PROJECTS FOR CALENDAR
YEARS 2012, 2013, AND 2014 IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED
$359,079.56
c) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO TC CONSTRUCTION, INC.
FOR THE LA PRESA SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN AN
AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $978,995 AND APPROVE AN INCREASE TO
THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET FOR P2370 FROM $960,000 TO
$1 ,210,000
ACTION ITEMS
9. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
a) APPROVE THE DISTRICT'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' UNQUALIFIED OPINION,
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011
General Manager Watton indicated that the Finance, Administration and
Communications Committee reviewed this item in detail at a meeting held on
October 19, 201 1. Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem introduced Mr. Nitin Patel
of Diehl Evans & Company, LLP (DEC), and indicated that, following his
presentation, Mr. Patel would present the results of the District's audit of Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2011.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem stated that DEC's audit of Fiscal Year Ended June
30, 2011 resulted in an "unqualified opinion." This is the highest level of "opinion"
which is commonly known as a "clean opinion." He stated that DEC found no
material errors.
He presented some highlights from the audit which included:
o Total assets decreased $6 million. This is partially due to staff completing
an extensive review of assets and identifying some assets that have been
fully depreciated, but were never removed from the books. Also, as the
economy has slowed, the District has been reducing its CIP which no
3
longer requires the District to have as much cash on hand to cover CIP
expenditures.
o Total liabilities decreased $4.2 million as the District has paid down debt
by $2.7 million and accounts payable has decreased by $2.3 million.
o Operating Expenses and Revenues have increased due to the higher
cost of water from the District's wholesalers and increased rates
respectively.
o Non-Operating Revenues and Capital Contributions are similar to last
year.
Ch ief Financial Officer Joe Beachem indicated that one of the areas the auditor
reviews is internal controls. It was discussed that the District has not had a
management letter for a number of years, but this year the auditors issued a
management letter to the audit committee. In their letter they identified two (2)
issues with regard to internal controls:
o Journal entry process: Sr. Accountants have the ability to create and post
entries, though they are not authorized to do both. Over a two-year
period (approximately 6000 entries), two occasions were identified where
a Sr. Accountant created an entry and posted it. In both cases, the Sr.
Accountant had found an error that another employee had made and
reversed the error and posted the correction. The auditors indicated that
the District's process was fine, if the District had a way to identify that the
process is being followed.
Staff has implemented a new process which was reviewed with the
auditors and they have agreed that the new verification process is sound.
o Bank reconciliation process: Customer bill payments were double posted
to the District's general ledger in error. One way in which this can happen
is when a customer, while making an online bill payment, hits the
payment button twice. This generates two payment postings. When this
occurs, the credit card company will notify the District of a possible
duplicate payment and the District, if the payment is identified as a double
payment, will advise the credit card company to process only one
payment. However, the double payment is automatically forwarded to the
general ledger and both payments are posted, one correctly and one in
error. There were no monies lost, but this does create an accounting
error. The auditors indicate that the District's controls should catch this
double posting.
An improvement to the monthly reconciliation process was implemented
to capture any credit card errors, such as these double entries.
In addition to the management letter, the auditors recommended adjustments with
regard to accounting transactions. DEC identified four transactions requiring
adjustments:
4
o Related to the above bank reconciliation process where double payments
were received from on-line bill payments which then created a double
general ledger entry, these double entries were corrected.
o Adjustments were made related to when and how Capital Projects are
booked as fixed assets or expense. Based on discussions with the
District's Engineering Department, staff identifies how and when a Capital
Project is closed out to an asset or possibly an expense. As a result of
further discussions with the auditors, a number of Capital Projects were
closed out earlier than they otherwise would have been. Some to fixed
assets, and some, because it was determined that they would not directly
contribute to a future facility, were closed to expense. An additional entry
was required to adjust capitalized interest. This adjustment was
necessary because the value of Capital Projects remaining in work-in-
process had changed.
o The final adjustment was related to reimbursements received from
Caltrans. The facilities were booked at the net value and they should
have been booked at gross value.
President Bonilla inquired about DEC's reasoning to book at gross values. Chief
Financial Officer Beachem stated that once projects are completed, they
become an asset to the District. He indicated that assets are normally booked at
full gross values, not net values. He noted that staff has corrected this issue.
o Staff indicated that an entry was found related to the estimate of capital
costs from the Spring Valley Sanitation District. As this item was found
late in the audit process, and it was considered immaterial to the financial
statements as a whole, an adjustment was not made.
Mr. Nitin Patel of Diehl Evans & Company, LLP (DEC) presented the results of their
audit of the District's Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 . Mr. Patel noted that their
firm had just merged with another CPA firm and their firm's new name is White
Nelson Diehl Evans, LLP. He stated that his firm has issued:
• Their opinion on the District's Financial Statements
• Report on Internal Controls, Financial Reporting and Compliance in Accordance
with Government Auditing Standards
o This report ind icates the two recommendations to improve internal
controls
• Report on Communications with those in Charge of Governance
o It specifically reports the general ledger adjustments their firm
recommended as a result of their audit.
He stated that DEC compared the District's 2010 and 2011 Financial Statements
and that their responsibility as auditor is to express their opinion on the District's
Financial Statements. DEC stated that they have issued an unqualified opinion and
indicated that the District's Financial Statements represent fairly the financial
5
position of the Otay Water District in accordance with generally accepted
accounting standards. DEC stated that they did not encounter any difficu lties in
performing the aud it.
In response to a question from Director Robak, Mr. Patel indicated that DEC has
been the District's auditor for the past three (3) years. The focus for this year was
risk assessment and they also looked at the District's Capital assets in more detail.
President Bonilla inquired how much of the water in the Districfs pipelines is
tracked/identified as an asset. Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem stated that the
District has been booking the water in both the tanks and pipes as an asset.
A motion was made by Director Robak, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve the District's audited financial statements, including the independent
Auditors' unqualified opinion, for fiscal year ended June 30, 201 1.
b) DISCUSSION OF 2012 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
Director Bonilla note that a Special Board Meeting would be scheduled at the end of
the month to consider the retention of the District's current legal firm of Stutz Artiano
Shinoff & Holtz, A.P.C.
Following the Board's review of the 2012 board meeting calendar, a motion was
made by Director Gonzalez, seconded by Director Lopez and carried with the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve the 2012 board meeting calendar.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
10. ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS.
a) REVIEW OF THE FY 2012-2014 STRATEGIC PLAN'S FOCUS ON WATER
PLANNING AND SUPPLY
6
General Manager Mark Watton indicated that the Finance, Administration and
Communications Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on October 19,
2011 and indicated that this item is in response to an inquiry by Director Croucher
with regard to how the District is handling its core business of water planning and
supply.
Chief Information Officer Geoff Stevens presented a subset of the District's
Strategic Plan where planning and supply were the focus. He stated that the District
identified its Key Challenge, "From a water supply perspective, this means
determining the optimum mix of water supply, treatment, and delivery solutions for
our customers." He stated that this is a key focus and reflects the issue of buying,
storing and building infrastructure for water.
He reviewed four (4) strategies specifically devoted to the core issue of, "Actively
manage water supply and demand."
• Prepare and implement a Waste Water Management Plan .
• Implement the recommendations within the Integrated Water Resources Plan
(IRP) to acquire alternative and/or add itional potable and recycled water
supplies and enhance resource reliability.
• Continue working with the City of Chula Vista for the possible development of an
MBR Plant and for a potential agreement with the City for recycled water
supplies from the MBR Plant.
• Closely monitor the District's potable water demand to ensure the District will
remain on target to achieve its 2015 gpcd target as identified in the 2010 Urban
Water Management Plan.
Chief Information Officer Stevens noted that these strategies drive. the District's
outlook of where it is going with water resources and the infrastructure that will be
required to provide services. All are essentially, determined largely by the Water
Resources Master Plan (WRMP), the District's primary planning tool for water
resources. It was also noted that the District prepares an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) that assesses growth projections and is a factor that
impacts the WRMP.
Director Robak inquired about the status of the proposed MBR Treatment Plant
project in Chula Vista. Chief Engineer Rod Posada stated that the City of Chula
Vista is the lead agency for the project and indicated that a Preliminary Feasibility
Study was recently completed. Mr. Posada stated that the City of Chula Vista has
requested a review period of the study until June 30, 2012, to consider the pros and
cons of the MBR Treatment Plant project, before a final decision is made on
whether or not to move forward with the project.
Director Robak inquired about the District's 2015 gpcd target identified in the 2010
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Water Conservation Manager William
7
Granger stated that he believes the 2010 UWMP's target for 2015 is 160 gpcd and
noted that the Plan also reports that the District is currently at 135 gpcd.
REPORTS
11. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
General Manager Mark Watton highlighted information from his report that included
an update on the District's Healthiest Companies Prog ram, paperless billing, re-
evaluation of staff duties, CWA local water supply, the AWWA Fall Conference, and
the 30-lnch, 980 Zone, Hunte Parkway -Proctor Valley/Use Area.
He indicated that at the AWWA Fall Conference, which was held October 17-20,
Alice Mendez-Schomer, Frank Anderson and Rita Bell provided presentations.
He noted that the County of San Diego is in the process of disconnecting
microturbines located at the District's Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility
and they will be removed by the end of the month.
General Manager Watton stated that, as a result of a newspaper article related to
the District's consultant selection process, Engineering staff conducted an informal
survey of twelve local agencies to determine if they conduct background checks.
Attached to the General Manager's Report is the results of that survey.
It was announced that Director Gary Croucher was re-elected to the San Diego
LAFCO Special District Advisory Committee.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
General Manager Watton provided a brief summary of several handouts that were
given to the Board. They were as follows: San Diego County Water Authority
(CWA) News Release -Water Authority Corrects Mistakes in San Vicente Pipeline
New Report; CWA Letter to the San Diego Union-Tribune, dated November 1, 2011
concerning a news article "Tunnel Costs Rose by $298 Million Over Time'~ SignOn
San Diego's news article, "Wave of state actions could hike water rates"; Carlsbad
Seawater Desalination Project Status Report; Senator Dianne Feinstein's letter to
CWA supporting the Carlsbad Desalination Project, dated October 5, 2011; CWA 's
response letter to Senator Feinstein, dated October 20, 2011; SANDAG's 2050
Regional Growth Forecast; News article "Massive California farm-to-city water deal
snared in litigation':· and News article "Sycuan's Annexation Plan would Triple the
Size of its Reservation".
12. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
Director Gonzalez reported that on October 3 he met with Supervisor Greg Cox to
discuss the District's North/South Interconnection System project. On October 5 he
8
attended a Regular Board meeting, and on October 19 he attended a Finance,
Administration and Communication Committee meeting.
Director Lopez reported that on October 11, he and Armando Buelna, Public
Information Officer, attended the City of Chula Vista's CLEAN Business Recognition
event to accept an award on behaH of the District He stated that he was pleased
that the District was recognized for energy and water conservation, pollution
prevention, and sorld waste reduction, and being environmentally friendly. He noted
that the Water Conservation Garden (WCG) Authority did not meet in October and
indicated that the Authority will have a Garden and Home Festival on November 5.
He noted that that Marty Eberhardt, President of the WCG, Will be retiring and that
the WCG Authority plans to present a Proclamation to Ms. Eberhardt for her
retirement Director Lopez indicated that the Proclamation was signed by the six
member agencies of the WCG Authority and he had signed on behalf of the Otay
Water Districl On October 19 he attended an Engineering, Operations and Water
Resources Committee meeting.
Director Robak reported that on October 16 he marched in the Jamul Festival
Parade, and on October 26 he participated in the East County Economic
Development Council Bus Tour and was asked to provide a speech at the Water
Conservation Garden, which was one of several site visits included in the bus tour.
13. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Director Bonilla reported on meetings he attended during the month of October
2011 and indicated that on October 6 he attended an Ad Hoc Redistricting
Committee meeting to discuss the redistricting of the District's divisional boundaries.
He Indicated that several redistricting alternatives will be presented to the Board in
January or February 2012 for consideration. He stated that on October 18 he
attended a Committee Agenda Briefing meeting to discuss items to be presented at
the October committee meetings. He indicated that on October 26 he met with
General Manager Watton and Daniel Munoz of La Prensa to update him on Otay
matters. It was positive meeting and he was comfortable with the position the
District's board has taken on various issues and had offered to do an OptEd. On
the same day {October 26) he met with community leaders to discuss focus group
issues. On October 28 he met General Manager Watton and General Counsel Dan
Shinoff for an Agenda Briefing Meeting to discuss items to be presented at the
November board meeting. On October 31 he met with the Union-Tnbune Editorial
Board to update the Editorial Board on Otay matters such as the Desalination
Project and the Employee Retiree Healthcare Benefit Program. He staled that they
were very gracious and he believes it was a very positive meeting. On that same
day (October 31), he attended an Ad Hoc Legal Matters Committee to discuss legal
matters regarding Salt Creek Golf Course.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
14. The board recessed to closed session at 4:44p.m. to discuss the following matters:
9
a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)]
(I) SALT CREEK GOLF, LLC, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT, CASE NO. 11-13898-LA11
b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9]
(I) ABELL MATIER
2 CASES
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
15. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTIONS ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED
SESSION
The board reconvened at 5:22 p.m. and Attorney Jeff Morris indicated that the
Board took no reportable actions in closed session and that General Counsel will
respond to Mr. Abell directly.
16. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board , President Bonilla adjourned the
meeting at 5:22 p.m.
President
ATIEST:
District Secretary
10
AGENDA ITEM 18
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETI NG OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
November 30, 2011
1. The meeting was called to order by President Bonilla at 3:29 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Bonilla, Gonzalez, Croucher, Lopez and Robak
Director Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Assistant General Manager of
Administration and Finance German Alvarez, Assistant General
Manager of Engineering and Water Operations Manny Magana,
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 Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Croucher. Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
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.
l
ACTION ITEMS
6. REJECT BARNES CLAIM
Chief of Administration Rom Sarno indicated that th is item is to address a claim filed
by Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Barnes in the amount of $13,143.81. The claim is requesting
reimbursement for damages caused by a leak onto his property. Chief of
Administration Sarno stated that staff had responded to Mr. Barnes' call on July 15,
2011 regarding a leak running onto his property. Staff conducted an extensive leak
survey and had identified a small leak across the street from a "blow-off." This leak
was repaired and subsequently removed and abandoned because it was no longer
requ ired. Staff had determined that the amount of the leak from the "blow-off' was
very minimal and was not the cause of the Barnes' problems. Following the removal
of the "blow-off," Mr. Barnes' property continued to have a leak. Staff contacted Mr.
Barnes on Monday, November 28, 2011, to follow-up and he indicated that he no
longer had a leak. He stated that he had done some considerable construction on his
property and, as of Monday, he no longer had any leaks. As Mr. Barnes' no longer
had a leak, staff did not attribute the leak to District infrastructure. Staff is
recommending that the Board reject Mr. and Mrs. Barnes' claim. By rejecting the
claim, it would start the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit. The claim will then be
referred to the District's Insurance carrier, Special District Risk Management Authority,
should Mr. & Mrs. Barnes choose to follow-up on the rejection of their claim.
It was discussed that if the District were found to be liable, the District's insurance
would cover the cost of the claim. However, the amount of this claim would likely be
part of the District's deduction, dependent on its claims experience. Chief of
Administration Sarno in dicated that based on staffs' evaluation, staff is confident that
the water was not from the District's side of the system.
General Counsel Shinoff stated that under the California Torte Claims Act, the filing of
a claim is the precursor to filing a lawsuit. Claimants need to follow a procedure and
must first file a claim. Also, by the District acting on the claim, it shortens the
timeframe in wh ich the claimant may pursue remedies to six (6) months. If the District
does not respond to th e c.laim within 45 days, the claimant would have up to two (2)
years to pursu e action on their claim.
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Robak and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
None
to reject Mr. and Mrs. Barnes' claim.
2
7. APP ROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF STUTZ, ARTIANO,
SHIN OFF AND HOLTZ, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, FOR A TERM OF TWO
(2)YEA RS THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2013, TO PROVI DE GENERAL COUN SEL
SERVICES TO THE DISTRICT
President Bonilla slated, at the District's November 2, 2011 board meeting, he had
proposed a special board meeting to address legal counsel services as he did not wish
to start the new year without a contract for legal services. He stated that Stutz,
Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz (SASH) have agreed to reduce their rates and have locked
the rate for the next two years. He noted that the agreement can be terminated by
either party at any time.
Director Croucher indicated that he has been very impressed and happy with Dan
Shinoff, Jeff Morris and Richa rd Romero's work. He stated that he is also extremely
pleased that they were willing to work with the District and had reduced their firm's
rate. He indicated that he fully supported the approval of their agreement and that it
has been a very good partnership for the District.
Director Lopez indicated that he had nothing but positive comments to share with
regard to SASH. He stated that Attorney Romero is very responsive to issues of
concern to the District and he has been very pleased with the services they have
provided.
Director Robak stated that he was pleased with the reduction in SAS H's fees and that
he echoed his fellow board members sentiments. He stated that their firm has done a
good job and he very much appreciated the work th ey have done for the District.
A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla, Croucher, Gonzalez, Lopez and Robak
None
None
None
to approve staffs' recommendation.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
8. UPDATE ON DESALINATION PROJECT (WATION)
General Manager Watton indicated that he had handed out copies of Consolidated
Water's Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) filings from November 9 and 10
of this year. He stated that the handout provides a good outline of the status of the
project. He stated that NS Agua and Consolidated Water both have 50% interest in
the desalination project and the two organizations have formed NSC Agua togeth er.
3
NSC Agua has made significant progress on the project. The land for the desalination
plant is under option with NSC Agua and is ready for purchase. It is adjacent to a
power plant and is one of the only parcels available for this type of use. NSC Agua is
also nearing completion of agreements with the Comisi6n Federal de Electricidad
(CFE-electrical utility) for easements on their power plant site and for the use of the
cooling water.
Otay Water District has done some studies for possible pipeline alignments and the
required permits have been identified. The District's board had approved the
engagement of an engineering firm to design the pipeline alignment and produce an
Environmental Impact Report and statement to the Federal Government which is the
precursor for the permitting process. The District has also prepared preliminary water
quality requirement analyses and has forwarded the information to NSC Agua. The
analysis indicates the quality of water the District will require to blend into its current
supply. To date, the District has spent approximately $900,000 on the various
consultants, eng ineering studies, etc.
NSC Agua is at the point where it requires the partners to provide funding for the
development of the plant itself. There is an issue of who will make this investment
which will also determine who will have controlling share of NSC Agua. This will be a
major investment and is the issue the partners are working through at the moment (as
noted in the 1 0-Q SEC filing). General Manager Watton indicated that he felt the next
30 to 60 days will determine how the project will progress.
General Manager Watton indicated that desalinated water, as a water resource, is too
important to Mexico and the Un ited States. Who the investors ultimately are may
change, but the project is too important as a water resource not to move forward.
He noted, at the moment, he has asked staff to hold further studies and engineering
expenditures until NSC Agua works out its internal issues. The District does have a
couple consultants continuing to monitor the United States and Mexico water
discussions. The District must still keep abreast of the activities related to the
Colorado River and United States and Mexico Federal Governments.
He noted that the Poseidon Desalination Plant Project and other plants that are being
considered in the Orange County and Los Angeles areas are very complicated and
difficult projects to bring to fruition. Poseidon has been working to complete their plant
in Carlsbad for eleven (11) years now. He stated that once the Rosarito Project is
back on track, he wanted to remind the board that it is still a very complex and difficult
project, but his belief is it will move forward.
In response to an inquiry from Director Robak, General Manager Watton indicated that
the District is not certain of the actual investment amounts that the partners of NSC
Agua have invested, but the relationship is an equal partnership among the investors
at this time. The NSC Agua partners are working out investment issues. Their issue
is not related to Otay Water District or the project itself. A desalination pilot plant is
4
ready to be installed, but until the partners resolve their investment issues, the project
will remain at a standstill.
It was noted that the Poseiden Project had experienced similar issues and in some
ways, worse issues than NSC Agua. Poseiden was financed by Venture Capital firms
and two of the firms have sold their interest/left the project. It was noted that the
Rosarito project is unique in that the project will serve two nations. Water will be
crossing an international border.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
9. CLOSED SESSION
The board recessed to closed session at 4:00p.m. to discuss the following matter:
a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9]
(I) SALT CREEK GOLF, LLC, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT,
CASE N0 .11-13898-LA11
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
10. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
The boa rd reconvened from closed session at 4:23 p.m. General Counsel Daniel
Shinoff indicated that the board had met in closed session and no reportable actions
were taken.
11. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board, President Bonilla adjourned the
meeting at 4:23 p.m.
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
5
AGENDA ITEM 19
J/1, ;·.· ?r=tM
.1. h CONSULTING
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Decem ber22, 20U
TO:
FROM:
Board of Directors through the Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee
Steve Castaneda, PRM
REGARDING: 2011 Otay Water District Redistricting ProJect: Division Map Options
Overview:
Federal and state law require that states, municipalities and political subdivisions redraw voting
district/division lines at least once every ten years coinciding with the release of t he Federal decennial
census. Aprlll, 2010 was the official census day for the twenty-third count of the U.S. population and in
March, 2011, the results of the 2010 count were provided to state and local governments to begin the
redistricting process to ensure that voting districts reflect population changes and comply with voting
rights statutes. The Otay Water District last adjusted its divisional lines in 2001 following the completion
of the 2000 U.S. Census.
PRM was contracted to assist the Otay Water District in redrawing its divisional boundaries to comply
with state and federal mandates. As a result of the District's populat ion growth between 2000 and
2010, significant imbalances among divisions occurred requiring changes in the divisional lines to adhere
to the Voting Rights Act's most important and unambiguous standard -balanced population voting
districts. We have completed a four month process working with staff, legal counsel and a board
subcommittee to conduct an analysis of the current division boundaries related to new population
numbers, review legal requirements and provide a series of proposed options for the subcommittee and
ultimately the Board's review.
Bacl<ground:
On January 4"' at the regular Board of Directors meeting, PRM will present two mapping options for the
district's review and final selection. Once the final map has been approved, PRM will prepare the
documents and files for submission to the county Registrar of Voters to be included in t he regular
District election in November of 2012. Each option has been developed to adhere to state and federal
requirements and meet the standards established by legal precedent that have been used to Interpret
the Voting Rights Act and its affect.
This memorandum provides information on the following:
• The Voting Rights Act and its standards
• The redistricting process
• Changes in district population: 2000-2010
• Mapping options statistics
The Voting Rights Act and its Standard.s
Basic Law: Equal representation is the key objective in redrawing district lines under the federal and
California constitutions. Decennial redistricting has become the norm because the new census reveals
shifts in populations among districts. Uneven growth in a political subdivision will create population
imbalances among Internal local voting districts. In 1964, the Supreme Court held that the equality of
population is the standard for judging redistricting plans. In Reynolds vs. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579, the
Court opined that the "overriding objective must be substantial equality of populations among the
various districts." In 1968, the Court extended the equal population standard to local governments
(Avery vs. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 484-85).
The Equal Protection clause requires that there be substantial equality between voting districts, but not
exact equality. Since the 1960's case law has established statistical measures of equality and guidelines
on what deviation from the exact equal number Is permissible. Prior to 2000, local redistricting plans
that had a deviation of under 10 percent were believe to be valid, but more recent cases have
established a more strict standard. Today, controlling case law generally recognizes that redistricting
plans that have a deviation of +5% to -5% are within the definition of "substantially equal"
Beyond and In addition to the population equality standard, controlling case law has established a
number of •traditional redistricting criteria." The racially neutral criteria must be balanced with a
consideration of racial fairness and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Courts have recognized the
following as traditional criteria to be observed when preparing a redistricting plan:
• District compactness
• Contiguity
• Avoiding splits of political subdivisions and precincts
• Preserving communities of interest
• Preserving basic shapes of existing districts
• Protecting incumbents and avoiding pairing of incumbents
• Political fairness or competitiveness
• Voter convenience and effective administration of elections
In addition to adhering to the traditionally accepted criteria, PRM developed each map using whole
census blocks when possible. Census blocks are the smallest unit of population measurement used by
the Census. Any unit or count smaller than a census block must be estimated. During the development
of the initial population analysis, It was determined that the district's outer boundary split multiple
census blocks. PRM developed a methodology to estimate partial block populations using parcel maps
and County Assessor records. Once defined, PRM presented the methodology and its outcomes to
District staff and the Subcommittee for approval.
The Redistricting Process
In order to develop the most accurate, interactive and open process possible, PRM developed a two·
step process that involved in·house technical and legal staff and a Board sub-committee to review and
approve methodology, practice and outcomes. The result was a methodology approved by staff and a
series of mapping options that were considered by the subcommittee. On June 14m, the Sub·committee
met and selected two options for Boa rd review. At the Board of Directors meeting of August 10", PRM
will present the two options forwarded by the Sub·committee which will include corresponding
population and demographic data for direction and/or final approval.
2
Changes In district population: 2000·2010
During the 2000's t he Otay Water District experienced some of the most rapid growth in the state and
perhaps the country. The 2000 Census pegged the District's total population at i 70,899. According to
t he 2010 Census the District had grown by 21% or 37,047 to 207,946 residents. As with the District, each
division grew as well, some more than others. By far the largest population change occurred in Division
1, which has grown to over 74,000 residents, while DiVision 3 population was reduced by nearly 5,000.
A primary responsibility of the redistricting process was to balance population levels among all 5
divisions.
Otay Water District Population Change
Division 2000 Population 2010 Population %Change
Division 1 33,354 74,711 +123%
Division 2 35,676 39,515 +10%
Division 3 33,509 28,153 ·15%
Division4 32,817 34,307 +4%
Division 5 35 543 31240 -12%
Total OWD Population 170,899 207,946• +21%
• Difference due to ~nws b!Qck estimate roundltlg.
Based on the 2010 population figures provided by the U.S. Census, the Otay Water District now has a
population of 207,946 residents and any redistricting plan must balance populations within each division
to an average of 41,590. While each division population level need not be exact, they must be
substantially equal. Each option to be presented observes a maximum population deviation of +I-S% of
the mean and therefore adheres to the controlling legal standard.
Mapping Options Statistics (see attached maps & population/demographic chart}
In analyzing growth patterns within the District, it is clear that the majority of population growth over
the last 10 years occurred in the city of Chu la Vista. Chula Vi.sta's expanding residential communities
within t he Otay Water District's service area necessitates that divisions become more compact. This
growth pattern allows each of the options to preserve communities of interest In each division. For
example, the Eastlake community is located entirely in Division 1, Spring Valley In Division 3 and Jamul in
Division S. The District's service area within Chula Vista's city limits are distributed among Divisions 1, 2
and 4.
The major difference in options is the placement of the Otay Mesa area. Since the parcels are largely
commercial and Industrially zoned, population has little impact on division boundaries due to the
balanced population requirement. A case can be made for each option with respect to maintaining the
mesa in Division 2 or a slightly more compact configuration that places the area in Division 1.
Overall, each option considers and observes redist ricting standards and guidelines and the choice of
either option is at the Board's discretion. More specific map and statlstical data are included In the
attachments.
3
Otay Water Distr·ct
Board of Directors Meet·ng
January 04, 2012
~ , ·~ ?FIIVI
! JJj I~ c 0 s u L T I G
1 ~.· 201;0~
2 ..
0
DivisionS
rkRob k
404c
Mapping Option 1 Statistics
American Native
Hispanic African Indian& H .• Oth Ethrucity
White As'an awanan er Option 1 or Latino " " American " Alaskan " & Pacific races not
Identified Native Islander
Div 1 18,237 45" 8,317 21% 2,663 7% 86 9,335 23" 170 59 1,430
Div 2 23,598 57% 8,245 20% 2,741 7% 121 5,538 13% 190 200 1,024
Div3 14,604 34% 18,740 43% 4,219 10% 141 3,692 8% 266 85 1,749
Div 4 18,668 44% 9,454 22% 2,080 5% 75 9,970 24% 204 91 1,499
Div 5 12,747 32% 20,116 50% 1,496 4% 108 4,447 11% 120 60 1,361
Tota l 87,855 64,872 13,198 531 32,982 951 495 7,063
Oev
Olv 1 total 40,297 3.1%
Olv 2 total 41,657 0.2% Div Pop Mean 41,589
Div 3 total 43,496 4.6%
Olv 4 total 42,041 1.1%
Oiv 5 total 40,455 2.~
District Total 207,946
0
Divisio ~
ark Robak
41036
2
Mapping Option 2 Statistics
American Native Ethnicity Hispanic African Indian & Hawaiian Other Option 2 or Latino % White % American % Alaskan % As ian % & Pacific not % races
Native Islander Identified
Div 1 21,532 52% 8,044 19% 3,506 8% 126 0% 6,92117% 192 215 1,180 3%
Div 2 20,501 49% 8,765 21% 1,646 4% 86 0% 9,147 22% 184 62 1,291 3%
Div3 14,604 34% 18,740 43% 4,219 10% 141 0% 3,692 8% 266 85 1,749 4%
Div 4 18,535 46% 8,910 22% 2,276 6% 75 0% 8,486 21% 205 69 1,461 4%
Div 5 12,683 31% 20,413 SO% 1,552 4% 103 0% 4,735 12% 104 64 1,382 3%
Total 87,85 5 64,872 13,198 531 32,981 951 495 7,063
Dev
Dlv 1 total 41,715 0.3%
Div 2 total 41,682 0.2% Div Pop Mean 41,589
Div 3 total 43,496 4.6%
Div 4 total 40,017 3.8%
Div 5 total 41,036 1.3%
District Total 207,946
Otay Water Distr"ct 2010 Option 3
0
LOVEU."D RESf!RVOIR
~12,2911
Stx.mt: us censm sureau. SANGIS & 10i5liiet
Mapping Option 3 Statistics
American Native he Ethnicity
Option 3 Hispanic " White " African Indian & Asian " Hawaiian Ot r % not
or Latino American Alaskan & Pacific races Identified
Native Islander
DIY 1 18,178 43" 9,067 22" 3,853 9% ill 8,835 21% 161 222 1,351
01V2 23,391 57% 7,887 19% l,SU 4% 82 6,594 161)1. 203 37 1,188
Div 3 U,524 29% 21,199 ~ 3,631 9% 132 3,133 7% 232 85 1,620
Div4 18,199 45" 8,931 22% 2,0fl/ 5% 76 9,476 23% 202 89 1,426
DivS 15,562 37% 17,788 42% 2,116 5% 114 4,944 12% 152 62 1,478
Total 87,854 64,872 13,198 531 32,981 950 495 7,063
Dev
Div 1 total 41,794 0.5%
Div 2 total 40,894 1.7% Div Pop Mean 41.589
Div 3 total 42,556 2.3%
Div 4 total 40,!86 2.7%
Oiv 5 total 41,216 1.5%
District Total 207,946
0
Otay Water District 2010 Opt on 4
DJvisioD-
ark obak
41129
LOVEU.ND
RESERVOIR
--Freeway & big
joi"Roods
.__~I OWD BOlniBiy
LBires
Mapping Option 4 Statistics
American Native Ethnicity
Option 4 Hispanic % White % African Indian & Asian % Hawaiian Other % not or Latino American Alaskan & Pacific races ld 'f d
Islander enti te Native
Div 1 21,532 52% 8,044 19% 3,506 8% 116 6,921 17% 192 215 1,180
Div 2 20,501 49% 8,765 21% 1,646 4% 86 9,147 22% 184 62 1,291
Oiv 3 16,300 40% 13,ns 34% 4,124 10% 122 4,760 12% 281 78 1,656
Div4 19,839 47% 9,449 22% 2,419 6% 65 8,763 21% 214 76 1,522
Div 5 9,683 24% 24,835 60% 1,503 32% 132 3,390 8% 80 64 1,414
Total 87,855 64,868 13,198 531 32,981 951 495 7,063
Dev
Div 1 total 41,715 0.3%
Oiv 2 total 41,682 0.2% DlvPop Mean 41,589
Div 3 total 41,073 1.2%
Oiv 4 total 42.347 L8%
OivStotal 41,129 1.1%
District Total 207,946
Mapping Option 5 Statistics
American Native Ethnicity Hispanic Africa n India n & Hawaiian Other Option 5 % White % % As ian % not or Latino American Alas kan & Pacific races Identified Native Islander
Div 1 17,872 44% 7,959 19% 2,317 6% 90 10,892 27% 197 55 1,657
Div2 23,898 57% 8,669 21% 3,264 8% 127 4,815 11% 198 212 955
Div3 16,608 40% 13,359 32% 4,191 10% 121 4,919 12% 293 76 1,671
Div4 19,250 47% 9,408 23% 1,877 5% 67 9,128 22% 175 83 1,346
Div5 10,226 24% 25,477 60% 1,550 4% 126 3,228 8% 87 69 1,434
Total 87,855 64,868 13,198 531 32,981 951 495 7,063
Dev
Div 1 total 41,039 1.3%
Div 2 tota l 42,138 1.3% Div Pop Mean 41,589
Div 3 tota l 41,238 0.8%
Div 4 total 41,334 0.6%
Div 5 total 42,197 1.5%
District Total 207,946
AGENDA IT'E,M 20a
TYP,E M'EETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
STAFF REPORT
Regular Board ~
Sean Prendergast 1 c.l))' , ...
Payroll/ AP~tJ.pezyj_sor
-----~-Joseph "R: Be'acMm, Chief
MEETING DATE;
W.OJG.F. NO:
Financi a l Offi cer
January 4, 20 1.2
DIY. NO. All
APPROVED BY:
(As!SI-GM):
German Alvar£{,·2<ss is tant General Manager, Fi nance and Administr~f-
SUBJECT: Di.rector's Expenses for the 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year 20.12
GENERAL MANAGER' S RECOMMBNDATION :
This is an informational item only.
COMMIT'rEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To inform the Board of the Director' s expenses f o·r the 1. at
quarter of Fiscal Year 2012.
ANALYSJS:
The Director1 s expense i nformation is ~eing presented in order
to comply with State law. (See Attachment B for summary and C-H
for Details.)
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Prudently manage District funds.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Complianc,e \o~ith State law.
General.
Atcachmencs:
A) Committee Action Form
B) Director's Expenses and per Diems
C-H)Director's Expenses Detail
ATTACHMEN A
SUBJ ECT/PROJECT: I Director's Expenses for the 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year 2 012 1
COMM:I'FTE:E ACTION:
This item lJ.Tas presented to the Finance, Administration and
Commrm.ications Committee at a meeting hel d on November 16i 2011.
The expenses for each director from J u l y l r 2011 thru September
30, 2011 was presented. It was indicated that directorsi
expe ses totaled $3,800.37 for the first quar er of Fiscal Year
2012. It was projected that directors expenses for Fiscal Year
2012 would total approximately $15,200 based on the first three
months of actual expenses. The committee received staffs'
report and recommended presentation to the full board as an
informat ional item.
Y 1 \ Boa.rd \Cur BdPkg\ Fl~ll!NC!l: \ C01!11l1>l tg'Di rE:.:po 1 o u 2 • doc
AlTACHMENT B
BOARD OF DIRECTORS'
EXPENSES AND PER-DIEMS
FINANCE, ADMINTISTRATION, AND
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
NOVEMBER 16,2011
Policy 8 requires that staff present the Expenses and
Per-Diems for the Board of Directors on a Quarterly
basis:
• Fiscal Year 2012, 1st Quarter.
• The expenses are shown in detail by Board
member, month and expense type.
• This presentation is in alphabetical order.
• This information was presented to the Finance,
Administration, and Communications Committee
on November 16 2011.
Board of Directors ' Expenses and Per-Diems
Fiscal Year 2012 Quarter I (Jul2011-Sep 2011)
Director Bonilla
Director Croucher
Director Gonzalez
Director Lopez
Director Robak
Total
$0.00
$300.00
$1 ,580.00
$1,560.95
$359.42
$3,800.37
Director Bonilla
Fiscal Year 2012 Quarter 1
Jul 20 II Aug 2011 Sep 2011
Business Meetings
Director's Fees
Mileage Business
Mileage Commuting
Seminars and Travel
. Monthly Totals
Quar terly Total
Fiscal Year-to-Date 20Jl (Jui 20JJ -J un201 2)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Direc:tor Bonilla does not request per diem relmbunemcnts
Meetings Attended
Meetings Paid
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
00.00 0.00
000 000 ,
$0.00
$0.00
Director Croucher
Fiscal Year 2012 Quarter 1
Jul201 I Aug20ll Sep 2011
Business Meetings 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director's Fees 300.00 0.00 0.00
Mileage Business 0.00 0.00 0.00
Seminars 0.00 0.00 0.00
Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Monthly Totuls 300.00 o on o on
Quarterly Totn l $300.00
Fiscal Year-to-Dntc 20 11 (.Jul20ll ~Ju n 2012) $300.00 l
Director Croucher serves on all
District Committees (6) I M«Ungs Anmd<d : I
Meetings Paid
Director Gonzalez
Fiscal Year 2012 Quarter 1
Business Meetings
Director's F~
Mileage Business
Seminnrs
Travel
Monthly Toto Is
Quarterly 1'otul
Jul 2011
0.00
200.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
200,00
Fiscal YeaJ'oto-Oote 2011 (Jui20J I.Jun2012)
"1eetings Anended I Meetings Paid
Aug:!Oil Sep 2011
0 .00 0.00
0 .00 600.00
0.00 0.00
780.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
;zao.on 6oo oo
$1,580.00
1,580.00
~I
Director Lopez
Fiscal Year 2012 Quarter 1
Business Meetings
Director's Fees
Mileage Business
Mileage Commuting
Seminars and Travel
Monthly Totals
Quarterly Total
Jul2011
0.00
400.00
22.20
33.30
0.00
4S" 50
Fiscal Year-to-Date 20ll (Jui2011-Jnn 20U)
Meetings Attended
Meetings Paid
Aug 2011 Sep 2011
0.00 0.00
300.00 700.00
0.00 13.32
3330 58.83
0.00 0.00
333.30 772.15
Sl.S60.95
1 si.s6o.95 1
Director Robak
Fiscal Year 20 12 Quarter 1
Business M~ting.s
Director's Fees
Mileage Business
Mileage Commuting
Seminars and Travel
Monthly Totals
Quarterly Totnl
Jut 2011
0.00
100.00
3.33
2.22
0.00
Fiscal Year-to-Ontc 20ll (Jui2011-Jun20J2)
Meetings Paid : I
Meetings Anendcd
Aug 2011 Sep 2011
0.00 0.00
0.00 200.00
0.00 16.65
0.00 2.22
35.00 0.00
218 87
$359.42
$359.421
~I
Board of Directors' Expenses and Per Diems
Fiscal Year 2012 to Date (J ul 2011-Sep 20 12)
Director Bonilla
Director Croucher
Director Gonzalez
Director Lopez
Director Robak
Total
$0.00
$300.00
$1,580.00
$1,560.95
$359.42
$3,800.37
Board of Directors' Expenses and Per Diems
Fiscal Year 2012 Projected (Ju12011-Jun 2012)
Director Bonilla
Director Croucher
Director Gonzalez
Director Lopez
Director Robak
Total
Based on three months of actuals
$00.00
$1,200.00
$6,320.00
$6,243.00
$1,437.00
$15,200.00
ATTACHMENT C
OTA Y WATER DISTRICT
ADMfNlSTRA TIVE EXPENSES -BOARD
July 1, 2011 -September 30, 201J
.!W.:l.l ~ SIW llllll ~ .ll.t£,ll .!W.l: fs!>.,U Mu:11 Al!cl2 Mocl! ~ lot!l
1 ' ) s • 7 * ' 10 11 " JAIME BONILLA (Dt'fAILtD IN S£CTIO:-I D):
n J.a 9~rxii:S.i ol«lings s s s s s s $ s s s s s $
Slil Dcr«tor"s ftcs-
5211 Milntc: .. Bu1inas-
$211 MiJU~.¥-. CQ"'""'tina
5)13 Scmi!\111"$ and conkrene«
:S21l Tnt\~ I
Touol s s $ $ $ s $ $ s s s s s
CARY D.CROUCH:ER(DETr\lLED lN SECfiON E): .,,. Business mccti"'.' $ s $ $ $ s $ s $ s s s s
5231 Oifcc.w(s r<:C$ 300.00 300.00
Slll Mik•·BI.!Siness
$l ll Mil~· Commudttg
5211 Sctnitlsn at~dcoor~
5212 illl~d
T01al s lOOAO $ s s s s s s s s $ s s lOO.OO
DA \'10 GONZALE:l. (DET AI LtD JN SECT10N F):
Sll4 Oasilte$$ mcclina• s s s s s s $ s s $ s s s
'""' Oim:tar'$-fees 200.00 6<)().00 800.00
5211 Milta&¢ • 81lSIM:SS
5211 Mik:att'-C<1mmul.lng.
.!213 Semlol!) atd confm:ncn 7SO.OO 780.00
llll Trav-el
Toul s 200.00 s s 1.38(}.00 s s $ s ' s s s s s 1.5.80.00
JOSE LOPEZ(D£TAII,.tD 1)\J StCTlO.~ C): .,,. 9USii.'IC$$ me<ti~ $ s s s s $ s s s s s $ $
S:l81 Dif'«10(s f.oe1 .fOO.OO 300.00 700.00 IAOO.OO
S2H Mi~ · &.linm.-12.20 1.3.32 lUl
Sl11 Mi~t • COIMII.tl~ llJO 3lJO "'·"' 12~.43
Sl13 StmUW'S and eonftrentts
5212 Tnwd
'l'o<al s IISS.SO s 333.30 $ 7n.IS s s s s s s • s s • I.S60.9S
MAR.K Jt:ORAK(OtTAJUO 1N S£CT10N lJ):
S21>1 8\ISinw tnttlii!C! $ s $ l s s s • $ s $ s
lUI Dltcetor':s ftu 100.00 2'00.00 )00.00
5211 Mile~· Business l.Jl 1.6.65 IU&
Slll Milt~Be • Commutiqg 2..22 2.22 ._..,
Sl13 Scminm lltld c:onrm:r...:e:: }5.00 15.00
.S212 Tm·el
Total s 105.SS s )$.0(> s 213.31 s $ s s s s s s s s JS9.4l
TOTALS;
SU4 BtmltdS mudn;s s • s s s s s s $ $ $ s s
Sl81 Oirt<1or'S ftet 1.000.00 300.00 1,500.00 l .SOCI.OO
5111 Mile:av • B usilln:s 15.53 29.91 .....
SUI Milcllj.t. (:omnnrttna lS.Sl ll.JO 61.05 ll9.S7
52lJ ~n:tfiUA lllld conft~U~C« JS.OCI '111~00 815.00
S!.l l: Trani
T(»fal s 1.061.11.'1 s :>611.JO s l..l,I.C'I2 s ' s s s s s s s s l,$00.31
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF OI~ECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2011 TIHROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
DIRECTOR'S NAME: BONILLA, JAIME
Ac:c:ount Name Date
Sep 11/Bonlllo J
Descriptions
ATIACHMENT D
SECTION D
Amount
Prlnled Dale:
I t/&1'201 t t 1~44 AM
FOil TH
D RECIORS E:
A un _me
Di or's Fee
Gr nd Total
s.p 11/Crouctler
G
D
7/5/20
7/15/.21011
1119/2011
RY -BO -RD' 10 -Dll IORS EXPE I E
0 GH SEPTEMB R 0', 2011
EETI G -HEALTH B_ EATS
REGUlAR BOARD OF DIRECTO'RS
FINANCE COMM I EE MEETING
NG
ATT DIM
100.0
100.001
100.001
300.00
Ptlnlecl Do~~la:
1 l113121l1 111: 4 M
OTAY WATER DISTRI·CT
SUMMARY~ BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXP -NSES
FOR HE PERIOD JULY 1, 201 , HROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
DIRECTOR'S NAME: GONZALEZ, DAVJC
Account Name Date Descriptl ons
Director's Fee 7/15/2011 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7/19/2011 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
9/7/2011 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECfORS MEETING
9/8/2011 SPECIAL DISTRICT INSTITUTE
9(9/2011 SPECIAL DISTRICT INSTITUTE
9/ 0/2011 SPEOAL DISTRICf INSTITUTE
9/19/2011 FINANCE AND ADMlNISTRATIVE COMMffiEE MEETING
9/2.9/2011 METRO COMMISSION BRIEFING MEETING
Director's Fee Total
Reglstrat on Fee 9/10/2011 REGISTRATION FEE -SPECIAL DISTRICT AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE SEPTEMBER S-10. 2011
Grand Total
s~ 1 t/Go~ttali!Z Page 4 of Pag&S 6
ATTACHMI:NT F
SECTION F
Amount
$ 100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
00.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
800.00
780.00
~
$ 1,580.00
Printed Date;
11181201111:44 AM
OTAY WA.TER DIS·TRICT
SUMM:ARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY · 1 20 -HROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
DIRECTOR'S NAME: LOPEZ, JOSE
Account Name
Mileage -Business
Mileage -'Business Total
'Mileage -Commut og
Mileage -Commuting Total
Date Descriptions
7/31/2011 MEETING JULY 11, 2011
9/30/2011 MEETING ~ SEPTEMBER 9 & 15.~ 20 · 1
7/31/2011 MEETING -JULY 5, 21 & 15, 20 1
8/31/2011 MEETING-AUGUST 4, 10, & 161 2011
9/30/201 MEETING-SEPTEMBER 71 14, 191 28, & 29,
7/5/20 1 AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING -HEALTH BENEFITS
NEGOTIATIO S
7/11/2011 DESAL PLANT WITH ROSARITO MAYOR
7/12/2011 ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
7/15/20 1 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
8/4/2011 AD HOC COMMITIEE MEETING -HEALTH BENEFITS
NEGOTIATIONS
8/10/20U REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
8/18/2011 ENGINEER NG A D OPERATIONS COMMITIEE M.EETING
9/7/2011 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
9/9/2011 MEETING WITH STAR NEWS EDITOR CARLOS DAVALOS
9/14/2011 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMilTEE MEETING
ATTACHMENT G
SECTION G
Amount
22.2 0
13.32
35.52
33.30
33.30
58.83
125.43
100,00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
9/15/2011 MEETING WITH CHULA VISTA COUNCIL WOMAN PAT AGUilAR 100.00
100.00 9/19/2011 FINANCE AND AD MINiSTRATIVE COMMITIEE MEETING
9/28/2011 ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS CO MMITTEE MEETING
9/29/201 . METRO CO MMISSION BRIEFING MEETING
Director's Fee Total
Grand Total
Sep 11/lopez Pag~ S of I'. Ql!IS 6
100.00
100.00
1,400.00
$1,560.95
Printecl Oattt:
1 Ua/20111 1 :4.4 AM
0 AY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY • BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 20 11 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
0 RECTOR'S NAME: ROBAK, MARK
Accoun Name
MHeage -Business
Mileage -Business Total
Mi eage -Commuting
Mileage -Commuting Total
Director's Fee
Director's Fee Total
Registra ion Fee
Grand Total
Sep 11/Robak
Date Descri ptions
7/15/20 11 MEETING ~JULY 15, 2011
9/7/2011 MEETING -SEPTEMBER 2, & 7, 2011
7/15/2011 MEETING -JUlY 15, 2011
9/4/2011 MEEUNG -SEPTEMBER 4, 2011
7/15/20 11 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
9/2/2011 MEETING CHULA VISTA CHAMBER Of COMMERCE
9/7/2011 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
8/19/2011 REGISTRATION FEE -SAN DIEGO EAST CO. CHAMBER
WORKSHOP
Page 6 ot Pages 6
A1TACHMENT H
SECTION H
Amount
$ 3.33
16.65
19.98
2 .22
2 .22
4 .44
100.00
100.00
100.00
300.00
35.00
$ 359.42
Prinled Dee;
t1/8Wt111:Jl4 AM
)V
0
R .. rMB R E : s. ____ _
Jet?. 00
-" IIBITB
3 •X
I U • 0 =
_,Ju ·OOV
Iii
II
ODO . /81 OUt-' . .P-TCJ I -0 ~I,...., I
OTA V W TER DIS11IUCT
BOARD OF DIRECTO~
ER~DU~M AND MILEAGE CJAIM ll'ORVoi'l
P'ay To: D vEd Gom:dez Porlod Covered=
From: '7 }i lt l
ll'EM DATE MEEUNG "Pli.RPOS:E /.ISSUES MILEAGE
DISCUS~ED 111JM!l1!t OWl)
I ~~o~tnM!l
II . # -,h~ ~~~ \Mff--11~f,
'I
f Jl.~ 2. fu.J~ CO~M\n-ft: \'-'i f 2.-:rtNA
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
B. q~~ I O•* 9,
10. 2•X.
u. 11 1LI•O =o:)(
n. ,r u·Uu*
t3. 0 •... --
14. !
15. II
16. --.
17.
Ul.
Tulai Meefttg Per Dle.m: J..
SIOU• swr meedng),
miles
GM Rccclpt: --..:.IJJhfzr..;;.· ._·· __ · -------· -----"-----~
· 1\ffi..EAGE I I CtTIIE!I.
LOCATIO:NS
I
I
I
Pay Tm David Gonzalez
OTA Y WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM ORM
.Employee Numb r: 1796 From: 9/1111 o: 9•/:30/11 ----------------------
1TEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE I ISSUES 1\ULEAGE MILEAGE
'DISCUSSED lmMStoO\'o'D OTHER
ownw!lOM~ OOCA TION'S
11. ·9nlll OWD Boar l Meeting
4. Special
9/8/11 ' Distri t Finance Conference/Seminars ~
lnsl·itute
~. 919/I t
Spooi.al
Finance Conference/Seminars ' District
lnslilllle
~~-9/10/1] Special .Finance Conference/Seminars
District
Institute ,v;, I OWD Finance Adm1nist:rntion & Communications Committee
9/19/1 L
6. 9123111
Hispanic
H.isparric Chamber Event. Chamber
'~ 9/29/t 1 I OWD Metro Commission Briefin_g Mee.ti.ng wilh Slaif
3.
9. QP' fJ 0 • ;:,:: 10. ~l
]]. 6 .. ;.~
1£2:."' -..... 100 ~ UO=/
:(.) I'll 6UiJ ·O(J.;:: 13.;:;: ,J;;.. ,...... ~ :M.v.l ~ 0•*
'""" .
+ ~.Qi --~ -~I Ui·~~ c t;
< -I I Hili rr=s
I )
Total Meceing Per Diem: 1)600.00
($.100 per m~ling) ·
Toto~ Mil ag·c Cl.ain1cd: 0
FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL ULEACE REIMBURSEMENT: $ ____ _
!
•
h /~ 2/{J 6-'1. 1/ 1///,
DtKFCTOIZ tf~II2AI£2-,f,e-6/J{l?A-7/CW FR?
17. u .
/9JIC /1NIWCE
, "W!N/11-.
vemmen: I t tin! C' • 25 • an 0 o A 921,0l
• 619-9 ~1225 (Fax) • .I!R£!J.Will@l. ~ao~LcogmJm • htm,:J/www.s 'J ti.oom
I
w~,
J
J
f}3 CJDC:
,/Jl1;0' ()(}
Pay 1'o: Jose Lopez:
Ernpr.oyee Number. 71:110
tl3 ¥0tJO. "2-/D/· 6;; ~·; L)/ ~a;.oa
v()tJO ,.. Z/0/. .5";2!! O;t-EXHIBIT B I 6 otAYWATERDISTRICT . 3?. ~_....
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ../ I ~
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE ·CLAIM FORM
Perlod Covend:
From: 7/1/11 To! 7J311U -------------------
ITEM DATE MEE'I'ING PURPOSE I ISSUES MILEAGE MlL'EAGE
DISCUSSED !10f!,ffi.1B OWI'I· OmQI.
ll·wtltlll'IOME. WCAn ONS
I. 7/5/[ I OWD Ad Hoc Umcpresemed Be11ofits Memn~ 20
II
1.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
8.
9,
to.
li ..
' u.
IJ.
'M•
Mi
l6.
]7. I'
n.
7/l t/ll OWD De-sal Pla1n wl Mayor of Rosarito
7/12/lt OWD E~B & Ops Comm.ittce Meeting
7/131/H OWD EmDLO~''Ce's ReoO.J!:nition L~:~nchecm (No Ctmcge)
7/151] 1 own Otay ReguJar Board Mcetlng
I ~~ )
I ~~~
.
Totllil Meeting Per Ujem: $400.00
(SlOO per meeting)
0•*
4•X
100 •00=
4.00 ·00'*
0 •*
0 •*
20 •+
2 0•+
20 •+
60 •*
60 X
-~ ,. ·-0 555 ~.v 35 .30:\
40
20
I
20
I
I
I
i
I
,JA J (Director's Signature.·~).
GM Redept: ~rv:~· ~· ~·~~·-·~1
------------Date; &l:;f_za I I
~11 AUG 2!i PN 1~9.J~OFFICE USE.; TOTAL MILEACE REIMBURSEMENT: S:_' ---~
'
'
j
l
I\1D-F.AG£. MllR.l~ J M~o: .. _., II"'G PU~-.:... ... -I ~U~ lTD I DATE
DRJO:JSSID =-a.= ._anu "' VI~ ./ Ad Bnc f"nmmin~Z -tlaUb n . .J::o~ -rio. .. 20 .J \J ~ own
.I~L / OSfiO O_lYD D ·'·· Boan1 M~~ 2.0 II J
3. 1•03/ll Ol\!D r;, : Picaic (NO CHARGE) I
~ / ... i &: '··-. 20 "' ~~8 OWD
-~ '
'· . .,. u ..
IL
~~.~ 3 X r
lJ LJ ·UO::: l 9.
::.hJt)-UU* / w.
11. u
i_ll.
I fl u 13.
I 141. 2 A Ut-
15. 2 '
~[1·._ II. j
11.
I I u I ·5:.:> ; /
60
FOR 0 F1 i E; TOT I\ 1': ·'.::11 ·--~--111 OCT 20Pn 4~17
r(J)I 1J,. IO/ rJj I
311'3
I -101111 0
MEETJ
OWD
09/!9 owu A.dmi-IJ"-• 20
09122 Dem C~ub
09/23 His oic Cltamber of
East
u.
c{ .. , . ..,
+ + + . "'' .. I '* rr' "* ' 0 ..., ('""') 0 ':I n • • 0 ,:) ;)
0 0 0 t4.
':"I ..... -":l 15..
I
17_
• 0
17 '1 1 OCT 20~>a 1 ('J
Pay To: Mar~ Rob11k
OTAY \VATER DJSTRICT
BOARD OF D·lRECTORS
PEft.DIEM AND MlLEAGE CLAIM FORM
Perlod Ccwered:.
Emipfo;t•ee Number: _7.;..;0;.;;;1..;;;407;;..;; . .=.n;;;..: -------From: 7~l~n
.3·11'7 Folt Oaks LaRe, Spring Valley, CA 91978
ITEM DATE MEETJNG PURPOSE /ISSUES
DISCUSSED
To: 7..31-11
MlLEAGE MILEAGE
IIOMI~r"D OTH£R OWD ~ IUNlrl WCATIO~ ·v , 7-15 MoHtbly Olay Boord Meetilll8 veflefatl District business 4 (j
I
I
I
Tcnal Meeting Per Dim •
($100 per ect 11_g)
Total MO'eilge Cla'lmed~
1-
I
. -
SHlO
10 mik. ...;;...;;'------
'
--
I I
I
I
I
I'
I -
4 6
(Diryt7' . .11Sianature)
Date~ Bj17f zo ~~
FOR OFFICE UsE~ TOTAL MILEAGE RElMBURSEMENT:: :!1. ____ _
'11 AUG s RH ~sa
I
'
'
I I
I
'
I
oli ·cs In P rad .sa
~ ~rrattt F-trf;g H. &f~
quest has ba n ·
'Iliff JJt«o £WJ"T ~ c~.8C?L
ltJtJ 'h.ffft:(f /1 ~L/7/cr /IT/ P"i. 'JJ!.ft v d.
/,6~~ f.B{,~I'Iii?l~/!1/
51h
fj1:!J [)lJU · /10 ~uvv ,...,, C/ ' · J;. tJ I "I
ooo · 1 J3 ~otJ · U o I · ff;:L11 o;;L--
q~~ 0 *
2 '• X
~ ) . ) /
lp Y.
• :J:J5 =/
.• ;!l -
o/-.<J l)Y'OZ)
j... z,z.....
D • ..;;..II+/~? '--=ZQ~·· ---1 I
'11 NOU 8 ~H =1 ORO JCE SE~ TOTAL JL " GE R MB
AGIENDA ITEM 20b
STAFF' REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
SUBMiTIED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chi ell
Daniel Kay \)\L
Associate Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
R-od Posad~.~
Ch i e f, Engineering
Manny Magana~~
MEETING DATE: January 4 1 2012
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY:
(Asst GM) Assistant General(.,:janager, Engineering and Operations
SUBJECT: Informational I tem -First Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 Capital
Improvement Program Report
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That-the Otay Water District. (District} Boa.rd of Directors {Board)
accepts the First Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Report for review and receives a summary via PowerPoint
presentation .
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE;
To update the Board about the status of all CIP project expenditures
and to highlight significant issues,. progress 1 and milestones on
major projects.
ANALYSIS=
To keep l lp with growth and to meet our r a tepayers 1 expectations to
adequately deliver safe, r e1iabl e 1 cost -effect ive, and quality water,
each year the District Staff prepares a six-year CIP Plan t hat
identifies the District infrastructure needs . The CI P is comprised
of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities,
replacement/renewal projects, developer 's reimbursement projects, and
capital purchases .
The First Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 update is intended to provide a
detailed analysis of progress in completing these project s within the
all otted time and budget. Expendi tures through the First Quarter
totaled approximately $2.81 million. Approximately 12% of the Fiscal
Year 2012 expenditure budget was spent .
FISCAL IMPACT: p~
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The Capit al Improvement Program supports the District's Mission
statement, "To provide customers with the best quality wat er,
wastewater, and recycled water service in a professi onal, effective,
and efficient manner" and the District's Vision, "A Di str ict t hat is
innovative in providing water services at affordable rates , with a
reputation for outstandi ng customer servi ce."
LEGAL I MPACT :
None .
Gehera1 Manager
Pt\CIP\ClP Quuterly Repone\lOU\01\St•H Report\1» (ll·O•·H. SU.U: R.epon.,. P.S.ret Qua.rt.ex l"'Y <Hlll CtP ll.opon, (OI<·!UH~PI -40c1C
DK/RR/RP:jf
Attachments: Attachment A Committ ee Action
Att achment B -Fiscal Year 2012 1•t Quarter Report
Presentation
2
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: Informational I tem -First Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 Capital
Improvement Program Report Various
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee revie~1ed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on November 28, 2011 and the
following comments were made:
• Staff presented a newly formatted PowerPoint presentation of
the Quarterly CIP Budget Upda te and indicated that the overall
expendi tures through the first quarter of FY 2012 totaled
approximatel y $2 .8 million, which is about 12% of the
District's fiscal year budget.
• Staff indicated that the District's FY 2012 CIP budget consists
of 74 projects that total $22 .6 million and is divided into
four categories :
o Capital Facilities= $10 . 6 million
o Replacement/Rene1-1al= $9 .1 million
o Capital Purchases= $2 .0 million
o Developer Reimbursement= $0.9 million
• The Powerl?oint presentation incl uded the foll01-1ing:
o Total Life-to-Date Expendi tures
o CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures
o Major CIP Projects
o CIP Projects in Construction
o Construction Contract Status thru September 30, 2011 of
projects, contract amount with allowances, net change
orders, percent of project completion , and estimated
completion date
o Consultant Contract Status of contract amounts, approve
payments to date , change orders, dates when con tracts were
signed and the end date of contracts
o Expenditures thru September 30, 2011
• Staff indicated that the CIP budget forecast included i n the
PowerPoint presentation may change each Fiscal Year depending
on the construction schedule for proj ect s. Staff noted that
t he majorit y o f the CIP projects a r e c urrentl y i n t he design
phase .
• I n r esponse t o a ques t ion f rom t he Commi ttee about the upgrade
of the Ralph w. Chapman Water Recl a ma t i on Faci lity (RWCWRF),
sta ff s tated that t he aeration and b l owe r s yst ems f o r t he
RWCWRF we r e ope r ating i ne f f i c i entl y. Staff i ndicated t ha t the
sys t em had s mall holes a nd was l eaki ng air, the r efor e s t aff
de t e r mined that new ae r ati on/bl ower systems and electr ica l
i nstrumentation we r e needed .
Following the discussi on, t he Commi ttee supported staffs'
r ecommend ati on and presentati on to the f u ll board as an inf or ma t i onal
i tem.
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended information;
being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors; accurately presenting calculated values
and numerical references; and being Internally consistent, legible and uniform in its presentation style.
FISCAL YEAR 2012 Ill OUARTI!R R!PORT
thiMMit~nt ltil"'t" INJOft.OHI
tl 1ft thOI,.Iftd~
ATTACHMENT B
-
FiSCAL YEAR 20121sl QUARTER REPORT
(bptl'l~ltUI'n tlln:IOgb 31il0o'l011J ., '"1'btM.Inltt.J
..... ..,
0
Otay Water District
Capital mprovement Program
F1scal Year 20 12
I st Quarter Update
(through September 30, 20 12)
657 -I & 6S7 -2 Reservoirs
Background
The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 consists
of 74 projects that tota] $22.6 million. These projects
are broken down into four categories.
1 ~ Capital Fac i I iti es
2. Replacement/Renewal
3. Capital Purchases
4~ D ·eveloper Reimbursement
$1 0·.6 million
$ 9 .. I m~illion
$ 2.0 million
$ 0.9 million
Overall expenditures through the first quarter Fiscal
Year 20 12 totaled $2.8 million which is 12% of our
fiscal year budget ..
Fiscal Year 20 12
I st Quarter Update
l$1,000)
% %
CIP FY 2012 FY 2012 FY2012 Total Life..to-Total Life-to-
CAT Descnption Budget Expenditures Budget Date Budget Life-to-Date Date
Spent Expendrtures Budget
Spent
1 Capital
Facilities $10,595 $1 ,613 15% $138.948 $34,650 25%
2 Replacement/
Renewal $9,165 $901 10% $46,723 $18,185 39%
3 Capital
Purchases $1,973 $196 10% $14,364 $7,802 54%
4 Developer
Reimbursement $899 $99 11 % $15,732 $100 1%
Total:
$22,632 $2,80i 12% $215,767 S60.737 28%
Fiscal Year 2012
I st Quarter
CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures
$25,000,000
$22,632,000
$20,000,000
$1 5,000,000
-eudg~ Fore<;-ast
$1 0,000,000 -Total EX~nditurns
$5,000,000
J ul Aug S~ Oct Nov Dec jan Feb Mar Apr Ma.y jun
FISCAL YEAR PERIOD IN MONTHS
District Map of Ma~or CIP Projec s
0 PtANNING -2
DESIGN -21
0 C~NSTRUCTION -3
• COMPlETED lN USE -2
tJl Dislrict ~und:;;uy
IMAJOR CIP PROJECTS
~ ~-SR.11 1 illlyRetocstiom!
S1:210 -Waa!B\wter Mar..agerr.ent Plan
1P2370-La Plil!'sa S.)"Slem lmprclfi!ITI~tnls
• P2.c34-P..alliCbo Del Rl!!'jl GlroumdwalBr W!!l
P2'<151 -~ Mes<! Ocu~eyance ami Disiilfectioo Sy:slem
P2DT -624-1 Re&eM~rOcwarRaplal:lilmeul
PW-1 -8&).3 ReseTVOir Cca~r~g Upgr:ades
f2493-e24-Z Re:senmlrlrrtsricr Coafi1s & Upgr~
P2400-0!By l.skMA:oad Ulilll:y~DDS PilaM,J
~-~PIM)m¥ lit)' ~ll
!'251, -Nor1h DAct I Sgulh Di~t~Kit lnkl~rln~c.f!M ~
P2513·-IE.S:Onlnge Avan1.1• B~•CfiP~
P2S14-P:WO"', 980 l'l-IVOI'n: ta Hum:e f'1r:k\lo\IY
-P2S17 -ChoiR A~enu-HWDIOWD l'lei'I:OI!~
P'2518 -803-3 ~C>i!' ~t:telCiei'IOr COl!til'lg
P2!i19-632-2. ~em rn61ri:!II'Eld11riat CQaUI'Ig
R1~1 -Rel<)'ded Wltef f'O~ MLin ~S Rol!.d ReJ:IP$
R~-Olall' MUI 01~. ll'l'li~l~d ~~
$ 52C1!il, S2a:i!D, ~ & &21:125-s.:!inltery S<e'<~e~ Rep!aeement ® P2SOS.& P2S'CI6-6S7·1 oUQ:I'-2 R~tR."V -COI!Iing
(j) R2091 -9#-1 R ~'el.d ~'IiiitH P~JI Silllion U~tl-® R2Q96-Ralpn W_ Cllilpmiln 'lllii!Br adii . f':il .--
Upglildlla and ModibliDn5
• ~ & PZAS!I-xlMlo& OliJyiNl)~ ~nn~s.
~ n-'-9D&P2<Cin-12iXI-1 2: ~ 'OlrCMilg
657-1 & 6~ 7-2 Reservoi~r
C·oating & Upgrades
• 1n
nt--",orlE · · rior Coat1ng
ructural pgrades.
II
Abo e: L quid L vel t ndicator
l ft 657 2 R, s· rvoir-Complete
CIP Projects in Construction
• RWCRWF Upgrades
• New Aeration System,
Blower System, and
Electrical I nstrum ~entation
• $4.9S.M Budget
Above: New Trench for Aeration Piping ~o
New .Air Scour Fadity
Left:. Exposin.g Existing Aer ati·on Piping
Construction Contract Status
Del Rio Rood ' GMplaOIM
l:nwgo<ICY It-COIMIIIClicw"
9«-IR
ReoycledF'ump
S1a11on Upgrade &
Syalem
Enhuncments
a..ooo
Sopullillda $1,®8.423
$378.000 $3el. 1115 100'"'
$0 s1n.on 15.7%
13,488.000 10 0 O'Mo 13.3.<8 000 $150,748
Octl!n1
1/lay 2012
lby 2012
I Consultant Contract Status .
Original Total Revised Approved % % Date of End Date
-CIP Contract Change Contract Project Signed of
No. t Title • ·Date
Dl UIWIWI'!
·~~-•n•<; U.S .. INC. I varies .~T=A<AT~n ,, PlAN $ ,. .. ,. " • . s .. ·"' s 0.0% Q,O% 13
SAl ·1 n PI=7'-;.~·· ~ IP2451 ho::.,.oo •• nT'"' ' no",.,,..,. $ .. ~ -s '"""''"' $ 4 1729C 0.0"/o 9.3% 19110/2010 I .,.,,,."'12
TRAN CONSULTING
!SANr~AKY CCTV
• oovr< AND CONDITION
IS1201 I I • ~"-"'""' s <An n?< "' s 518.810.81 0.0% 92.6% 13
OTAY MESA 1-'VNvo AND
IP2451 $ .•. , -$ '"~ $ •. ., .... 0.0"/o 0.8% 11'>./?0 11
SCHEDULING
CPM"" '"""~ $ .,, ~-s n<nn< $ ,.,.,~ 0.0"/o 81.9% 1 .. '" 12
TRAFFIC
••.&. '""""·FOR FY2010 AND FY2011 $ "' '"' •. .. $ ~ ... s .,,, ... ~ 113.9% 85.5%
PARTNERS ELECTRICAL DESIGN
INC. THE "'""" $_ '""' s 1nn nno."' • M<An,<v 0.0% 80.5%
!-toR I IR2091 I.OR()R • <nnnn< s 5.000.0<: s 0.0%
IPo«no 1-1\l.or' SERVICES FOR 850-2 PS &
HvAC >INC PS s .. ,.,. "' -'• 19A21.0<: $ ........ 0.0% 84.6% 11213112011
I·" ENGINEERING DESIGN
LEE&ROINC L :FF: s <7<nnnnnl< ,., .. nn $ , • .,., nr s ....... 7.9% 33.4%
!Wr\ 1 n u oo> o "'.;TISOUTH DISTRICT
LEE&ROINC iP2511 $ 2.7~.110.0( s s $ 71H«7o 0.0% 25.8% 11 11213112015
REAL .~;;;;;
'" """' """" s ,. $ ""' $ oonnnN 0.0% 70.6% 11213112011 -
' "~ "''" REAL O~<n. "'""· '" ""'" """" $ ' ... • 4 600.0C s 0.0% 0.0% 11213112011 It:> IAI t:.
GEOTECHNICAL
liLTING s n<nn< Is • s 0.0% 16.7%
r
/ Consultant Contract Status
', Original Total Revised Approved % % Date of End Date
CIP Contract Change Contract ,y Project Signed of
No. ITIUe A~n,.nt ·oate •u lvua_.,.,.
,,.,,,.., ..
I IR?rn:IR
IIO?t10~
MWH "'INC. ; I IOt::OJl.!)!: DD<'l lt:M' $ ''" "" nt ........ s AAn ••• nr s ,.,..47, 126.6% 93.2% 13 .. ., .•.
"!.TING IIIII" I l"'r. ~~~.n~~~ $ 11< non nt . s .,, $ ~,, 0.0% 15.9% 13
"'"' '~~ lt<::AI " IMr• ·~~~ ,., $ "~ . $ . "' $ 4.0000C 0.0% 44.4% l7t19/20111t
IR?MA
IR2077 '., REPROGRAPHIC
"" "'~~., s ~"~"' • """"""' s 7.426.3! 0.0% 37.1% 10 It·~ 11
,TECH. INC >DELREYWEU '2 s .,, ""<I s ,., •• ,_., $ 174,0MQO 0.0% 24.0% 1412112011 It"',,,
lv & A ~""'"'UI!.TING .,';::' CORROSION
'"" $ ,.?7?<101 $ , .. 7?011< $ •• »<011 0.0% 4.6% 11 '"' .
f'-L l LAND SWRVEYING, 8/3112011
IINC. lTA LAND <::1 IR\. fiN<.; • ...~, • .. ~''"' s ..... " 0.0% 41 .9% lr.l'lMPLETE
~LTALAND
IINC. . "''"'· ..... 'FY1:'-':V1~ s ''"""""' $ t><nnnnr s .. .... , 0.0% 7.1% 1 ....... ,, 13
R2nss 1 t<Uv I IVN MANAGEMENT
~2077 OTAYMESA ~-lNG o:n ',, IDDI v LINK s 7llHMnr I s ·~ $ , Q.Oo/o 1.8% 1121311201
I~:-!,~ A """UC1 U~ES. Ll.C "' OA • • . ... , s 0.0% 0.0% 1811512011
""· > r.mJ<::TRUCT!OJol
"ALLE~-vuN~-l t<Uv 11uN "' ,.,, 11 AND INSPECTION
s 17<MON • 17<Mn nt • 1" """" 0.0% 64.7%
•
Consultant Contract Status
;I Original local IWi1Md ApproYed ~ ~ O.taol
I L' CIP Coo!tnlcl ctwnoe ConlrKt P~ To l'rojKt Slgnad EndOaleol
No. t lllle ·on. .o.on
•• SERVIC£S FOR JWA~
1 ~(au ' l ~.-..
l ·-··
0'"' 2Aft
SAN MIGC IEl HABITAT
'AREA Ia _,_1/1. I . 1 ,..,.,,,.i a -mu 00'4 87~ 11
• (lila
' .... "'''"'" .~ ENVIRONME~AL !varies ''LT1NG 1, mooocd a . I .,.....,~1 00'4 27.7% 13
DR. MARY ANNE ! NO EM> . .,.., .... I UletiC II • 415<11X I ~-.. 00"4 880'4 I """"'• n DATE
~·~ 6 , ..,., ,.,TION OF THE SUBAREA
I 270tU IIC It . II .......... I lto.:I21M 00'4 702%
lnnY ,_n•""" TtNG SERVICES FOR .tWA 'I ..., .... ,,..,., I .... ,., Ia •••>~•• Ia , .. .., .. • ... ., .. I~Al\1. M .li% 13
~ _RICI< AI .i. ~1'11\1~111 SERVICES FOR JWA'I
,...;CTRACl P2494 NCCP Ia 20 201.71 Ia II 20.20111 • 12 o110.a: 0.0% 64.3% ..
AFAI'IIIAI'I'll
CITY OF ...... ,, .. VISTA O?no• ~-::;_~~ITYSTVD~ECLIIMATION Ia 1110.000 all l -I 150 00001 I IOOS02.11 0.0% 72.9% 1:
.R.~r.~ P2-481 I 01 A.,.,., In, SVCS Ia .. _.., It -·-J •o.aoooc 1 n . ..ooc 0 .. 0% 87.-4%
~ llll ,,.
~ ·;~~0
[ • • "'" SERVICES FOR
0.0".1. '70 l% I N>I=A _,. ,.,,......, Ia _ _,"' Ia I --a< I >tO-~
""'"" fClEO '""I~-~ OIECI<IHG RETROFIT. NltJ
ENGINEERING ~!'f SEIMCCS FOR
Iff I no>t: ... DOn IO:t'T!It It .... . I _.,., .. I P.l'tllPI 00"4 :n~
I I a u-GdO>'a _ .. , .. , I .. __ , Ia na.11o.11 ~~
AG N A ITEM .20c
:'J"AFF REPORT
e a:r Board
g
Ro Ripperger ~
eng · ee~i g Manag r
s ephen Dobrawa
Purchasing and es
Manager -rl. /)16~ APPROV 0 BY: Rod Posada -. ·-· I' ---
(Chi -Q chief, Engineering
I
-' 2 2
D
APPROVED BY:
(Asst. GM)· Manny Maga~u=~-.~~-~~~~~-
Assistant General Engineering and Operations
SUBJECT; Informational Item reg rd~ng the District's Consu tant
Select~on Process
o ec endat'o . s
Please ee
o e he Otay a er
(Board) on. the Distric ' s u
YSIS:
0 e o y.
s r c [D"s· rict) Board o
a ed cans -ant se ec 0
D'
p
ec ors
ocess.
Due to a. recent newspape art.., cle regarding the District.' a
proceas used in selecting Infras ructure Engineers as 11. new
As-Needed Traffic Engi1eering consultant for Fiscal Years 2012
/_.
and 2013, Staff has reviewed the selection processes used for
retaining Professional Consul t i ng and General Consulti ng
servi ces and has determined t hat additional steps be added t o
the current guideline t o review the standing of recommended
consultants and consul ting firms .
Professi onal Consulting Se.rvices :
The District's official policy for the selecti on of Professional
Consultants is described in Policy 21 (Exhibit A) . Examples of
professional ser vices, as defined i n Cali forni a Government Code
(sections 4525-4529), that consultants regularly provide to the
District incl ude engi neeri ng design, constructi on management,
environmental , geotechnical , electrical engineering, and ot her
i nci dental services such as traffic engi neeri ng, etc. t hat
professi onal consultants and those i n thei r empl oy may logically
or justifiably perform. I n addi t i on to Policy 21 , the
Engineering Department uses a guideline, Engineering Guideline
Gl .l7 (Exhibit B), for the step-by-step process to select a
professi onal services consul tant.
Specifically, staff is adding a step, item number twenty-two
(22) , to the gui deline to include an int e rnet search such as
Google t o check for addit ional information about the firm . This
new step in the process will provide anot her measure o f
assurance that t he recommended consultant meets all the
selection crit eria in order to receive a contract from the
District-. I n addit ion, t he District will include language in
f uture Request for Proposals (RFPs) wher eby consultants who have
changed their company name in the last five years need to
pr ovide the r eason(s) for doing so.
St aff cont acted mul t iple l ocal agenci es in San Diego County to
determine what their polic i es and procedures a r e for hiring
professional consultants. Staff found that similar agencies do
not conduct addi t i onal background checks beyond reference checks
except for Padre Dam Mun icipa l Water Di stri ct, which does
personal "Google" c hecks. Prio r to the arti c l e , t he District's
s t andard pract ice for determini ng a consultant's viabil i ty t o
perform t he cont racted scope of work wa s to check three to f ive
references provided by the consul tant. Based on Staff 's
r esearch (Exhibit C), i t is clear t h at t he Dist r i ct's policies
and procedures are consistent with industry standards.
2
General Consult ing:
General Consulting is defined as any consulting service not
identified as a "Professional Consulting Service" (as defined i n
California's Government Code , Sections 4525-4529). Typi cal
examples of General Consulting Services used by the District
include financial, actuarial , public relations , safety, labor
negotiation and relations, and other similar expert services
provided by an individual or consul ting firm.
As provided for in the District's Purchasing Manual, the General
Manager has established guidelines for t he selection of general
consultants. The guidelines will be amended to i nclude
background and reference checks consistent with those used for
the selecti on of individuals and firms providing Professional
Consulting Services.
Public Works (Construction) :
The District's process for soliciting bids for the construction
or improvement and repair of facil i t i es and roads is defined
within Cal ifornia Public Contract Code (sect ions 20640-20645) .
Award of Public Works Contracts must be made to the "lowest
responsibl e bidder" (ref: Public Contract Code section 20642).
Cal ifornia Publ ic Contract Code (section 1103) defines
"responsibl e bidder" as " ... a bidder who has demonstrated t he
a ttribute of trustworthiness, as well as quali ty, fitness,
capacity, and experi ence to satisfactorily perform the publ ic
works contract."
To t his end, Staff will continue to check the references
provided in the contractor's bid as well as the references
provided for their project manager. In addition, District staff
will also perform an internet search to check for any articles
or references as well as requesting the contractor's safety
record from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA).
FISCAL IMPACT :
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL :
This supports the District's Mi ssi on statement, "To provide
customers with the best quality water, wastewater, and recycled
water service in a professional, effective, and efficient
manner" and the District's Vision, "A Di strict that is
3
i nnovat i ve i n providing water services a t affordabl e rates, wi th
a reputati on for out s t anding cust omer service ."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None .
Gen~rd Mii'llager
P•\WORKniGV·• IICCCICCI t:>crvic::ce\CQnt,~u'l~Oiflt Sclcct-1~ Pr:oceaa\S't41fC: Report Info Iter. (01: ll·Ol ·ll\Jl..D 11-0.3-l.l, Sta!f Repott, Info
Coocult •nt Selection, (Dt:·RiiHRl.docx
DK/RR: j f
Attachments : Attachment A -Commi ttee Action
Exhibit A -Poli cy 21
Exhibit B -Engi neeri ng Guideli ne G1.17
Exhibi t C Other Agency Consul tant Selection
4
ATTACHMENT A
. SUBJECT/PROJECT: Informational I tem regarding the District's Consultant
Selection Process Various
COMMIT'TEE ACTION!
The Engineering , Operations, and !t1ate.r Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on November 28 , 2011 and
the following com~ents were made!
o Sta.f · provided an informational · tem to the Committee of the
District's updated consultant selection process.
o Staff indicated hat in response to a recen newspaper
article regarding the District's se ection of
Infrastructure Engineers for As-Needed Traffic Engineering
services, staff determined that an additional step be added
to the Distric 's selection process when hiring consulting
firms
o Sta£f noted hat Distr · ct Policy 21 is the official pol icy
for the selection of Professional Services Consultants, and
that Engineering staff also uses a guideline for the
selecti on process. Copies of the pol icy and guideline are
included in the staff report as Exhibits A and B,
respecti vely. Staff stated that the guideline t.;as updated
to add a step in the selection process to incl ude an
internet sea ch (i .e. Google) for additional info~mation
about consulting firms .
o It was indicated that staff contacted various local
agencies to inquire if they performed background checks and
found that the District is consistent with industry
sta dards. The result of that resea-ch is provided as
Exhibi t C of he staff report .
o Staff also indicated that for General Consulting services
such as financialr act uarial , public relations, safety,
labor negotiations and relations, the guideline will a l so
be updated to include background and reference checks
consistent with the Professional Services Consultants
selection process.
o Staff stated that for public work construction contracts,
the District will cont inue to check the references provided
by the contractor and perform an i nternet search to check
for any articles or references and also request t he
Contractor to submit their safety record from OSHA.
o Staff noted that the purpose of the updated consultant
selection process is to ensure that website information of
selected consultants i s provided to the Board. Staff
indicated that some agencies only query and provide
information about the consultants they contract v1 i th and do
not provide website information .
Following the discussion , the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as an
i nformational item.
6
EXHIBIT A
!EXHIBIT A I
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS POUCY
Sl.iljed Poley Da!e Oalll
N!.mber Adopted Ra\1$ed
POLICY FOR S&LECTION OP PROF&sSIONAL 21 8/1/90 3/13/06
CONSULTANTS
I. PQRPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish procedures governing
the selection of professional consultants in the performance of
District work.
II. SCOPS
This policy is applicable to a1l District departments and offices
directly responsible to the General Manager.
III. POLIC'(
For the purpose of thia policy, •professional consultants• means
any "Firm• qualified and authorized to provide •architectural,
landscape architectural, engineering , environmental, and land
surveying services• or •construction project management• or
•environmental services, • as each of those terms or services is
defined in the California Government Code, commencing with Section
§4525, as hereinafter amended or renumbered (the "Professional
Services Provisions•).
This Policy provides a method and procedure pursuant to which
professional consultants in engineering, architectural, landscape
architectural, environmental, land surveying and construction
management, including plan checki ng, inspection, and projects
requiring a special expertise, may be retained froo the prlvate
sector to augment the District's professional capabilities or for
the performance of specialized services not available to the
District from the exi sting District work force.
Services provided to the District by professional consultants may
cover a wide range of professional activity incl uding but not
limited to studies, special reports, design and related activities
on such project s as pipelines, pump stations, reservoirs, planning
studies and other expert testimony capab ilities.
Pursuant to the Professional Services Provisions, and particularly
the provisions of the California Government code section §4526,
the Otay Water Distri ct may adopt procedures that assure that
professi.onal services are engaged on the basis of demonstrated
c0111petence and qualifications for tile types of services to be
perfonned and at fair and reasonable prices. Furthermore, maxiiiiUIII
participation of small business fi:nas, as defined in Goverm~~ent
Code Section 14837, and disadvantaged business enterprises (DBBsl
shall be encouraged. Government Code Section 14837 defines •small
business• as a business in which the princiPAl office is located
in California and the officers of such business are domiciled in
Paga1 or s
POLICY FOR SE
CONSOLTANTS
D
1.
2.
-~0~ OF PRO SSIONAL
hic:b ie ind pendently owned! and op
in i~s fLe d of oper on.
Date
Ado,ped
8/1/90
Da
I A sad'
3/.1.3/06 '
ted ana hich ia
t. least one 1 ocal.
ho submi L~ttera o Interest and a
Qu ~lifications, and are de me.d CJW1lified as
the Statem nc of Qualifications prceeaa.
~ _ 2 of5
POLICY SBLECTTON OF PRO!'ESS·I
CONSULTANTS
B.
c.
s.
6.
unusual proj1 -ct which pc a specii!il ·problema beyond th
scope pJ::"eviously encoune red. by et ff per aonnel ; · h
review p el may be augmented by an unbiased, qu~lifi ·d
m.e:mber of the profession being 'con !dared, so long
he/ehe ' s not. and 11 not submit a propo
or
1 -
Immedial:.ely upon c::onolusio.n of or_ 1 interviews, t:h
review p n l' s oral scores will be combined with th
written proposals scor nd shall ign ~te ~e ord r
of prefe nee of the a tea.
a.&.o;rua.ted by t.he
o ee
·_ce o
o he
i s
reaBQ · t b.ead B
negot! t o · rst cho c
negotia 1o eco~ Cho1ce o
and so on unti..l a £1 i retai.ne or the li t o
selected rms is ex uat d. P'rofesaion 1 societies
·org:aniz tions have publ iahed schedul s o·f fees
p:rofeeeion •l services wh iQ!h m.ay be us, d ·s a guide fol-
lowing adjustment to r Ueot the aetu , ecope of work
expect -d. ·Of the firm se:l cted.
Intermediate Pro1 egts -Fee a of S50 I O!l 0 tc saoo I 00·0
1 . The .ProC
project.~
and. V
t
Proj · 0~ ss.ooo 0 $5 .ooo
Pa 3o 5 l ~ '
I
BQr
Sobj
POLICY OR SELECTIO OP PaOFESSIONAL
CONSOL'r.ANrTS
Da: -
Adopted
6/1/90
Ole
Ra'Ji&ed
3/13/06
D.
v.
1.
2.
l.
o a lect
h 1 be in -ccoJt"dance
adopted by th-Board.
consul t.ants for
be the aa p:r;e crt
policy. with the ex;
r o'f jor cireul.a~!
e exceptio scr
0
FOR MAJ'OR,
cv~
to
'1'he: first choice ·Of the reYie pa:nel ie c led for n gotia-
tion. If an agreem t cannot be negotiat·ed, th.e fir t ohoice
will b dismissed fro'm furth r consid r tion on th pa:r:-
ticu r p:roj ect . Following the dismis a. of th firBt
c:lmiee ~ n gotiation wi.ll commence wi·th he second:.
0Clpenaa1tion. • or
cope
I
I
BO
I POLICY FIOR s ELBC"l'ION OF PRO F!il.S s IONAL
CONS_ULTANTS,
6. of t _ t uthorlz_ed by -e Board
ene:r:al geJ:' ~ or hl ./he.r deaiga e in accorda.nce
with s 1: on 2 .. 01 of' the Di trict' a Code of Ordinances, ball
be aubmil:'l:ed to the Board for con.:ddera ·ion.
7. All agr --menta for profess ion 1 s.ervice shall provide for
the m nagement ph e of the re ulting contract. A single
project manager a. 11 be deai ted by th consult nt and a
liaison ger e 11 b desi . d by th District for pur-
pas a o contract ~· "stra
.. I!BJ:IO!'IiBes by ct
for t. er a.ct i
to a t" on or !Ul in.v -t
tim 1y and ~eoponaive is
to acto~ contr ct ~e ati
g,. All proposed contracts shall b rev ew d by the Diu t::riot 1 s
Legal Counsel and pp·roved a to fo1;1n prior to pr -s ntation
to the G ne.ral Man g· r or hia/her design
0.
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT 8
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg . 1 of 8
DESIGN DIVISION GUIDELINES G1.17
Rev. Rev. Date:
1 10/25/2011
Consultant Selection Origination Date Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By
GPS
l?UR!?OSE :
To establish guidelines for selection of professional consulta nts
in accordance with Policy 21 that ensure selections are made
consistently and fairly. These guidelines are intended to be
managed and implemented by t he Project Manager (PM).
SCOPE:
RR
These guidel ines pertain to sel ection of consultants for projects
with an expected value of at least $5 ,000 . Smal ler projects are to
be handled in accordance with t he Purchasing 1-'lanual.
PROCESS:
1. Develop a Request for Proposa l (RFP). Require t hat t he
written proposals be s ubmitted in two parts: 1) t he main
proposal and 2) the cost proposal (either separ a t ely bound
or in a sealed envelope) .
2. Advertise the RFP . Describe in t he advertisement the
general scope of t he project and request a Letter of
I nterest (LOI) and a current Statement of Qualifications
(SOQ). State a due date for the LOI 's and SOQ's in the
advertisement . Advertise the RFP for a minimum of 21 days
before proposals are due.
a . For projects with an expected value greater than $50,000,
advertise t he project in a newspaper of general
circulation and on the District websi te.
b . For projects with an expected value between $5,000 and
$50,000, t he advertisement need only be on the Di s trict
website .
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg. 2 of8
DESIGN DIVISION GUIDELINES Gl .17
Rev. Rev. Date:
1 10/25/2011
Consult ant Select ion Origination Date Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By RR
GPS
c . Send t he advertisemen t directly to firms that have
previously e xpressed i nterest in the project or are known
to be viab l e candidates to conduc t the work.
3 . Receive and keep a log of LOI 's and SOQ 's recei ved f r om
consultants.
4. Publis h t he R~P to qua l i f ied consultants only, det ermined
at the discr etion of the Pr oject Manager. Generally, a
consultant s hould be considered qualified if they can
demonstrate havi ng done any wo r k of the general nature
requested in t he R~P. The degree of qualification will be
assessed in t he subsequent proposal review stage.
5. Notify and acknowledge the effor ts of unqualified
consul tants .
6. Hold a non-mandatory Pre-Proposal meet ing to describe the
scope of the project, proposal r equir ements, and t he
proposal evaluation me thod.
7 . Prepare Pre-Proposal meeting minutes and distribute to
attendees. Consul tants who submitted a LOI , but did not
attend t he non-mandat ory pre-proposal meeting, should also
receive meeting minutes . Reiterate to consultants t he last
day t hat questions will be received .
a. Receive questions and dist r ibute answers to all consultants
on the LOI list . If questions cause major changes to be
made to the RE'P , issue a "Final" RE'P .
9. Receive proposals on t he s pecified due date. Re t urn l ate
proposals unopened to the consultant .
10 . Select a Review Pa nel consisting of at least five {5)
qualif ied individuals:
2
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg. 3 of 8
DESIGN DIVISION GUIDELINES G1.17
Rev. Rev. Date:
1 10/25/2011
Cons u l t ant Se lecti on Origination Date Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By
GPS
a . The Review Panel should include at least one (1} person
from Operatio ns.
RR
b. The PM may not be part of t he official Review Panel,
because he/she is t he only person t hat will see t he cost
proposals.
c . Individuals from other agenc i es may be part of t he Review
Panel , i f t he project scope warrants it.
1 1 . Meet with Review Panel to distribute proposal evaluation
packets and describe t he project scope and evaluation
criteria. I nclude t he follo wing in the evaluation packet:
a . The consultant's main proposal.
b . Main proposal evaluation spreadsheet (see Attachment A).
c. Copy of t he RE'P .
d . Evaluation rating method and criteria (see Attac hment B).
12 . Allow a one to two week evaluati on peri od for the written
proposals .
a . Each Review Panel member will rate the main proposals in
three categori es, 1~ithout knowledge of the cost
proposals:
i . Qualifications and experience of Firm a nd Proj ect
Team (30 points ).
ii . Onderstanding of t he Scope, Responsiveness to RFP ,
Schedule, & Resources (25 points}.
i i i . Soundness and Vi ability of Proposed Project Approach
(30 point s).
3
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg. 4 of 8
DESIGN DIVISION GUIDELINES G1 .17
Rev. Rev. Date:
1 10/25/2011
Cons ul t an t Sel ection Origination Date Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By RR
GPS
b . The I?M will rate :
i . Each consultant's commitment to disadvantaged
business enter prises (DBE} as defined by the
District's Policy 31 . This category is evaluated on
a yes or no basis and not given a point value.
ii. Each consultant's cost proposal in accordance with
the type of service being provided (15 points):
1 . Project Specific Services. Scores are assigned
based on the cons ultant's total proposed fee. The
consultant with t he lowest fee gets a score of 15
points . The consultant with the highest fee gets
a score of 1 point . The scores f or the remaining
consultants are determined proportionally i n the
range using t he fo l lo•1ing formula (see Attachment
CJ :
Score X • 1 + 14(high fee -fee X)/(high fee -low fee)
2 . As -Needed Servi ces . The scoring is based on t he
rates submitted by all consultants . 1'he
consultant is required to fill out a billing rate
table provided in the RFP . The rates are added
and the cons ultant with the lowest composite rate
gets a score of 15 points. The cons ultant with
the highest composite rate gets a score of 1
point. The scores for: the remaining consultants
are determined proportionally in the range using
the formula above and in Attachment c .
c. The total possible score for t he written proposal is 100
points.
4
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg. 5 of 8
DESIGN DIVISION GUIDELINES G1 .17
Rev. Rev. Date:
1 10/25/2011
Cons ultant Sele cti on Origination Date Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By
GPS
13 . Receive evaluation spreadsheets for the main proposal from
Review Panel members on t he predetermined due date. As
necessary, the Project Manager may meet wi t h i ndividua l
Review Panel members to clarify scoring, particularl y i f
scor es seem out of step with the general consensus.
RR
14. Prepare the "Summary of Proposal Rankings" spreadsheet (see
Attachment D) by adding the average of t he main proposal
scores to t he average of the cost proposal scores to get
the average wr itten proposal scores. The average in each
case shoul d be rounded to the nearest Hhole number before
adding t hem together. See SPECIAL PROVISION .
FOR PROJECTS WITH A VALUE' LESS THAN $200,000, SKIP TO STEP 21 .
15 . I nvite the most qualified firms to make oral presentations
and participate in an interview. Generally, this should be
at least t he top t hree (3) and no more than t he top five
(5) consultants .
a . Provide consultants 7 to 10 days notice of the interview
date and format (see Step 16, below). The order of
presentations should be selected randomly .
b . Notify remaining consultants that they were unsuccessful
in reaching the interview stage of t he selec tion process.
16 . Meet with Review Panel to distribute inter view evaluation
packets, including:
a . Interview eval uation spreadsheet (see Attachment E)
b . Evaluation rating method and criteria (see Attachment F).
c . The Revievl Panel will !l££ be provided a copy of t he
"Summary of Proposal Rankings" or any information about
the cost proposal .
5
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg. 6 ofB
DESIGN DIVISION GUIDELINES Gl.l7
Rev. Rev. Date:
l 10/25/2011
Consultant Selectio n Origination Date Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By
GPS
17 . Conduct t he interview. The interview format is
discretionary, but s hould generally:
a. Be no more than an hour long.
b. Include a consultant presentation (20 -30 minu tes).
c. Include a question and answer period (20 -30 minutes).
RR
d. A few standard questions should be provided to the Review
Panel to address key topics of interest . However,
additional customized questions for each consultant
s hould be developed by the Revievl Pa nel based on issues
raised or requiring clarification from t heir written
proposal or presentation.
e. The PM will participate i n the interview to manage the
process and may ask questions , but wil l not provide
scores .
18. E:ach Review Panel member 1dll rate t he interviews in four
(4) categories . The maximum possible score for the
interview is fi€ty (50) points:
a. Additional creativity, insight to issues (15 points).
b. Strength of project manager (15 points).
c. Presentation, conununication skills (10 points).
d. Qua lity of response to questions (10 points).
19 . Receive evaluation spreadsheets for the interview from
Review Panel members at the end of t he interview process .
As necessary, the Project Manager may meet with individual
6
EXHIBIT B
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg. 7 of 8
DESIGN DIVISION GUIDELINES Gl.l7
Rev. Rev. Date:
1 10/25/2011
Consultant Selection Origination Date Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By
GPS
Review Panel members to clar ify scoring, particularly if
scores seem out of step with the general consensus .
RR
2 0. Complete the "Surrunary of Proposal Rankings" spreadsheet
(see Attachmen t G) by e nte ring t he oral evaluations from
t he Review Panel, averaging the oral evaluation results,
and adding those averages (rounded to the nearest whole
number) to t he average written proposal scores . See SPECIAL
PROVI SION .
21 . Check references of consultant \olith t he highest average
score .
22 . Research the consultan t 's business name on the internet
using search engines, s uch as Google, Yahoo, etc., to
verify that the business is in good standing.
23 . If r eferences are acceptable, notify consultant of
preliminary sel ection.
24 . Meet with selected consultant to negotiate final scope of
1~ork, fee , and other terms, as appropriate .
25 . If unable to come to terms with highest ranked consultant,
repeat steps 21 , 22 and 23 v1ith second ranked consultant .
26 . Once a successful negotiation has been completed, notif y
remaining consultants of the decision .
27 . Prepare Staff Report to recommend consultant to the Board
for approval.
SPECIAL PROVISION -Tiebreaking Procedure
I f t he final scores (Step 14 for projects less t han $200,000 and
St ep 20 for projects greater than $200,000} indicate that two or
7
I
;
' I
I
ex · IBIT B
ENGINEERJNG AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO. Pg. 8 of 8
DESIGN o rVJSION GUIDEUNES Gl. 7
Rev. Rev. Date:
1 10/25/2011
consultant Selection Origination Date . Approved By
9/10/2010
Originated By
GPS
more consultants are tied (exactly the same score), then a
tiebreaking procedure will be implemented.
1 . For projects less than $200,000 , the interview procedure
described in Steps 15 through 18, above, w 11 be used for
he tied consultants.
2 , For projects grea er han $200 ,000, where an interview has
already been cond cted, a secon i nterview will be
conducted for Lhe tied firms. The incerview wil be
conducted by a new panel of 3 members, which may 'ncl~ e
he PM. !t will be question and answer for at onl y and a
forma scoring system wil not be used. The winner will be
chosen by a consensus of he panel.
8
RR
Attachment A
INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL RANKINGS
< PROJECT NAME >
Qualifications of Responsiveness, Technical and
Team Project Management
Understanding Aprroach
SCORE 30 25 30
Firm 1
Firm 2
Firm 3
Firm 4
Firm 5
REVIEWER'S NAME: ___________ _
REVIEW ER'S SIGNATURE: ___________ _
DATE: __________ _
P:IWORKING\Ripper\Engmee<ing Guldelines\Finai\G1.17 Consultant Selection\Attachment A -Individual Ranking Sheet-
WRITTEN. xis
Attachment B
Written Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
Evaluation Criteria
Max Low Ave High
Qualifications of Team
1. Does the firm regularly provide the services
requested in the RFP?
2. Does the proposed team have the
qualifications and experience to execute 30 0-10 11 -20 21-30 the scope of work?
3. Does the proposed team include a strong
project manager?
4. Does the proposed team cover all of the
necessary disciplines?
ResQonsiveness, Project Understanding
1. Does the proposal demonstrate an
understanding of the project?
2. Is the proposal responsive to the
requirements of the RFP? 25 0 -8 9-17 18-25 3. Is the proposal presented clearly, legibly,
professionally?
4. Is the proposed schedule to complete the
work reasonable (not necessarily the
shortest)?
Technical and Management AQQroach
1. Does the proposal present insightful,
creative, viable ideas?
2. Does the proposal demonstrate thai the
consultant is knowledgeable about the
topic of the project? 30 0 -10 11 -20 21-30
3. Does the proposal offer a sound technical
plan for executing the work?
4. Does the proposal offer a management
approach that would be compatible with the
needs and interests of the District?
P:\WORKING\Ripper\Engineerlng Guidelines\Finai\G1.17 Consultant Seiection\Attachment B-Written
Proposal Evaluation Criteria.docx
Example
Firm
1
2
3
Attachment C
Formula for Scoring Consultant Fees
(based on maximum score of 15 points)
(Highest Fee -Fee X) = (Score X -Lowest Score)
(Highest Fee -Lowest Fee) (Highest Score -Lowest Score)
(Highest Fee -Fee X) = (Score X -1)
(Highest Fee -Lowest Fee) 15-1
Score X = 1 + __ 1'-'4'--•_,(:...:H3ig"'he:::s::.:t..:..F.::ee=---:...Fe:::e::.:X:..:)L..-
(Highest Fee-Lowest Fee)
Fee Calculated Rounded
$5,000 15.00 15
$7,800 9.77 10
$12,500 1.00 1
Score Firm 2 = 1 + 14 • (12,500-7,800) I (12,500-5000) = 1 + 14 • (4,700/7,500) = 9.77
P:\WORKING\Ripper\Engineering Guidelines\Finai\G1.17 Consultant Selection \Attachment C. Fee Scoring.xlsx
Attachment D SUMMA RY ·0 PR:OPOSA' RA K1 S
[CliP !N·o. n = Proj ct Tl ~
WllmP
--·· f~lni • 'Pr.ia ..uim:iT ....
,.
c...ari'a T..,.. ----~Ai. . fOTALiiCDH
r-'~-~--DI!1
I
• D 'I'M 1111 = ._..,
~i
1 ,..,_..,
~4
~5
~ill'· ~l
,_
F&m::Z ~J
·,..-~
R.l!~l I
~1
RJ!ll.lj-2 ----firm:! R•..,.~l ·-ReWII-.f
R.allla~<~Wr~
Rt~rl
RC!IIIc!-2
Firm4 fflly.l!!~' ----Rev•WIIr~ I-1\'li~M!/',
l'flw.tlfl'lllfl
·lffl..;.,w.rll I I
I
Fmn' ·~-~~ -·-
Re\!!lllilllf~
I ~
~I'W"llilgon ~10111"-rWI..twl_,gllllw~-~ --<llilif,· r,.p,.,,.r>a 11 rgj .-1 ~-f'.wl
.....
A'Uac hm e nt I!
IND~IVIDUAL PROPOSAL RANKINGS
< PROJECT NANJIE >
Add'itlomd Strc ngth of ProJe~ Presentajlo Iii\ Qurallty of
CreatlvRy. Insight to C·ommun,icaUOII Responses to I
Issues Man,ager Skills Quos,tion
0 I
SCORE 15
I
15 101 110
Firm 1
-
Firm 2
-
Firm 3
I
Fi:rm4 I
I
Ff,rm 5 I
'
!
REVIEWER'S NAME: ---------------------------------------
REVIEWER'S SIGNATURE:-----------------
DATE: ---------------------------------------
P:\WORKING\Rfpper\Engineering Guidlllmes\Finai\G 1,1 7 Cor~stillant Selectioh\Attachmoot E -lndivf.dual Renldng Shoo I -ORAL.xls
Attachment F
Oral Interview Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
Evaluation Criteria
Max Low Ave High
Additional CreaUvlt! ~nd Insight
1. Did the consultant present new information
that enhances their proposal?
2. Did the consultant present information that
showed they have thought about the 15 0-6 7 -11 12-15
project and how to effectively Implement it?
3. Did the consultant draw from their
experience to illustrate a proposed
approach?
Strength of Project Manager
1. Did the PM have a prominent role in the
presentation and interview?
2. Did the PM control the process effectively? 15 0-6 7 -11 12-15
3. Did the PM demonstrate skills that give
confidence in his/her ability to succeed in
that role?
Pres~ntation an!;! Communication Skills
1. Was the presentation organized well and
delivered smoothly?
2. Did the consultant use their time 10 0-4 5 -7 8 -10
effectively?
3. Did the presenters maKe eye contact and
establish a rapport with the Review Panel?
Responses to Questions
1. Were the questions answered completely
and articulately?
2. Were the responses thoughtful and 10 0 -4 5 -7 8 -10 insightful?
3. Did the responses provide a better feel for
how the consultant will use their experience
to the benefit of the project?
P:\WORKING\Ripper\Engineering Guidelines\Finai\Gl.l7 Consultant Selection\Attachment F ·Oral
Interview Evaluation Criteria.docx
AttacJilment G SUMIIIIARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
[CIP No·. and Project Ti.tle]
W!UTTI:.!I llilllu..
~<I ~filh.~ T.et'nl:illr:d r-~~~ I, Awu.D!E e..,..; "' MS. Ill if-QAJ!/ol :I'<I<I;Iil.~ REE"E~
~'~"'"'" ..... __ ... ~TA•• !,lg.W(JIL., r.o_,_, _.,
AloUI.It~ e.--$i:--=9ll ~ filf~ o..:-lill l _ .. fre.tl!W.t. A'mQfo!!
r-~ _.. ... YAiim&j ' ..sdl'rnO I ~BE t!OfAI.wlilnE!i , ... .tO'; -o---Q-TO"TM.OR;O,L.
I '
1tAJJMlli!I.P'~ "' ~ HI " II "' y.!~ 1101 Q ·~ 1il !D .. ;It ;:s. I ~ ___ ,
a-.wW!
111'111 11 I _,.~J I II
I -· I ~1,
~ilii~H~":I ' ' I
__ ,
~ ... ~ '
I
IF:lrm.2 lb-i I I
I -· : I
~~a-5 I I --1 -~ I
""""'' .-t::..r.u:,.j I I
~~
I -~ ...,_,
~tSnmt:t I -& ,..,_~ -· ... _ .. I
1'41JioN¥ I I -r Rlllllll -~ I I
.r.,...-·-t~ '
P~JII'dl!li I, I
~P"Il!li!!Mtt!\II!IM~~IIIH-..MU'ir.g~~t.f,.~:T;.~..,_ ft•P.W lllhll .. •a:tw1RM.IililiiPMHI
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
OTHER AGENCY CONSULTANT SELECTION
AGENCY CONTACT BACKGROUND CHECKS? POLICY
1 v~lleoros wat~~r OiwiCl llob SdlOII No Checks the Coi\Jullllnt ptOII\dtd ,..,.,~only.
760-7~60
x2lO
Pilldn! l*n MlehHI H.ncle Ye(lomoUd) Ol«b the eon.ultant pco:ttodtd rwf•-f!INy. They do I 61t-zsa.4632 w.m-fot l'nncl~and
s-rtfQt« AuthoritY HIC!Ilf~ No Checks the Cotlsult.tnt pc CNiclltd rtfWWICG oNy, but~ I 619-409-6751 t101 doM wort. ~WMConVxuln ot~
• tNt dlcy don'tllrNdr ~ . IHellxW-o.stna MeldMub NO Only Mnda fll a~ a 1M to '""" tt>ey !\We fill rrpc owed. I 6tt~.Q7) I Clly ol OUr VIs~ ICin~ No Olecb u.. c-usunt pc oct 1 ~ mw..-s f!INy, but due I 61t.691·511S to the T,._'s arude. ~ Couns.elll ~the
~ MUNCipil Watw Georp llr\t" No Olecb the ~lint ptCNiclltd ,,,.,_ oNy. No
Oistria 760-632 ... 640 ftltnllve lwckat~ check. Only send ptopoYls to litms
that the Protect ~1\lhr "'-'·
!H-pdc!e Wat¥ Olstrla Bren ~ncletl No Ch4lcls ref~~r•nces fiiO'iiCied by the comulunts I 81 ..... Wto5 I Santa fr lmpr011em~t Otstrla IC.trtn FJI\ NO CMck lhtN rtfertnee~ No tddouonal ~net dleci
ISI-414·9971
Oty of La Mesa Eric lloart No Checks the Conlulunt pt~ ,..,.,~only
619-667·1118
~ wat« o.noo PMopOrubrn No Chicks the Cons~nt po 011\dtd ref~ only No I ' 71i0-7U·ll60 ~ouncl Chtcb
5.an Ole&o County w-M .. llnny No IWtrtnc.s d>ecbd by ant indi~. No~
I Authototy ISI-Sll-6100 ~ouncl check. Don't hint peoplt !hey don't ~.
I Cllyol~ St--. Mia. No Oltcb thrft ,., __ ptO\IIdtd by the~ He
I 61t-251-4100 additloNI b.IOcrCMid ctlec1i
a176
10/11111