HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-11 Board Packet (Part 1)OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
April 6,2011
3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1.ROLL CALL
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF MR.FRANK BIEHL,LEE &RO,INC.
4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1,
2010
6.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
7.ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION,UNLESS A REQUEST
IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
a)APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO CUMMINS
CAL PACIFIC,LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,125.38 FOR THE PUR-
CHASE OF ONE (1)REPLACEMENT EMERGENCY STANDBY GEN-
SET FOR THE RALPH W.CHAPMAN WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
b)ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.529 AMENDING SECTION 36.03,EN-
CROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS,OF THE DISTRICT'S CODE
OF ORDINANCES
c)APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
1
d)ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.528 AMENDING SECTION 34,ISSUANCE
AND PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS,AND SECTION 53,FEES,RATES,
CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE,OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES
e)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4170 DESIGNATING SPECIFIC STAFF PO-
SITIONS TO BE AUTHORIZED AS AGENTS TO DEAL WITH THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES,ON
THE DISTRICTS BEHALF IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO DISAS-
TER ASSISTANCE
f)APPROVE A ONE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH BROWNSTEIN,HYATT,
FARBER AND SCHREK FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $160,000
FOR COMPREHENSIVE STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
ADVOCACY
g)APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED HY-
DRAULIC MODELING SERVICES WITH NARASIMHAN CONSULTING
SERVICES,INC.IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000 DURING
FISCAL YEARS 2011,2012 AND 2013 (ENDING JUNE 30,2013)
h)APPROVE THE WATER ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED FEBRUARY
2011 FOR THE RABAGO TECHNOLOGY PARK PROJECT AS RE-
QUIRED BY SENATE BILL 610
i)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4171 ANNEXING PROPERTY OWNED BY
DAVID L.AND SUZANNE M.DUKE (APN:519-281-07-00)TO THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICTS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.18
j)APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SEPULVEDA CON-
STRUCTION FOR THE 944-1 R PUMP STATION UPGRADE PROJECT
IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,162,423
k)APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TITLE XVI FUND-
ING FOR THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER INFRA-
STRUCTURE PROGRAM
I)APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO TWO (2)UTILITY AGREEMENTS (NOs.
31755 AND 31926)WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
m)APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH TETRA
TECH,INC.FOR THE DESIGN OF PHASE 2 OF THE RANCHO DEL
REY WELL PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $724,493.50
n)APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO SLOAN
ELECTROMECHANICAL SERVICE &SALES FOR THE PROCURE-
2
MENT OF FIVE (5)PUMPS,MOTORS AND DISCHARGE HEADS FOR
THE 711-1 PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT
NOT-TO-EXCEED $204,934.45
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
8.THIS ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOS-
ES ONLY.NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS:
a)2011 RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER OPINION AND AWARENESS SUR-
VEY REPORT (REA AND PARKER RESEARCH,INC.)
b)FISCAL YEAR 2011 STRATEGIC PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MEAS-
URES UPDATE REPORT (STEVENS)
9.BOARD
a)DISCUSSION OF 2011 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
REPORTS
10.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
a)SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
11.DIRECTORS'REPORTS/REQUESTS
12.PRESIDENT'S REPORT/REQUESTS
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
13.CLOSED SESSION
a.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(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
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
14.REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.THE BOARD
MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
15.ADJOURNMENT
3
All items appearing on this agenda,whether or not expressly listed for action,may be
deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board.
The Agenda,and any attachments containing written information,are available at the
District's website at www.otaywater.gov.Written changes to any items to be considered
at the open meeting,or to any attachments,will be posted on the District's website.
Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District
Secretary by contacting her at (619)670-2280.
If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to
participate in this meeting,please call the District Secretary at (619)670-2280 at least
24 hours prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on April 1,2011,I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the
regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District,said time being at
least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government
Code Section §54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley,California on April 1,2011.
~..")usan Cruz,District SecrE~
4
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
September 1,2010
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
Director Absent:Croucher (Due to Illness)
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 Yuri Calderon,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 Robak,seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla,Gonzalez,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Croucher
to approve the agenda.
5.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 7,2010
A motion was made by Director Croucher,seconded by Director Robak and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla,Gonzalez,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Croucher
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 7,2010.
1
6.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
No one wished to be heard.
7.PRESENTATION ON HELIX WATER DISTRICT'S EL MONTE VALLEY PROJECT
(CARLOS LUGO,DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING FOR HELIX WATER DISTRICT)
Mr.Carlos Lugo,Helix Water District,indicated that the EI Monte Valley Project has
three (3)major components:
•Groundwater Recharge
•Riverbed Reclamation/Restoration
•Mining
He stated that the Groundwater Recharge component takes water from Padre Dam
MWD's recycling facility in Santee and advanced treating the sewage water utilizing
new technology and percolating the water into the ground where it will stay for six
months as mandated by the State Health Department.It will then be pulled back
out and blended with other raw water supplies processed by their RM Levy
Treatment Plant and then fed through their distribution system.
The EI Monte Basin is comprised of approximately 540 acres,is located two (2)
miles downstream from the EI Capitan Reservoir and is bisected by the San Diego
River.The Basin will be mined to remove approximately 15 feet to re-contour the
river bottom.The mined sand (10 to 12 million tons)will be sold to help offset the
cost of the project.The Riverbed Restoration Project is basically the removal of all
invasive plants and restoring the river bottom with native plants.
The EI Monte Valley Project objectives is to provide a new drought-proof water
supply,to utilize local sand resources in the construction of the project,restore
natural habitats,create recreational opportunities and reduce wastewater discharge
to the ocean.It will provide five (5)million gallons of water per day,approximately
15%of Helix WD's water demand.
The water from the EI Monte Valley Project will go through an advanced water
purification process which will treat the water down to the molecular level.Padre
Dam MWD will treat effluent to a certain tertiary level;it will then go through a
microfiltration process,then through a reverse osmosis process,and treated with
ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide.The cleaned water will then be injected into
the EI Monte Basin for six months before it utilized for domestic use.
The environmental review process has been started and it is hoped that the process
will be completed in two (2)years.Construction is expected to commence in 2014
or 2015 and be completed in approximately 8 years.
2
The project will be funded through Helix Water District funds,revenues from the
sand mining operation,and through grants from various agencies (US Bureau of
Reclamation,US Environmental Protection Agency,Proposition 50 funding,and the
San Diego County Water Authority).
In response to an inquiry by Director Robak,Mr.Lugo indicated the estimated cost
of the project is between $200 and $250 million;this includes the
upgrades/expansion to Padre Dam MWD's treatment plant.Twenty-five percent of
the cost of the project will be matched by the Bureau of Reclamation and additional
funding from grants is still to be determined.In conversations with the State Health
Department it would be difficult to get approval to bypass the injection process and
serve the treated water directly into the distribution systems following treatment.It
is hopeful that it would be allowed sometime in the future as there are agencies and
other countries that are already doing so.
CONSENT CALENDAR
8.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,seconded by Director Robak and 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)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4156 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO OTAY
WATER DISTRICT AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.14 OF THOSE
LANDS DESCRIBED AS "SAMIR AND BEATRIX FARHAT SEWER
ANNEXATION"
b)REPORT ON DIRECTOR'S EXPENSES FOR THE 4TH QUARTER OF
FISCAL YEAR 2010
c)RECEIVE THE DISTRICTS INVESTMENT POLICY,POLICY 27,FOR
REVIEW AND RE-DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY FOR ALL INVESTMENT
RELATED ACTIVITIES TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53607
d)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4165 IMPLEMENTING LOAN PROVISIONS
FOR NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS AND ICMA RETIREMENT
CORPORATION 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS
3
e)ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.526 AMENDING SECTION 5,CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE,OF THE DISTRICTS CODE OF ORDINANCES TO
EXPAND THE LIST OF POSITIONS REQUIRED TO FILE A FORM 700
f)DENY MARIO LUZANO'S REQUEST TO BACK-DATE HIS CAPACITY FEE
PRIOR TO THE JULY 1,2010 FEE INCREASE AND APPROVE A
DEFERRAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND MR.LUZANO
SHOULD HE REQUEST IT
9.BOARD
a)DISCUSSION OF 2010 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
There were no changes to the meeting calendar.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
10.FISCAL YEAR 2010 4th QUARTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
UPDATE REPORT (RIPPERGER)
Engineering Manager Ron Ripperger presented the fourth quarter CIP update in
which he highlighted the status of CIP expenditures,significant issues and progress
milestones on major projects.
He noted that the Fiscal Year 2010 CIP consists of 87 projects totaling $37.88
million.He indicated that the District's CIP is broken down into four categories:
•Capital Facility Projects
•Replacement/Renewal
•Capital Purchases
•Developer Reimbursements
TOTAL:
$28.73 million
$7.32 million
$1.83 million
$0.00 million
$37.88 million
He stated that overall expenditures through the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2010
totaled approximately $28.96 million,which is approximately 76%of the District's
fiscal year budget.
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,five is in the planning stage,five are in design,six are in
construction and six have been completed and are in use during the fiscal year.He
reviewed the status of the District's flagship projects which included the 36-inch
Pipeline from FCF No.14,1296-3 Reservoir and the 1485-1 Pump Station
Replacement Project.
Engineering Manager Ripperger presented slides which provides the status of the
various consultant contracts for planning,design,public services,
4
construction/inspection and environmental.He also presented slides providing a
listing of all CIP projects planned in Fiscal Year 2010 and the status of each.
Director Robak indicated that he had stopped to speak with the contractor on the
District's sewer replacement project on Avocado Boulevard and was advised that
the sewer pipe being replaced was approximately 20 years old.He felt this was a
relatively new pipe and was wondering how old the pipes are that are planned for
replacement.Engineering Manager Ripperger indicated that the pipes planned for
replacement were constructed in 1971.He noted that the District is
reviewing/televising its entire sewer system as per its Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP)and documenting which lines need to be rehabilitated/replaced.It was
discussed that the lines in the area of Avocado Boulevard needed to be replaced as
some of the lines have sags which could cause sewer back-ups.Staff will be
incorporating some automation enhancements while these lines are being replaced.
11.REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF COLLECTIONS ACTIVITY AND
WRITE-OFFS (MENDEZ-SCHOMER)
Customer Service Supervisor Alice Mendez-Schomer indicated that the board had
expressed interest in the status of the District's accounts receivables and aging
report.She stated that the recession has impacted many of the District's
customers.However,in reviewing the District's aging report for accounts that are
30 days late,60 days late and write-offs as a percentage of sales,it shows that the
District has been able to mitigate the effects of the poor economy (housing bubble,
unemployment,etc.).She stated that in FY 2010,accounts that are 30 days late
showed a slight increase of 7%from the prior two years.While it is difficult to
pinpoint the actual cause of the increase,it is felt that much can be contributed to
the poor economy and rate increases implemented in FY 2010.She noted that the
trend is reversed for those accounts that are 60 days late.The District actually saw
a decrease in the number of these accounts in FY 2010.She stated that staff
reviewed these trends very closely and changed its internal processes in order to
mitigate late payments and write-offs.She also noted that the foreclosure market
had a large impact on District write-offs as a percentage of total sales.She stated
that zip code 91913,which is within that the District's service area,was hit early
with foreclosure problems.These customers were unable to pay their water bill
and,thus,they showed up as write-off amounts.Customer Service Supervisor
Mendez-Schomer reviewed some of the process changes the District made to
mitigate late payments and write-off which included:
•Forwarding postcards to customers prior to the disconnect process.This is
an added layer that customers appreciate as it is another reminder that their
bill is due.
•Enhanced reporting to help identify accounts that may be subject to
foreclosure or to transfer existing unpaid balances from a closed customer
account to the customer's new account.
5
Staff also polled its sister agencies and they were all are experiencing the same
accounts receivable impacts as Otay.Customer Service Supervisor Mendez-
Schomer indicated that staff will continue to review the trends and adjusting its
processes as needed to mitigate the impacts of the poor economy.
Director Bonilla inquired if it was possible for staff to look at the delinquent accounts
to see if it was same number of customers who are falling behind in their payments.
Staff indicated that they would provide this information.Customer Service
Supervisor Mendez-Schomer responded to another inquiry from Director Bonilla
indicating that San Diego had a 350%increase in foreclosure activity in 2008 and
2009.The zip code hit hardest in San Diego with foreclosures was 91913.Many of
these customers were unable to pay their water bills which increased the
percentage of write-offs during these fiscal years (2008 and 2009).
REPORTS
12.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
General Manager Watton noted that many of the local agencies are working on
water projects that will reduce their reliance on imported water to enhance reliability
and stabilize supplies.He stated that CWA is starting to recognize this change.He
noted that the local water industry,as we know it,is starting to undergo a large
change and is moving away from imported to local supplies.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
General Manager Watton presented his report which included the activities of the
Otay Employee Activities Committee,status of the California State Budget and its
impact to the District,the District's automated bill pay system,the Otay Lakes Road
Widening Project,a history of the grants received by the District,the Rancho Del
Rey Groundwater Development Project,and the District's water consumption report
(see attached copy of the General Manager's report for details).
13.DIRECTORS'REPORTS/REQUESTS
Director Gonzalez commended staff on the Otay Lakes Road Project.He stated
that,though there is construction occurring in front of Bonita High School,there has
been no impact to the traffic/public.
14.PRESIDENTS REPORT
President Bonilla reported on meetings he attended during the month of August
2010 and indicated that on August 3 he met with the editor of The Star News,Mr.
Carlos Davalos who was very interested in the work the District is currently doing
and was very supportive of the Rosarito Desalination Project and felt that if the
project came to fruition,it would be very positive for not only Mexico,but for the
6
entire region.He stated that he met with General Manager Watton on August 11 to
discuss items to be reviewed during the August committee meetings.
15.ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board,President Bonilla adjourned the
meeting at 4:29 p.m.
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
7
AGENDA ITEM 7a
STAFF REPORT
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Frank Anderson,Utility fl
,"Services Manage!.!!.·)
Pedro Porras,,~~
Chief,Water Operations
MEETING DATE:
W.O./G.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.8M):
SUBJECT:
l~-~
::::~t::~a::~::7":l:~::,Engineering &Operations
Approval to Purchase One (1)Replacement Emergency Stand By
Gen-Set for the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling Facility
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorizes the General Manager to issue a
purchase order to Cummins Cal Pacific LLC.in the amount of
$63,125.38 for the purchase of one (1)replacement Emergency
Stand By Gen-Set for the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling
Facility (RWCWRF).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment "A".
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization to purchase
Emergency Stand By Gen-Set for the RWCWRF.
ANALYSIS:
a replacement
On December 6,2000 the Board authorized the General Manager to
initiate CIP P2366 that provided funding for the repair,
retrofit or replacement of District Assets in order to comply
with APCD air standard requirements.One (1)existing District
Gen-Set is scheduled for replacement due to its age,
insufficient electrical output and diesel engine exhaust
displacement.
Based on system operation evaluations of work flow history by
Fleet supervision and management as well as RWCWRF supervision
and management,it is recommended that one (1)new Gen-Set be
purchased and the one (1)older Gen-Set unit being replaced be
declared surplus.This action would also reduce the District's
fuel,maintenance and repair costs.
It should be noted that the existing Gen-Set is 31 years old and
underpowered.This replacement activity will also noticeably
reduce the District's diesel emissions output as the new Gen-Set
is Tier 3 which complies with APCD diesel emissions standards
for new Gen-Sets.
In accordance with District policy,bids were solicited for the
new Gen-Set.Three (3)bids were received.Prices received
include all applicable fees and taxes and delivery.
Dealer Gen-Set Bid Bid Price
Cummins Cal Pacific LLC Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $63,125.28
Global Power Group,Inc.Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $73,308.38
Duthie Power Services Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $74,060.93
FISCAL IMPACT:
The purchase of this Gen-Set will cost $63,125.28 which will be
charged against the APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits CIP
2366.
The total FY11 proj ect budget
Replacements and Retrofits is
and current encumbrances for
purchased under this request if
for the
$442,000.
the CIP,
approved,
CIP p2366 APCD Engine
Existing expenditures
including the Gen-Set
are $203,261.82.
Based on the Utility Service Manager's evaluation,the CIP 2366
budget is sufficient to complete the budgeted purchase.
The Finance Department has determined that 100%of the funds are
available in the replacement fund.
Expenditure Summary:
FYII APCD Engine Replacement ClP 2366 $442,000Budget:
FYll Expenditures and Encumbrances to Date:
APeD compliance replacement parts for $140,136.54
existing fleet.
Proposed Emergency Stand By Gen-Set $63,125.28Purchase:
Total Expenditures and Encumbrances:$203,261.82
Projected Balance of APCD Engine $238,738.18ReplacementFY11ClP2366Budget:
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Implementation of the APCD engine compliance program per
schedule.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment "A",Committee Action
ATTACHMENT A
Approval to Purchase One (1)Replacement Emergency Stand By
SUBJECTIPROJECT:Gen-Set for the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling Facility
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee discussed
this item at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and the following
comments were made:
•Staff noted that a handout was provided the committee members
correcting a slight discrepancy to Cummins Cal Pacific LLC's bid
price.The low bidder,although the discrepancy,will remain
Cummins Cal Pacific LLC.
•Staff is requesting authorization to purchase a replacement
emergency stand-by Gen-Set (generator)for the wastewater
treatment plant (Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling Facility)in
the amount of $70,551.93 from Cummins Cal Pacific LLC.
•The Gen-Set will replace an existing older Cummins Gen-Set.The
new Gen-Set will provide 100%back-up power for current and
future needs.This purchase is identified in the budget.
•The committee inquired the age of the Gen-Set being replaced.
Staff indicated that the Gen-Set is a 1980's era generator and it
will no longer meet new APCD rules.It was discussed that some
generators can be retrofitted,but the existing Gen-Set is too
old and it is not cost effective to do so.
•It was noted that,during the fires,the District was fortunate
to have back-up power for all its facilities.
Following the discussion,the committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the board as a consent item.
Revised Bid Results
Dealer Gen-Set Bid Bid Price
Cummins Cal Pacific LLC Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $70,551.93
Global Power Group,Inc.Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $73,308.38
Duthie Power Services Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $74,060.93
Quotation
CUMMINS CAL PACIFIC LLC.
310 N.Johnson Ave
EI Cajon CA 92020 United States
Direct:619-778-1402
February 11,2011
Project Name:Otay Water Distric
Quotation:69000000167763 \/2
Thank you for your inquiry.We are pleased to quote as follows:
USD
Item Description ..
Diesel Genset:60Hz··450kW
Install-US··Stat U.S.EPA,Stationary Emergency Application
450DFEJ
A331-2
L090-2
L158-2
L170-2
R002-2
B246-2
H643-2
H536-2
H605-2
H606-2
KA08-2
H679-2
KS45-2
C'127-2
E082·-2
H556-2
0041-2
A335-2
L028-2
8D-XHD(2)
Cummins Genset-Diesel,60Hz,450kW-Standby Rating
Duty Rating-Standby Power
Listing-UL 2200
Cert-Seismic,IBC2000,2003,2006,SS=2 90g,Rooftop
Emission Certification,EPA Tier 2
\/0Itage·-277/480,3 Phase,Wye,4 Wire
Alternator-60 Hz,12 Lead
SET CONTROL-PCC 2100
Display L.anguage-English
Display-Control,Graphical
Meters-AC Output,Analog
Alarm-Audible,Engine Shutdown
Control Mounting-Front Facing
Circuit Breaker-800A,3P,UL
Separator-Fuei/Water
Engine Cooling-Radiator
Coolant Heater-208/240/480V
Engine Air Cleaner·Normal Duty
Exhaust Connector-ASA Flange
Genset warranty-Base,Standby 2 Year
2 x 12 \/olt Batteries installed with cables
Sub Total
1
1
'\
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'I
'I
'I
'\
'\
$58,046.23
Vibration Isolators -Set of 6
Battery Charger
Modbus interface module
Critical grade exhaust silencer
and flex connector
1
Sub Total $1:139.24
1
Sub Total $443.04
1
Sub Total $632.91
600 amp auxiliary circuit breaker for
Load bank connection
Start and Test
Sub Total
Sub Tota!
Sub Total
$1,234.18
$1,481.01
1
$1,898.73
Submitted by
Tom Golnick ,Account Manager
tom.s.golnick@cummins.com
(6'19)219-5044
Grand Total $64,875.34
Global
GROUP,
vver
N C .
To:
Project:
12060 WOOVSIVE AVE
LAKESIVE,CA.92040
Doug Rahders
Otay Water District
Otay Water District
Engine Generator Set &Accessories
Date:3/3/11
We are pleased to present you this quotation with the following Bill ofMaterials and accessories:
Item A
Cummins Power 450DFEJ,60Hz-450/410kw 50Hz-400/364kw450/410kw
Unit Rating _.Duty Rating-Standby,277/480,3-Phase,60 Hertz,1800 RPM
Cert-Seismic,IBC2000,2003,2006,SS=2.90g,Rooftop
Listing UL 2200
Emission Cert,EPA,Tier 2,NSPS CI Stationary Emergency
Alternator-60Hz,12 Lead,Limited Range,125/105C
Set Control-PCC2100
Meters-AC Analog
Alarm-Audible,Engine Shutdown
Circuit Breaker,800A,3P,UL600,mc 415,80%
Separator-fuel/Water
Engine Cooling-Radiator,40C Ambient
Coolant Heater-208/240/480Y
Engine air Cleaner-Normal Duty
Exhaust Connector-ASA Flange
Battery Charger
2x12 Yolt Batteries installed with Cables
Vibration Isolators-Set of 6
Modbus Interface Module
Add 600 amp breaker for load bank connection
Critical Exhaust silencer
Start and Test
Genset Warranty-Base,2 Year
Item A
Total Price:$67,410.00.00 plus applicable taxes
Clarifications and Exceptions:
This quote offers standard Cummins products and services which we believe meet the functional
Intent ofthe Spec.The following clarifications or exceptions apply:
-Installation is not included
-Fuel is not included
-Standard Start and Test and any training required to be performed during start up
If you should have any questions concerning this proposal please don't hesitate to call me at
858-722-8040.
Submitted by,
Bob Petraglia
Director of Power Solutions
Global Power Group
1.8.00..3-9-4.7697 ii1
March 6,2011
To:
Project:
Doug Rahders
Otay Water District
Otay Water District
Thank you for the opportunity to present the following;
Cummins Genset 450DFEJ,60Hz
Unit Rating -Duty Rating-Standby,277/480,3-Phase,60 Hertz,1800 RPM
Listing UL 2200
Emission Cert,EPA,Tier 2,NSPS CI Stationary Emergency
Alternator-60Hz,12 Lead,Limited Range,125/105C
Set Control-PCC21 00
Meters-AC Analog
Alarm-Audible,Engine Shutdown
Circuit Breaker,800A,3P,UL600,IEC 415,80%
Separator-fuelMJater
Engine Cooling-Radiator,40C Ambient
Coolant Heater-208/240/480V
Engine air Cleaner-Normal Duty
Exhaust Connector-ASA Flange
Battery Charger
2x12 Volt Batteries installed with Cables
Vibration Isolators-Set of 6
Modbus Interface Module
Add 600 amp breaker for load bank connection
Critical Exhaust silencer
Start and Test
Genset Warranty-Base,2 Year
Total:$68,102.00.00
This proposal is based on verbal specifications.Standard terms and conditions apply.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Regards,
Bill Thomas
Duthie Power Services
562-790-1772
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Approval to purchase Replacement Stand By Gen Set.Project No.:P2366
Document Description:Staffreport for the April 61'\2011 Board Meeting.
Author:
Signature
112J1<>0 t:
Printed Na e
/0/
QA Reviewer:-,o1'-,-l.,...;-I'--+->-=-/',PJL-~_--===--_
SIgnature ()
14 u (c \;lta.+-LiJ fvlt<)
Date:--------
Date:oJ ._(U-(I
--'--------
Manager:
Printed Name
~~~~-
Signature
f~~fuvl?R.~
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best oftheir ability,the signers
verifY that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended information;being
grammatically con-ect and free of fonnatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting calculated values and
numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 7b
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Daniel R.Shinoff,General
Counsel
Richard E.Romero,Esq.
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.
APPROVED BY:Mark Watton,General Manager
German Alvarez,Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT:Revision of Code of Ordinance Provision Regarding the Allowance
of Encroachments on District Easements or Rights-of-Way
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Board adopt Ordinance No.529 enacting the proposed amendment to Section
36.03 ofthe Code of Ordinance.
COMMITTEE ACTION:------
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present to the Board amendments to a Code of Ordinance provision to clarify and
update the District's procedures for allowing encroachments on District easements or
rights-of-way.
ANALYSIS:
Under the existing provisions of the Code of Ordinance,Section 36.03,the General
Manager is authorized to allow encroachments on District easements or rights-of-way for
improvements that are removable and which do not exceed $2,500 in value.All other
encroachments must be approved by the Board of Directors.Pursuant to Section 2.01(D)
of the Code of Ordinance,however,the General Manager is authorized to execute
agreements,contracts,other documents,or commitments on behalf of the District where
the amount involved does not exceed $50,000 (excluding Public Works Contracts,which
are awarded in compliance with applicable laws).
The monetary threshold for the General Manager's authority to allow encroachments on
District easements or rights-of-way is outdated and is significantly lower than the General
Manager's general authority under Section 2.01(D).Because of this discrepancy,the
General Manager's authority to allow encroachments is extremely limited,requiring the
Board ofDirectors to review and consider any encroachments in excess of $2,500,which
could include relatively minor improvements.District staff and the General Counsel
believe it is inefficient for the Board ofDirectors to be required to consider encroachment
agreements for improvements with such nominal values.Thus,they believe it would be
appropriate to update the Code of Ordinance to increase the General Manger's authority
to allow encroachments consistent with the General Manager's general monetary
authority under Section 2.01.Increasing the General Manager's authority to allow
encroachments would further streamline the process for approving and entering into
encroachment agreements.As such,the District staff and the General Counsel believe
that it would be in the best interest of the District to revise the relevant language of
Section 36.03.
The Staff and the General Counsel recommend that the Board adopt revisions to Section
36.03,as set forth on the attachment to Ordinance No.529.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
Attachment A:Committee Action
Attachment B:Ordinance No.529,with the following attachments:
-Exhibit I -Section 36 ofthe Code ofOrdinance,Strike-thru
Attachment C:Proposed Section 36
2
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
ATTACHMENT A
Revision of Code of Ordinance Provision Regarding the
Allowance of Encroachments on District Easements or Ri
,of-Way
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
discussed this item at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and
the following comments were made:
•Staff indicated that,currently,Section 36 of the
District's Code of Ordinances regarding approving
encroachments on District easements allows the General
Manager to approve encroachments up to a value of
$2,500.This threshold was set in the 1980's or
1990's and is outdated.
•Staff is proposing that Section 36 be updated to be
consistent with the General Manager's authority of
$50,000 which is identified in Code of Ordinances
Section 2.01.
•Currently,any encroachments in excess of $2,500 would
need to be approved by the Board of Directors.
Approving the proposed change to Section 36,will
enhance efficiency as the Board will not be required
to approve encroachment agreements for improvements
with such nominal values.
Following the discussion,the committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the board as a consent
item.
3
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.529
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT
AMENDING SECTION 36,ENCROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS,
OF THE DISTRICT'S CODE OF ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of Otay Water
District that the language within Section 36.03,Encroachment in
District Easements,of the District's Code of Ordinances be
amended as per Exhibit 1 attached to this ordinance.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the amendments to
Section 36.03 of the Code of Ordinances shall become effective
immediately upon adoption.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 6th
day of April 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
President
Page 1 of 2
ATTEST:
District Secretary
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 1
SECTION 36 LOCATION OF WATER LINES AND EASEMENTS
36.01 LOCATION OF WATER LINES
A.In Public Right-of-Way or Easements.Water
lines constructed by or for this District shall be
constructed within public road or street right-of-ways,
except where the District has expressly authorized the
construction to be made within permanent right-of-way
easements.
B.Physical Location.
1.A water line constructed within a public road or
street right-of-way shall normally be located
within the easterly or southerly half of the
right-of-way.
2.
36.02
A water line constructed within an easement
shall normally lie along the centerline of said
easement if the easement will not contain other
utility lines.If other utility lines are
allowed in the water pipeline easement,the
water pipeline shall be located within the
easterly or southerly half of the easement
right-of-way.
DISTRICT WATER LINE EASEMENTS
A.Width of Easements.District minimum require-
ments for width of an easement for a water line shall be
20 feet;provided,however,in exceptional cases,the
General Manager may accept a permanent easement less than
20 feet in width on condition that the landowner grants to
the District an adequate temporary easement for
construction purposes together with a right of access to
the permanent easement for purposes of maintenance and
repair of the water line to be installed.
B.Easements in Subdivisions.The centerline of an
easement for a water line within a subdivision or "lot-
split"shall be parallel to at least one of the sidelines
of the lot or parcel in which the easement is located.
The entire width of the easement,as measured at right
angles to the said parallel sideline,shall be located
within the said lot or parcel.
36-1
c.Easements in Onsubdivided Land.The centerline
of an easement for a water line in unsubdivided lands
shall,whenever practicable,be parallel to one of the
sidelines of the parcel of land in which the easement is
located.The entire width of the easement,as measured at
right angles to the said parallel sideline,shall like
within the said parcel.
36-2
36.03 ENCROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.Enforcement Against Encroachments.The General
Manager is authorized and directed to institute on behalf
of the District any legal action necessary to prevent or
remove encroachment by others in,over,or upon District
easements and right-of-ways.
B.Allowance of Encroachments.The General Manager
may allow encroachment in,over,or upon a District ease-
ment or right-of-way if he determines that the
encroachment will not interfere with operation of the
District's water or sewer systems and will not interfere
with the maintenance,repair and replacement of such
systems.However,such encroachment shall not be allowed
until the property owner requesting the encroachment
executes an encroachment agreement,approved by the
District.The agreement shall provide,among other
conditions,that (i)the cost of removing and replacing
the encroachment shall be borne solely by the owner,and
(ii)the District will not waive any rights as to its use
of said easement or right-of-way,including,but not
limited to,the right to enter upon said easement at any
time for the purpose of making repairs,modifications,or
replacement of any pipeline or road,and (iii)the
encroachment will be removed upon 30-days written notice
from the District to the owner.The General Manager may
grant an extension of such period;however,the extension
must be in writing and signed by the General Manager.
The Manager's authority to allow such encroachment
shall extend to improvements that are removable and which
do not exceed the Manager's monetary authority as set
forth in subsection (D)of Section 2.01$2,500 in value.
All other encroachments must be approved by the Board of
Directors.
36.04 CONCURRENT USE OF DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.By Governmental Agencies.The Manager is
authorized to enter into agreements for concurrent use of
District easements by other governmental agencies or
public utilities,provided such use does not interfere
with the District's utilization of the easement.
B.By Private Persons or Entities.Concurrent use
of District easements by persons or entities other than
36-3
governmental agencies or public utilities must be approved
by the Board of Directors.
36-4
Attachment C
SECTION 36 LOCATION OF WATER LINES AND EASEMENTS
36.01 LOCATION OF WATER LINES
A.In Public Right-of-Way or Easements.Water
lines constructed by or for this District shall be
constructed within public road or street right-of-ways,
except where the District has expressly authorized the
construction to be made within permanent right-of-way
easements.
B.Physical Location.
1.A water line constructed within a public road or
street right-of-way shall normally be located
within the easterly or southerly half of the
right-of-way.
2.
36.02
A water line constructed within an easement
shall normally lie along the centerline of said
easement if the easement will not contain other
utility lines.If other utility lines are
allowed in the water pipeline easement,the
water pipeline shall be located within the
easterly or southerly half of the easement
right-of-way.
DISTRICT WATER LINE EASEMENTS
A.Width of Easements.District minimum require-
ments for width of an easement for a water line shall be
20 feet;provided,however,in exceptional cases,the
General Manager may accept a permanent easement less than
20 feet in width on condition that the landowner grants to
the District an adequate temporary easement for
construction purposes together with a right of access to
the permanent easement for purposes of maintenance and
repair of the water line to be installed.
B.Easements in Subdivisions.The centerline of an
easement for a water line within a subdivision or "lot-
split"shall be parallel to at least one of the sidelines
of the lot or parcel in which the easement is located.
The entire width of the easement,as measured at right
angles to the said parallel sideline,shall be located
within the said lot or parcel.
36-1
c.Easements in Unsubdivided Land.The centerline
of an easement for a water line in unsubdivided lands
shall,whenever practicable,be parallel to one of the
sidelines of the parcel of land in which the easement is
located.The entire width of the easement,as measured at
right angles to the said parallel sideline,shall like
within the said parcel.
36-2
36.03 ENCROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.Enforcement Against Encroachments.The General
Manager is authorized and directed to institute on behalf
of the District any legal action necessary to prevent or
remove encroachment by others in,over,or upon District
easements and right-of-ways.
B.Allowance of Encroachments.The General Manager
may allow encroachment in,over,or upon a District ease-
ment or right-of-way if he determines that the
encroachment will not interfere with operation of the
District's water or sewer systems and will not interfere
with the maintenance,repair and replacement of such
systems.However,such encroachment shall not be allowed
until the property owner requesting the encroachment
executes an encroachment agreement,approved by the
District.The agreement shall provide,among other
conditions,that (i)the cost of removing and replacing
the encroachment shall be borne solely by the owner,and
(ii)the District will not waive any rights as to its use
of said easement or right-of-way,including,but not
limited to,the right to enter upon said easement at any
time for the purpose of making repairs,modifications,or
replacement of any pipeline or road,and (iii)the
encroachment will be removed upon 30-days written notice
from the District to the owner.The General Manager may
grant an extension of such period;however,the extension
must be in writing and signed by the General Manager.
The Manager's authority to allow such encroachment
shall extend to improvements that are removable and which
do not exceed the Manager's monetary authority as set
forth in subsection (D)of Section 2.01.All other
encroachments must be approved by the Board of Directors.
36.04 CONCURRENT USE OF DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.By Governmental Agencies.The Manager is
authorized to enter into agreements for concurrent use of
District easements by other governmental agencies or
public utilities,provided such use does not interfere
with the District's utilization of the easement.
B.By Private Persons or Entities.Concurrent use
of District easements by persons or entities other than
36-3
governmental agencies or public utilities must be approved
by the Board of Directors.
36-4
AGENDA ITEM 7c
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Armando Buelnaf~
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
Communications Officer
APPROVED BY:
SUBJECT:2011 Legislative Program Guidelines
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors adopt the 2011 Otay Water District
Legislative Program.
PURPOSE:
To provide direction to staff in the formulation of the District's
response to legislative initiatives on issues affecting the
District during the 2011 legislative session.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A
BACKGROUND
Each legislative session,representatives to the California
Legislature sponsor some 2,000 or more bills or significant
resolutions.While many fail to make it out of their house of
origin,many of these bills become law and can affect special
districts in substantive ways.The same is true with each session
of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Legislative programs establish guidelines and policy direction
that can be used by staff in monitoring legislative activity,and
facilitate actions that can be taken quickly in response to
proposed bills.
The principles provided in the 2011 Legislative Program are meant
to serve as guidelines for staff and legislative advocates In
formulating a consistent District response to legislative
initiatives.This is particularly helpful in dealing with time
sensitive matters such as last minute amendments should calls or
letters to legislators be needed.Sensitive or controversial
policy matters will nevertheless be brought to the full Board of
Directors for deliberation and direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments
Attachment A-Committee Action Report
Attachment B-2011 Otay Water District Legislative Program
Attachment C-2011 Otay Water District Legislative Program (Strike-thru)
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:2011 Legislative Program Guidelines
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
discussed this item at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and the
following comments were made:
•The Legislative Program provides guidelines to staff when
drafting responses to legislative initiatives.There are a
few changes to the program that includes deleting
guidelines for bills that have passed in the previous year
and some verbiage cleanup.
•Staff noted that any controversial/sensitive matters or
that are not within the guidelines would be presented to
the board for discussion and to provide direction to staff.
•Thus far this year,there have been 3000 bills introduced.
Many deal with special districts/local government,Bay
Delta,Colorado River,etc.The Legislative Program will
provide general guidelines to staff on how to repond to
legislation.
Following the discussion,the committee supported presentation
to the board as a consent item.
ATTACHMENT 8
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Legislative Policy Guidelines
Effective Date:/ /
Legislative Policy Guidelines
The Otay Water Legislative Policy Guidelines for the 2011 Legislative Session includes the
following:
Water Services
Support efforts to:
a.Develop and finalize a Bay-Delta Plan to address environmental and water quality
issues in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Bay Delta in a cost effective and
environmentally sensitive manner.
b.Promote Delta conveyance in a size and fiscally conservative way to improve water
quality or water transport and reduce the possibility oflevee failure.
c.Complete long-term Delta planning work and studies of new water storage facilities,
and support efforts to promote additional surface and underground water storage
infrastructure to ensure water availability and quality.
d.Study Global Climate Change and its potential impact on the snow pack,rising sea
levels,increased salinity in the Delta,the possibility ofreduced precipitation or more
severe storms.
e.Provide financial support to projects designed to mitigate potential negative impacts
ofGlobal Climate Change on water supply reliability.
f.Provide ongoing federal and state funding for the Califomia Bay-Delta.
g.Support implementation of the Quantitative Settlement Agreement.
h.Provide reliable water supplies to meet Califomia's short and long-term needs.
1.Develop and adopt a comprehensive state water plan that balances Califomia's
competing water needs and results in a reliable supply ofhigh-quality water for the
San Diego region.
J.Provide conveyance and storage facilities that are cost effective,improve the
reliability and quality ofSan Diego region's water supplies as well as the Bay-Delta
regIOn.
k.Equitably allocates costs of the Bay-Delta solution to all those benefiting from
improvements.
1.Support agriculture to urban water transfers.
m.Promote desalination pilot studies and projects.
n.Reduce restrictions on recycled water use or reduce regulations in an effort to expand
recycled water use.
o.Reduce restrictions on injecting recycled water into basins where there is no direct
potable use.
p.Provide financial incentives for recharge of groundwater aquifers using recycled
water.
q.Encourage feasibility studies ofwater resource initiatives.
10f6
Otar Water District 2011Legislative Program
r.Increase funding for infrastructure and grant programs for construction,
modernization or expansion ofwater,wastewater treatment,reclamation facilities and
sewer systems.
s.Provide funding for water recycling,groundwater recovery and recharge,surface
water development projects and seawater desalination.
t.Mandate uniform or similar regulations and procedures by state agencies in the
processing and administering ofgrants and programs.
u.Streamline grant application procedures.
v.Improve the existing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water conveyance system
to increase flexibility and enhance water supply,water quality,levee stability and
environmental protection.
w.Evaluate long-term threats to the Delta levee and conveyance system and pursue
actions to reduce risks to the state's water supply and the environment.
x.Promote or assist voluntary water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers
and move those transactions through without delay.
y.Establish reasonable statewide approaches to sewer reporting standards.
z.Provide the State Water Project with more flexibility to operate their systems to
maximize water deliveries while avoiding unacceptable impacts to third parties,
habitat or the environment.
aa.Fast-track design,permits and construction for pilot projects in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta to create barriers to keep fish away from Delta water pumps,improve
water quality and supply reliability.
bb.Focus on resolution ofconflicts between water management and the environment in
the Delta and the Colorado River.
cc.Provides funding and support for efforts to address Colorado River water quality
issues and concerns.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increase the cost of imported
water without also improving the reliability and/or quality ofthe water.
b.Create unrealistic or costly water testing protocol.
c.Create unrealistic or costly to obtain water quality standards for recycled water or
storm water runoff.
d.Restrict use ofrecycled water for groundwater recharge.
e.Disproportionately apportion costs of water.
f.Establish new water or recycled water fees solely to recover State costs without also
providing some benefit.
g.Create undo hurtles for seawater desalination projects.
h.Make the use ofeminent domain for water infrastructure projects more costly or
burdensome.
1.Create regulatory schemes that alter or limit the existing authority to reuse and
recycle water.
J.Create unreasonable,costly,or confusing sewer reporting standards.
20f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
k.Create administrative or other barriers to sales between willing buyers and willing
sellers that delay water transfers.
1.Increases regulatory or procedural impediments to water transfers at the local or state
level.
m.Establish a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific program activity;any
fee must provide a clear nexus to the benefit the fee would provide.
Financial
Support efforts to:
a.Support efforts to clarify procedures and provisions ofProposition.
b.Require the federal government and State of California to reimburse special districts
for all mandated costs or regulatory actions.
c.Give special districts the discretion to cease performance ofunfunded mandates.
d.Provide for fiscal reform to enhance the equity,reliability,and certainty of special
district funding.
e.Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively,share costs or resources.
f.Provide for the stable,equitable and reliable allocation ofproperty taxes.
g.Continue to refonn workers compensation.
h.Authorize financing ofwater quality,water security,and water supply infrastructure
improvement programs.
1.Promote competition in insurance underwriting for public agencies.
j.Establish spending caps on State ofCalifornia overhead when administering voter
approved grant and disbursement programs.
k.Require disbursement decisions in a manner appropriate to the service in question.
1.Encourage funding infrastructure programs that are currently in place and that have
been proven effective.
m.Produce tangible results,such as water supply reliability or water quality
improvement.
n.Provide financial incentives for energy projects that increase reliability,diversity,and
reduce green house gasses.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Impose new,unfunded state mandates on local agencies and their customers.
b.Undermine Proposition lA -Protection of Local Government Revenues -and the
comprehensive reform approved by voters in 2004.
c.Reallocate special district reserves in an effort to balance the state budget.
d.Reallocate special district revenues to fund infrastructure improvements in cities or
counties.
e.Usurp special district funds,reserves,or other state actions that force special districts
to raise rates,fees or charges.
f.Complicate existing conservation-based rate structures.
g.Establish funding mechanisms that put undue burdens on local agencies or make
local agencies de facto tax collectors for the state.
h.Complicate compliance with SB 610 and SB 221.
30f6
Otar Water District 2011Legislative Program
Governance/Local Autonomy
Support efforts to:
a.Expand local autonomy in governing special district affairs.
b.Promote comprehensive long-range planning.
c.Assist local agencies in the logical and efficient extension of services and facilities to
promote efficiency and avoid duplication ofservices.
d.Streamline the Municipal Service Review Process or set limits on how long services
reviews can take or cost.
e.Establish clear and reasonable guidelines for appropriate community sponsorship
activities.
f.Reaffirm the existing "all-in"financial structure,or protect the San Diego County
Water Authority voting structure based on population.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Assume the state legislature is better able to make local decisions that affect special
district governance.
b.Create one-size-fits-all approaches to special district reform.
c.Unfairly target one group of agencies or local elected officials.
d.Usurp local control from special districts regarding decisions involving local special
district finance,operations or governance.
e.Limit the board of directors'ability to govern the district.
f.Create unfunded local government mandates.
g.Create costly,unnecessary or duplicative oversight roles for the state government of
special district affairs.
h.Change the San Diego County Water Authority Act regarding voting structure,unless
it is based on population.
1.Shift the liability to the public entity and relieve private entities ofreasonable due
diligence in their review of plans and specifications for errors,omissions and other
Issues.
J.Place a significant and unreasonable burden on public agencies,resulting in increased
cost for public works construction or their operation.
Conservation
Support efforts to:
a.Provide funding for water conservation programs including those that help special
districts meet 20%by 2020 targets as outlined in SBX7-7.
b.
c.Encourage the installation ofwater conserving fixtures in new and existing buildings.
d.Promote the environmental benefits ofwater conservation.
e.Enhance efforts to promote water awareness and conservation.
f.Offer incentives for landscape water efficiency devices such as ET controllers and
soil moisture sensors.
40f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
g.Develop landscape retrofit incentive programs and/or irrigation retrofit incentive
programs.
h.Permit local agencies adopting stricter ordinances requiring water wise landscaping
for commercial and residential development.
1.Create tax credits for citizens or developers who install water wise landscapes.
J.Create tax credits for citizens who purchase high efficiency clothes washers,dual
flush and high-efficiency toilets and irrigation controllers above the state standards.
k.Expand community-based conservation and education programs.
1.Develop incentives for developers to install water wise landscape in new
construction.
m.Encourage large state users to conserve water by implementing water efficient
technologies in all facilities both new and retrofit.
n.Create higher incentives for solar power.
o.Encourage large state water users to conserve water outdoors.
p.Educate all Californians on the importance ofwater,and the need to conserve,
manage,and plan for the future needs.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Weaken federal or state water efficiency standards.
Safety,Security and Information Technology
Support efforts to:
a.Provide funding for information security upgrades to include integrated alarms,
access/egress,and surveillance technology.
b.Provide incentives for utilities and other local agencies to work cooperatively,share
costs or resources.
c.Provide funding for communication enhancements,wireless communications,GIS or
other technological enhancements.
d.Encourage or promote compatible software systems.
e.Fund infrastructure and facility security improvements that include facility roadway
access,remote gate access and physical security upgrades.
f.Protect state,local and regional drinking water systems from terrorist attack or
deliberate acts of destruction,contamination or degradation.
g.Provide funds to support training or joint training exercises to include contingency
funding for emergencies and emergency preparedness.
h.Equitably allocate security funding based on need,threats and/or population.
i.Encourage or promote compatible communication systems.
j.Encourage and promote funding ofDepartment ofHomeland Security Risk
Mitigation programs.
Oppose efforts that:
a.Create unnecessary,costly,or duplicative security mandates.
50f6
Otar Water District 2011Legislative Program
Optimize District Effectiveness
Support efforts to:
a.Continue to reform Workers Compensation.
b.Give utilities the ability to avoid critical peak energy pricing or negotiate energy
contracts that save ratepayers money.
c.Develop reasonable Air Pollution Control District engine permitting requirements.
d.Reimburse or reduce local government mandates.
e.Allow public agencies to continue offering defined benefit plans.
f.Result in predictable costs and benefits for employees and taxpayers.
g.Eliminate abuses.
h.Retain local control ofpension systems.
1.Be constitutional,federally legal and technically possible.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Restrict the use of,or reallocate,district property tax revenues to the detriment of
special districts.
b.Create unrealistic ergonomic protocol.
c.Micromanage special district operations.
d.Balance the state budget by allowing regulatory agencies to increase permitting fees.
Hi-National Initiatives
Support efforts to:
a.Promote and finance cross-border infrastructure development such as water
pipelines,desalination plants or water treatment facilities.
b.Develop cooperative and collaborative solutions to cross-border issues.
c.Develop and enhance understanding of the interdependence of communities on both
sides of the border with the goal of improved cross-border cooperation.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Usurp local control over the financing and construction ofwater supply and
infrastructure projects in the border region.
60f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Legislative Policy Guidelines
Effective Date:/ /
Legislative Policv Guidelines
The Otay Water Legislative Policy Guidelines for the 2011 Legislative Session includes the
following:
Water Services
SUPPOl1 efforts to:
a.Develop and finalize a Bay-Delta Plan to address ~BRIe address
Bay Delta environmental and water quality issues in the Sacramento -San Joaquin
Bay Delta in a cost effective and environmentally sensitive manner.~
b.Stuey,fiRalize aRe IlPromote "k~uRe tke DeltaC:conveyance in a size and fiscally
conservative way alternatives as a way to improve water quality or water transp0l1
and reduce the possibility oflevee failure.
c.Complete aRe fiRali2ie long-term Delta planning work and eRgeiRg studies ofnew
water storage facilities.and support eff0l1s to promote additional surface and
underground water storage infrastructure to ensure water availability and quality.
d,Study Global Climate Change and its potential impact on the snow pack,rising sea
levels,increased salinity in the Delta.the possibility ofreduced precipitation or more
severe storms.
e,Provide financial support to projects designed to mitigate tke-potential negative
impacts ofGlobal Climate Change on watersupply reliability,
f.Provide ongoing federal and state funding for the California Bay-Delta,
g,Support implementation ofthe Quantitative Settlement Agreement.
h.Provide reliable water supplies to meet Califomia's ShOl1 and long-term needs.
I.Develop and adopt a comprehensive state water plan that balances California's
competing water needs and results in a reliable supply ofhigh-quality water for the
San Diego region,
j.Provide conveyance and storage facilities that are cost effective.improve the
reliability and quality of San Diego region's water supplies as well as the Bay-Delta
region,
k,Equitably allocates costs ofthe Bay-Delta solution to all those benefiting from
improvements.
l.Support agriculture to urban water transfers.
m.Promote desalination pilot studies and projects.
n,Reduce restrictions on recycled water use or reduce regulations in an effort to expand
recycled water usage,
0,Reduce restrictions on injecting recycled water into basins where there is no direct
potable use.
p,Provide financial incentives for recharge ofgroundwater aquifers using recycled
water.
q,Encourage feasibility studies ofwater resource initiatives.
10f7
ATTACHMENT C
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
r.Increase funding for infrastructure and grant programs for construction,
modemization or expansion ofwater,wastewater treatment,reclamation facilities and
sewer systems.
s.Provide funding for water recycling,groundwater recovery and recharge,surface
water development projects and seawater desalination.
t.Mandate uniform or similar regulations and procedures by state agencies in the
processing and administering ofgrants and programs.
u.Streamline grant application procedures.
r.Limit the availal:Jili~',or prohiBit lAB ifl~l811atiOB,ofwater seAeAiAg allpliaAees l!:lal
diseharge ariRe to the sewer systems leeEling treatlfteAt f)laAts that flrolhll::e reey&l-ed
water.
WcL-Improve the existing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water conveyance
system to increase flexibility and enhance water supply,water quality,levee stability
and environmental protection.
+.~Evaluate long-term threats to the Delta levee and conveyance system and pursue
actions to reduce risks to the state's water supply and the environment.
r?S..cPromote or assist voluntary water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers
and move those transactions through without delay.
~:LEstablish reasonable statewide approaches to sewer rep0l1ing standards.
a&.-L-Provide the State Water Project with more flexibility to operate their systems to
maximize water deliveries while avoiding unacceptable impacts to third parties,
habitat or the environment.
~Fast-track design,pellTlits and construction for pilot projects in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta to create balTiers to keep fish away from Delta water pumps,improve
water quality and supply reliability.
bb.Focus on resolution ofconflicts between water mana.~.!!1~mand the environment in
the Delta and the Colorado River.
cc....rrpx.i<ll;l.S funding and support for efforts to address Colorado River water qualitv
issues and concerns.
~
Oppose effo11s to:
a.Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increase the cost ofimp0l1ed
water without also improving the reliability and/or quality ofthe water.
b.Create unrealistic or costly water testing protocol.
c.Create unrealistic or costly to obtain water quality standards for recycled water or
storm water runoff.
d.Restrict use ofrecycled water for groundwater recharge.
e,Disproportionately apportion costs ofwater.
f.Establish new water or recycled water fees solely to recover State costs without also
providing some benefit.
g.Create undo hUl1les for seawater desalination projects.
h.BaA the use ofor mMake the use ofeminent domain for water infrastructure projects
more costly or burdensome.
20f7
Formatted:Indent:Left 0.5",No bullets or
numbering
Otav Water District 2011Legislative Program
I.Create regulatory schemes that alter or limit the existing authority to reuse and
recycle water.
j.Create lIHfeasoHable unreasonable,costly,or confusing sewer repOliing standards.
LCreate administrative or other barriers to sales between willing buyers and willing
sellers that delay water transfers.
I.Increases regulatorv or procedural impediments to water transfers at the local or state
level.
m.Establish a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific prQ.g@m activity;any
fee must provide a clear nexus to the benefit the fee would provide.
+-- --{Formatted:No bullets or numbering
Financial
Support efforts to:
h--Support efforts to clarify procedures and provisions of Proposition 21 g iH the wake of+-- -
the Bighorn aeeisioH.
~
ffi;-!1.....-Require the federal govemment and State ofCalifomia to reimburse special
districts for all mandated costs or regulatory actions.
~Give special districts the discretion to cease performance ofunfunded mandates.
&,!!.Provide for fiscal reform to enhance the equity,reliability,and celiainty ofspecial
district funding.
~Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively,share costs or resources.
tr-LProvide for the stable,equitable and reliable allocation of property taxes.
f;-&.,Continue to reform workers compensation.
1r.&Authorize financing ofwater quality,water security,and water supply infrastructure
improvement programs.
hLPromote competition in insurance underwriting for public agencies.
th-LEstablish spending caps on State ofCalifornia overhead when administering voter
approved grant and disbursement programs.
¥;k"Require disbursement decisions in a manner appropriate to the service in question.
vr.1.Encourage funding infrastructure programs that are currently in place and that have
been proven effective.
*'!TI......-Produce tangible results,such as water supply reliability or water quality
improvement.
Y<!1.Provide financial incentives for energy projects that increase reliability,diversity,and
reduce green house gasses.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Impose new,unfunded state mandates on local agencies and their customers.
b.Undermine Proposition 1A -Protection of Local Govemment Revenues -and the
comprehensive reform approved by voters in 2004.
c.Reallocate special district reserves in an effOli to balance the state budget.
30f7
Formatted:Numbered +Level:1+
Numbering Style:a,b,c,_._+Start at:1 +
Alignment:Left +Aligned at:0.5"+Tab after:
0.75"+Indent at:0.75"
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
d.Reallocate special district revenues to fund infrastructure improvements in cities or
counties.
e.Usurp special district funds,reserves,or other state actions that force special districts
to raise rates,fees or charges.
f.Complicate existing conservation-based rate structures.
g.Establish funding mechanisms that put undue burdens on local agencies or make
local agencies de/acto tax collectors for the state.
h.Complicate compliance with SB 610 and SB 221.
Governance/Local Alitonomv
Support efforts to:
a.Expand local autonomy in governing special district affairs.
b.Promote comprehensive long-range planning.
c.Assist local agencies in the logical and efficient extension ofservices and facilities to
promote efficiency and avoid duplication ofservices.
d.Streamline the Municipal Service Review Process or set limits on how long services
reviews can take or cost.
e.Establish clear and reasonable guidelines for appropriate community sponsorship
activities.
f.Reaffirm the existing "all-in"financial structure,or protect the San Diego County
Water Authority voting structure based on population.
Oppose efforts to:
a_Assume the state legislature is better able to make local decisions that affect special
district governance.
b,Create one-size-fits-all approaches to special district refOlm.
c.Unfairly target one group ofagencies or local elected officials.
d.Usurp local control from special districts regarding decisions involving local special
district finance,operations or governance.
e.Limit the board ofdirectors'ability to govern the district.
f.Create unfunded local government mandates.
g.Create costly,unnecessary or duplicative oversight roles for the state govemment of
special district affairs.
h.Change the San Diego County Water Authority Act regarding voting structure,unless
it is based on population.
1.Shift the liability to the public entity and relieve private entities ofreasonable due
diligence in their review ofplans and specifications for en-ors,omissions and other
issues.
j.Place a significant and unreasonable burden on public agencies,resulting in increased
cost for public works construction or their operation.
40f7
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Conservation
Support efforts to:
~Provide funding for water conservation programs including those ~that help special
districts meet 20%by 2020 targets as outlined in SBX7-7.
&.-lL
lr.f.cEncourage the installation ofwater conserving fixtures in new and existing buildings.
&.-~Promote the environmental benefits ofwater conservation.
Eh~Enhance efforts to promote water awareness and conservation.
€.'7LOffer incentives for landscape water efficiency devices such as ET controllers and
soil moisture sensors.
h&...Develop landscape retrofit incentive programs and/or irrigation retrofit incentive
programs.
~1l.Permit local agencies adopting stricter ordinances requiring water wise landscaping
for commercial and residential development.
lr.L..Create tax credits for citizens or developers who install water wise landscapes.
i-,LCreate tax credits for citizens who purchase high efficiency clothes washers,dual
flush and high-efficiency toilets and in'igation controllers above the state standards.
f.LExpand community-based conservation and education programs.
*'-L..Develop incentives for developers to install water wise landscape in new
construction.
h-D.L.-Encourage large state users to conserve water by implementing water efficient
technologies in all facilities both new and retrofit.
HT.-~Create higher incentives for solar power.
R-:Q,Encourage large state water users to conserve water outdoors.
Ih.-Educate all Californians on the impOliance of water,and the need to conserve,
manage,and plan for the future needs.
&.--
Oppose efforts to:
a.Weaken federal or state water efficiency standards.
Safety,Security and Information Technology
Support efforts to:
a.Provide funding for information security upgrades to include integrated alarms,
access/egress,and surveillance technology.
b.Provide incentives for utilities and other local agencies to work cooperatively,share
costs or resources.
c.Provide funding for communication enhancements,wireless communications,GIS or
other technological enhancements.
d.Encourage or promote compatible software systems.
5 of?
Formatted:Indent:Left:0.75",No bullets or
numbering
Otar Water District 2011Legislative Program
e.Fund infrastructure and facility security improvements that include facility roadway
access,remote gate access and physical security upgrades.
f.Protect state,local and regional drinking water systems from terrorist attack or
deliberate acts ofdestruction,contamination or degradation.
g.Provide funds to support training or joint training exercises to include contingency
funding for emergencies and emergency preparedness.
h.Equitably allocate security funding based on need,threats and/or population.
i.Encourage or promote compatible communication systems.
j.Encourage and promote funding of Department ofHomeland Security Risk
Mitigation programs.
Oppose efforts that:
a.Create unnecessary,costly,or duplicative security mandates.
Optimize District Effectiveness
Support e;fforts to:
a.Continue to reform Workers Compensation.
b.Give utilities the ability to avoid critical peak energy pricing or negotiate energy
contracts that save ratepayers money.
c.Develop reasonable Air Pollution Control District engine permitting requirements.
d.Reimburse or reduce local government mandates.
e.Allow public agencies to continue offering defined benefit plans.
f.Result in predictable costs and benefits for employees and taxpayers.
g.Eliminate abuses.
h.Retain local control of pension systems.
I.Be constitutional,federally legal and technically possible.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Restrict the use of,or reallocate,district property tax revenues to the detriment of
special districts.
b.Create unrealistic ergonomic protocol.
c.Micromanage special district operations.
d.Balance the state budget by allowing regulatory agencies to increase permitting fees.
Bi-Nationallnitiatives
Support efforts to:
a.Promote and finance cross-border infrastructure development such as water
pipelines,desalination plants or water treatment facilities.
b.Develop cooperative and collaborative solutions to cross-border issues.
c.Develop and enhance understanding of the interdependence ofcommunities on both
sides of the border with the goal of improved cross-border cooperation.
Oppose e;fforts to:
6 of?
70f7
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
a.Usurp local control over the financing and construction ofwater supply and
infrastructure projects in the SaR Diege/Baja Califemia border region.
AGENDA ITEM 7d
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
5TAFF REPORT
Regular Board MEETING DATE:
Alice Mendez-Schomer ,(!r{)W.O.lG.F.NO:
Customer Service Supervisor
Joseph R.Be~hief Financial Officer
G~~~~arez,Assistant General Manager,
~ation
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
Finance and
SUBJECT:Adopt Ordinance No.528 Amending Section 34,Issuance and
Payment of Water Bills and Section 53,Fees,Rates,Charges
and Conditions for Sewer Service of the District's Code of
Ordinances
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board adopt Ordinance No.528 amending Sections 34 and
53 of the District's Code of Ordinances.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present to the Board revisions to Sections 34 and 53 of the
Code of Ordinances to amend the District's policies on the
requirement and handling of deposits for habitually delinquent
accounts and the accepted forms of payment for water and sewer
accounts.
ANALYSIS:
Section 34:Issuance and Payment of Water Bills
Existing provisions in Section 34.02 F.2 of the Code of
Ordinances establishes the amount of deposits for habitually
delinquent accounts.Currently,the deposit is calculated at
two times the average of the previous three months billing.
The issue with this provision is that many of the District's
highest water users are landscape irrigation accounts with
average monthly usage peaking in the summer.Deposits added
during the winter months could be significantly short of
covering unpaid summer water bills.The proposed change to the
Code addresses this issue by allowing deposit amounts up to two
times the highest monthly bill in the preceding 12 months.
The other proposed change is to update the acceptable forms of
payment for water accounts.The forms of payment added include
credit card,draft,electronic funds transfer or any other
acceptable form of payment that will be honored by the bank.
Section 53:Fees,Rates,Charges and Conditions for Sewer
Service
Since this section does not currently address the issuance and
payment of sewer bills or deposits on habitually delinquent
accounts,the proposed changes under Section 53.11,Sewer
Service Rates and Charges,include the additions of item H,
Issuance and Payment of Sewer Bills and item I,Delinquent
Accounts.
FISCAL IMPACT:~
This will have a positive financial impact due to the reduction
in write-offs to the District.
STRATEGIC GOAL:-------
Improve the District's collection process.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Ordinance No.528
Exhibit 1 Strike-through Section 34
Exhibit 2 Strike-through Section 53
C)Proposed Section 34
D)Proposed Section 53
ATTACHMENT A
..........................................
Adopt Ordinance No.528 Amending Section 34,Issuance and
Payment of Water Bills and Section 53,Fees,Rates,Charges
and Conditions for Sewer Service of the District's Code of
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Ordinances
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
discussed this item at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requested that the board adopt Ordinance No.528
amending two (2)sections of the District's Code of
Ordinances.
•Proposed amendments to Section 34,Issuance and Payment of
Water Bills,and Section 53,Fees,Rates,Charges and
Conditions for Sewer Service,specifically address the
process for determining the amount for customer deposits
and also updating the Code for the forms of payment that
the District currently accepts.
•Currently,there are two methods by which the District
collects deposits on customer accounts:
-At the start of the service when the account holder is
not the owner of the residence.
For customers that are habitually delinquent or are
frequently turned off for non-payment.
Staff is proposing updating the process for collecting a
deposit for those customers'whose accounts are habitually
delinquent.Deposits are currently two times the average
of the previous three months billing.Using this method,
the deposit collected during the winter months would not be
sufficient to cover the billing for the higher summer
months'use.Staff is proposing to modify the calculation
to two times the highest monthly bill during the preceding
twelve months.This would provide the District adequate
protection via the deposit amount against unpaid bills.
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgSection34and53 040611.doc
•Staff is also proposing updating the list of forms of
payments the District currently accepts.Currently,the
Code lists only cash and checks.The Code will be updated
to include the following forms of payments:
Debit cards
-Credit cards
Electronic fund transfers
•District staff surveyed its neighboring agencies to inquire
about their processes for collecting deposits and found
that they look at the last twelve months as proposed by
staff.Adopting the proposed changes would bring the
District inline with other water agencies.
•Staff noted that the proposed changes have been reviewed by
the District's legal counsel.
•The committee inquired how many accounts would be impacted.
Staff indicated that their are very few;approximately 20
per month.The impact to customers is not that great,
however,the potential for recouping some of the funds at
the close of the account has a positive impact to
receivables.
Following the discussion,the committee supported presentation
to the board as a consent item.
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.528
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY
WATER DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 34,ISSUANCE AND
PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS AND SECTION 53,FEES,RATES,
CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE
OF THE DISTRICT'S CODE OF ORDINANCES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of Otay Water
District that the District's Code of Ordinances,Section 34,
Rates and Conditions for Water Service and Section 53,Fees,
Rates,Charges and Conditions for Sewer Service be replaced as
per Attachments C and 0,respectively).
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the new proposed
Sections 34 and 53 of the Code of Ordinances shall become
effective April 6,2011.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 6th
day of April,2011,by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1
ATTEST:
District Secretary
2
President
SECTION 34
34.01
ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS
ISSUANCE,DUE DATE AND FINAL PAYMENT DATE OF
STATEMENT OF CHARGES FOR SERVICE
Exhibit 1
.-- --{Formatted:Justified
A.
B.
C.
D.
34.02
A.
Issuance of Statements.Statements for water
service or other charges will be mailed or presented
as soon as practicable after the water meter has
been read and the applicable charges have been
determined.
Due Date.Each statement issued by the District for
such charges shall be due and payable on the date of
mailing or other presentation to the customer.
Final Payment Date.All charges in each statement
must be paid on or before the final payment date
shown on the statement,which shall be at least 20
calendar days following the date of mailing or
presentation of the statement.
Payment of Charges.
1.Place of Payment.Payments shall not be
credited to a customer's account until either cash,
an aeeeptable check,credit card ,draft,
electronic funds transfer,~money order,or any
other acceptable form of payment that will be
honored by the bank has been received by the
District at the District business office during
regular office hours.Deposit of payment in the
mail or at a location other than the District
business office shall not be credited to a
customer's account until received at the business
office.
2.Returned Check Charges.A returned payment
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 D.2.for charge)shall
be added to a customer's account in each instance
where payment has been made to the District wi th
~a check,draft,credit card or any other
acceptable form of payment that ha-vehas not been
returnedhonored upon presentment to the District by
the bank upon which it is drawn.
DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
..:F'-i0:..;r~..::N.:..:o:..:n:..:.,-;-.::.p-=a,-,Y,-,m;.:ce:..:n:..:...:;t_o::....::;f_C.::.h7'a..::r;..;q,-,e.::.s::..If full payment of a
statement for a water service account is not
received at the District business office on or
before the final payment date,the account shall
become delinquent.
34-1
B.Late Payment Charge.A late payment charge (see
Appendix A,34.02 B.for charge)of the total amount
delinquent shall be added to each delinquent account
at the time any amount becomes delinquent,provided
that the charge shall not be made on any account
which at that time has no delinquencies of record.
When a late payment charge is made,such shall be
added to the delinquent account as of the date the
account becomes delinquent and such charges shall
become an inseparable part of the amount due as of
that time.
C.Notice of Delinquency.A delinquency notice shall
be mailed to each customer whose account is
delinquent,notifying the customer that service will
be turned off unless payment is made.The notice
shall indicate the amount due,including late
payment charges,and that the tota~amount must be
paid within fifteen (15)calendar days from the date
of mailing or presentation of the notice to the
customer,or service will be discontinued.
D.Record of Delinquent Accounts.The District
maintains records of delinquent accounts.Each year
one delinquency shall be removed from the record of
each account that has one or more delinquencies.
E.Partial Payment on Delinquent Account.A partial
payment on a delinquent account may be accepted and
credited to a customer's account;however,the
partial payment shall not cause removal of the
account from a delinquent status and furthermore,
the partial payment shall not preclude the meter
from being turned off for delinquency.
F.Financial Arrangements for Delinquent Accounts.
1.Continuation of Serv'ce.The General Manager,
ControllerChief Financial Officer,or any person
delegated by the General Manager,may authorize
continuation of service to a delinquent account if
financial arrangements,satisfactory to the
District,have been established.
2.Reguirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Delinquencies.If payments on a customer account
have become delinquent five or more times,or if a
meter has been turned off three or more times for
non-payment of charges,the General Manager,
ControllerChief Financial Officer,or any person
delegated by the General Manager,shall be
authorized to require the customer to make a ea-s!1:
deposit with the DistrictL in -aRcash or any other
34-2
form satisfactory to the General Manager.The
deposit amount equal to shall be established at the
discretion of the General Manager and the Chief
Financial Officer,but shall not exceed two times
the affiouat of tao averagehighest monthly bill
.f&r-during the three fllORth periodtwelve (12)months
preceding the diseoRtiRuaRcedate of serviee before
further '.Iater service lIill ~!3Eovided uadcr the
eustomer's aeeouRt.demand for a deposit .
..@.L.-!1andling of Deposit.A deposit shall not earn
interest and shall only be applied to reduce or
satisfy amounts due the District in the event
of termination of service.A deposit does not
constitute payment for service bills and the
customer shall be required to ~omply with bill
payment requirements to continue receiving
service.
Refund of Deposit.A deposit required under
this Section shall be refunded fo the customer
as provided in Section 25.04.B.
(b)
.-- --{Formatted:Justified
Termination and Reinstatement of Water Service Under
Delinquent Accounts
G.
1.'Termination of Service.The water meter or
meters under delinquent accounts may be turned off
and locked if payment has not been made in
accordance with the Notice of Delinquency.
(a)Where an owner or manager is listed by the Dis-
trict as the customer of record of the service,
the District shall make every good faith effort
to inform the actual users of the services when
the account is in arrears by means of a notice
that service will be terminated in ten days.
The notice shall further inform the actual
users that they have the right to become cus-
tomers of the District without being required
to pay the amount due on the delinquent
account.
(b)Residential water service shall not be termi-
nated for non-payment in any of the following
situations:
(1)During an investigation by the District of
a customer dispute or complaint.Any
residential-customer who has initiated a
complaint or requested an investigation
within five days of receiving the disputed
bill,or who has,within 13 days of the
34-3
mailing of the notice that the customer's
service will be terminated for non-
payment,or made a request for extension
of the payment period of a bill asserted
to be beyond the means of the customer to
pay in full during the normal period for
payment,shall be given an opportunity for
a review.The review shall include
consideration of whether the customer
shall be permitted to amortize the unpaid
balance of the account over a reasonable
period of time not to exceed 12 months.
No termination of service shall be
effected for any customer complying with
an amortization agreement,if the customer
also keeps the account current as charges
accrue in each subsequent billing period.
Any customer,whose complaint or request
for an investigation has resulted in an
adverse determination by the District,may
appeal the determination to the Board.
(2)When a customer has been granted an exten-
sion of the period for payment of a bill.
(3)On the certification of a licensed physi-
cian and surgeon that to do so will be
life threatening to the customer and the
customer is financially unable to pay for
service within the normal payment period
and is willing to enter into an amortiza-
tion agreement to pay the unpaid balance
of any bill asserted to be beyond the
means of the customer over a period not to
exceed 12 months.
(c)The ten-day notice of proposed termination may
not be sent to the customer until at least 19
days from the date of mailing of the bill for
services.The ten-day period shall not com-
mence until five days after the mailing of the
notice.
(d)The District shall make a reasonable,good
faith effort to contact an adult person resid-
ing at the premises of the customer by tele-
phone or in person,at least 48 hours prior to
any termination of service.A charge (see
Appendix A,34.02 G.l.(d)for charge)shall be
added to the bill for a contact made in person.
34-4
(e)Every notice of termination of service pursuant
to subdivisions (a)and (c)shall include all
of the following information:
(1)The name and address of the customer whose
account is delinquent.
(2)The amount of the delinquency.
(3)The date by which payment or arrangements
for payment is required in order to avoid
termination.
(4)The procedure by which the customer may
initiate a complaint or request an inves-
tigation concerning service or charges,
except that if the bill for service con-
tains a description of that procedure,
then the notice is not required to contain
that information.
(5)The procedure by which
request amortization
charges.
the
of
customer may
the unpaid
(6)The procedure for the customer to obtain
information on the availability of finan-
cial assistance including private,local,
state or federal sources,if applicable.
(7)The telephone number of a representative
of the District who can provide additional
information or institute arrangements for
payment.
(f)If a residential customer fails to comply with
an amortization agreement,the District shall
not terminate service without giving notice to
the customer at least 48 hours prior to termi-
nation of the conditions the customer is
required to meet to avoid termination,but the
notice does not entitle the customer to further
investigation by the District.
(g)Termination of service shall not occur on any
Friday,Saturday,Sunday,legal holiday or at
any time during which the business offices of
the District are not open to the public.
(h)No termination of service may be effected with-
out compliance with this section and any ser-
vice wrongfully terminated shall be restored,
without charge,for the restoration of service.
34-5
(See California Government Code Section 60373.)
2.Reinstatement of Service.Water service
terminated for delinquency may not be reinstated
until all amounts due and payable,including late
payment charges and meter "turn-on"charges,have
been paid at the District business office,or unless
credit arrangements satisfactory to the District
have been made.
3.Meter "Turn-On"Charge.A "turn-on"charge
shall be made for turning on any meter which has
previously been turned off for a delinquent account.
The charges for turn-on shall be as follows:
(a)For any account turned on during the District's
regular business hours the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(a).
(b)
4839-5321-9592,u
For any account turned on after the District's
regular business hours,the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(b).
34-6
(Formatted:Justified
Exhibit 2
SECTION 53 FEES,RATES,CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER
SERVICE
53.01 CONDITIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF SEWER SERVICE CAPACITY
Sewer service capacity may be acquired only for service
to a specific address,parcel of land,or a land development
project covered by an approved map.An approved map shall
mean a recorded final map,a recorded parcel map or a
tentative subdivision map that has been approved by the County
or by a City,as applicable.
53.02
A.
SERVICE AREAS
Service Areas.Sewer service shall be furnished by
the District only to property located in Improvement
District No.14 ("1.D.14"),Improvement District
No.18 ("I.D.18"),and Assessment District No.4
("A.D.4"),and the Russell Square Sewer Service
Area.Sewer service to property located outside
such areas may be furnished only upon annexation to
ID 18 and payment of all applicable annexation fees.
53.03
53.04
A.
A.
ACQUISITION OF SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR SERVICE IN I.D.
14,I.D.18 AND A.D.4
There shall be no connection capacity fee for sewer
service to parcels already annexed into Improvement
District No.14,Improvement District No.18 and
Assessment District No.4 on or after December 16,
1998.
ACQUISITION AND PURCHASE OF SEWER CAPACITY FOR
SERVICE IN THE RUSSELL SQUARE SEWER SERVICE AREA
District Acceptance of Sewer Facilities for Russell
Square Area.Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado
Development,Inc.,dated June 28,1981,the District
accepted title to a sewer pump station,force main
and appurtenances for a sewage system to provide
sewer service to the residential dwelling
units to be constructed within the parcels of land
in San Diego County Tentative Parcel Map 17150.
Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado Development,
Inc.,dated June 18,1981,the District agreed to
provide service to such parcels on the terms and
conditions contained therein.On October 1,1984,
pursuant to Resolution No.2139,the District Board
of Directors accepted title to the facilities.
53-1
B.Designation of Russell Square Sewer Area.The geo-
graphical area described on the District Map
entitled "Russell Square Sewer Service Area,"dated
October 11,1988,on file with the District
Secretary,constitutes the Russell Square Sewer
Service Area.
C.Connection Fees for Connections for Sewer Service
through the Russell Square Sewer Pump Station.
1.Sewer Connection Fee
A connection fee (see Appendix A,53.04 C.1.
for fee)for each EDU of sewer service provided
through Russell Square Pump Station shall be
collected.The connection fee is due at the
time an application for sewer service is
submitted.The number of EDUs for the con-
nection shall be as set forth in Section 53.09
of the Code.Since the Russell Square Pump
Station and force main were constructed by the
developer or his assignee,at their expense,
for the purpose of providing service to the
parcels within Tentative Parcel Map 17150,the
connection fee shall not apply to connections
for sewer service to the parcels within said
map.Such exempt parcels are currently identi-
fied as Assessor Parcel Nos.497-011-41,497-
011-42,497-011-44,497-011-46 and 497-011-47.
2.Monthly Sewer Service Charge
A monthly sewer service charge (see Appendix A,
53.04 C.2.for charge)to cover normal
operational costs of the Russell Square Pump
Station and force mains shall be collected.
This charge shall be reviewed by the Board of
Directors from time to time to assure that such
charges cover the costs for operation of the
sewer facilities.
3.The proceeds of the fees and charges received
by the District under 1 and 2 above shall be
used by the District solely for maintenance,
replacement or repair under C.1.above and for
the operation of the facilities under C.2.
above.
4.In addition,the customer for such service
shall pay the monthly service charge for sewer
service set forth in Section 53.11.
53-2
53.05
53.06
53.07
53.08
1.
CHARGES FOR INSTALLATION OF SEWER LATERALS
Upon application for construction of one or more
sewer laterals,the customer shall deposit with the
District the estimated costs to be incurred by the
District in connection with the installation of the
facilities required,as determined by the District.
Upon completion of the work,the District shall
calculate the actual costs incurred by the District
in performing the work.If actual costs are less
than the amount deposited,the District shall refund
the balance of the deposit to the customer.If
actual costs exceed the amount deposited,the
customer shall reimburse the District for the
additional costs.
PAYMENT OF FEES
All fees prescribed in the Code shall become owing,
due and payable at the time application is made to
connect a premise to the sewer system of the Dis-
trict.The fees shall be paid to the District prior
to the issuance of any permit authorizing the
connection of such premise to the District sewer
system.If the proposed connection cannot be made,
the fee may be refunded when approved by the General
Manager.
SEWER SERVICE USE CHANGES RESULTING IN INCREASED
SYSTEM UTILIZATION
The use of a sewer connection shall be limited to
the type and number of EDUs authorized by the
original wastewater discharge permit.Before adding
any additional equivalent dwelling units,buildings,
modifying existing buildings,or change of occupancy
type,the property owner shall make a supplementary
wastewater permit application to the District for
such change in use and pay additional sewer
annexation fees per EDU,if necessary,as may be
applicable.Periodic inspection of the premises may
be made by the District and if actual use is greater
than estimated use,an assessment for additional
annexation fees shall be assessed in accordance with
the fee schedule in the then current Code of
Ordinances.
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT ISSUANCE AND LIMITATION
A wastewater discharge permit shall be required for
any property for which a request is made to dis-
charge into the District sewage system.
53-3
2.
3.
53.09
1.
Every wastewater discharge permit shall expire by
limitations and shall become null and void,if the
construction or work authorized by such permit is
not commenced within 120 days from date of issuance
of such wastewater discharge permit or if the con-
struction or work authorized by such wastewater dis-
charge permit is suspended or abandoned for a period
of 120 days at any time after the work is commenced.
Before such work can be recommenced,a new waste-
water discharge permit application must be filed
with the District.The District may reactivate the
previous wastewater discharge permit provided that
wastewater quantity and type is the same as the
wastewater discharge allowed under the original per-
mit,and provided further that such suspension and
abandonment has not exceeded one year.Fees paid
for the previous wastewater discharge permit may be
credited toward the total permit fees required on
the new permit application.Reactivation of the
previous wastewater discharge permit shall be sub-
ject to District sewer capacity being available at
the time of new application and subject to any
additional costs or charges imposed during the
period of such suspension or abandonment.
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF EDUs
The number of EDUs for sewer service shall be deter-
mined on the following basis:
a)Residential Facilities EDUs
1)Single-Family Residence 1.0
(Includes manufactured homes,and mobile
homes which are on private lots
A secondary structure with a kitchen is
considered an additional EDU
2)
3)
4)
Apartments and Multiple Family Housing
Each individual living unit
Residential condominiums
Each individual living unit
Mobile Home and Trailer Parks
Per each individual space
53-4
1.0
1.0
1.0
b)Commercial/Industrial Facilities
1)Food Service Establishments
a)Take-out restaurants with dis-
posable utensils,no dishwasher
and no public restrooms 3.0
b)Miscellaneous food establishments -
ice cream/yogurt shops,bakeries
(sales on premise only)3.0
c)1)Take-out/eat-in restaurants with
disposable utensils,but with
seating and public restrsoms 3.0
2)Restaurants with reuseable
utentsils,seating and public
restrooms (0-18 seats)
Each additional 6 seat unit,
or portion thereof
2)Hotels and Motels
3.0
1.0
a)
b)
Per living unit without kitchen
Per living unit with kitchen
0.38
0.60
3)Commercial,Professional,Industrial
Buildings,Establishments not specifi-
cally listed herein
a)Any office,store or industrial
condominium or establishments.
first 1,000 sq.ft.1.2
Each additional 1,000 sq.ft.or
portion thereof 0.7
b)Where occupancy type or usage is
unknown at the time of application
for service,the following EDUs
shall apply.This shall include,
but not be limited to,shopping
centers,industrial parks and profes-
sional office buildings.
53-5
First 1,000 sq.ft.of gross build-
ing floor area 1.2
Each additional 1,000 square feet
of gross building floor area.Por-
tions less than 1,000 sq.ft.will
be prorated.0.7
4)Self-service laundry per washer 1.0
5)Churches,theaters and auditoriums per
each 150 person seating capacity or any
fraction thereof.(Does not include
office spaces,schoolrooms,day-care
facilities,food preparation areas,etc.
Additional EDUs will be assigned for
these supplementary uses).1.5
6)Schools
a)
b)
c)
Elementary Schools -For
each 50 pupils or fraction
thereof
Junior High Schools -For
each 40 pupils or fraction
thereof
High Schools,Colleges and
Universities -For each
24 pupils or fraction
thereof
1.0
1.0
1.0
Additional EDUs will be prorated based
on above values.
The number of pupils shall be based on
the average daily attendance of pupils
at the school during the preceding fiscal
year,computed in accordance with the
education code of the State of California.
However,where the school has had no
attendance during the preceding fiscal
year,the General Manager shall estimate
the average daily attendance for the fiscal
year for which the fee is to be paid and
compute the fee based on such estimate.
53-6
53.10
7)Convalescent Homes
a)Skilled nursing care facilities,
psychological hospitals,con-
valescent hospitals;licensed by
the Department of Health.0.7/bed
b)Community Care Facilities with 16
or more beds licensed by the state
Department of Health.O.S/bed
c)Small Community Care Facilities
with 7 to 15 beds licensed by the
County Department of Social
Services 0.5/bed
d)Community Care Homes with six or
fewer total residents,including
resident staff and housekeepers
(to be the same EDU as a single-
family residence).1.0
8)Other
In the case of commercial,industrial and
other business establishments such as bot-
tling works,supermarkets,markets,
deli/markets,convenience stores,hospi-
tals,laundries (other than self-service
laundries),automobile service stations,
mortuaries,day-care centers,bars,pool
halls,and other establishments not
included in items 1)through 7)inclusive,
or when the EDUs specified in items 1)
through 7)are not representative of
actual flow due to the number of employees
or type of operation,the number of
equivalent dwelling units shall be deter-
mined in each case by the General Manager
and shall be based upon the estimated vol-
ume and type of wastewater discharge into
the sewer.
TRANSFER,ASSIGNMENT,OR RESALE OF SEWER
CONNECTION RIGHTS
53-7
53.11
A.
B.
EDU sewer connection rights obtained by a customer
may not be sold,transferred,or assigned separately
from ownership of the real property for which they
were obtained,unless otherwise stated in an
agreement with the District.
SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES
Set-up Fees for Accounts.A set-up fee (see
Appendix A,53.11 A.for fee)shall be charged for
each account transferred to another customer.
Residential Sewer Charges.
Five-year Rate Increase Schedule -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are sUbject to a
five-year schedule of rate increases beginning
September 1,2009 and periodically thereafter
through June 30,2014.The increases under this
schedule shall be the amount sufficient to cover
cost increases related to operation and maintenance,
but not to exceed 10%per year.
Five-year Periodic Pass-through Rate Increases or
Decreases from District Wholesalers -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are subject to
periodic rate changes from the District's public
agency wholesalers for a five-year period beginning
September 1,2009 through June 30,2014.
(1)Winter Average Determination.Sewer service
usage fee shall be based on the "Winter
Average"water consumption,measured in units
of hundred cubic feet (HCF).The winter
average period is January through April.The
winter average is calculated by adding the four
months of water consumption for the preceding
winter and dividing the resulting amount by
four.This average is then reduced by a 15%
usage discount,recognizing that not all water
used flows into the sewer system,to determine
the "Winter Average"for billing purposes.
(2)Usage Fee.The usage fee rate (see Appendix A,
53.11 B.2.for rate)is multiplied by the
"Winter Average"calculation for each customer
(after the above noted 15%discount)and the
resulting amount is added to the Fixed Service
Charge applicable to the size of meter.The
resulting fixed fee shall be charged on a
monthly basis for an entire calendar year,
until a new "Winter Average"is determined for
the following year.
53-8
(3)Base Fee.The monthly base fee per meter size
is set forth in Appendix A,53.11 B.3.
(4)Monthly Residential Sewer Rate without
Consumption History.The average residential
sewer charge shall be determined by calculating
the total usage fee for all residential
customers and dividing by the number of
residential customers.Then the monthly base
fee for a 3/4 inch meter is added to this
average fee and this shall be used to determine
the rate per ASU to be used for commercial
customers.The monthly residential sewer rate
without consumption history is as set forth in
Appendix A,53.11 B.4.
C.Single Residential Winter Averaging
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for individually
metered residential households.
(2)The monthly sewer bill is calculated by adding
the base fee plus the usage fee as described in
5.11.B.(1),(2),&(3)above.
(3)The maximum "Winter Average"for individually
metered residential customers is 30 units
(after the 15%discount).
(4)Residential Service without Consumption
History.Sewer service for new accounts with
no prior winter consumption,customers using
well water or other unmetered water shall be
assigned a "Winter Average"for single
individually metered households.See Appendix
A,53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
D.Multi-Residential Rate Charges
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for master metered
water service for multiple-residential
households including for example;duplex,
townhomes,apartments,and mobile homes.
(2)The monthly sewer bill for the complex is
calculated by adding a 3/4 inch base fee (as
set forth in Appendix A,53.11.B.3.)times the
number of units in the complex plus the usage
fee (as set forth in Appendix A,53.11.0.2.)
for the entire complex.(Note:There is no cap
on consumption for the multi-residential
customers.)
53-9
(3)New complexes that do not have a prior winter
consumption history to determine their monthly
usage fee shall be assigned a "Winter Average"
for each multiple-residential unit in a master
metered residential complex.See Appendix A,
53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
E.Commercial Sewer Charges
(1)ASU Determination:The charges for commercial
sewer service shall be based on the rate of
discharge and the strength of sewage.The Board
of Directors may adjust the charges in proportion
to the amount of water not entering the sewer
which is substantiated by the property owner or
discharger.
(2)The strength of sewage is based on its biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD)and the cost of removing
suspended solids (SS).
(3)The formula is derived by taking the total cost of
providing sewer service and charging each user
for a pro-rata share.
(4)The State Revenue Program Guidelines require use
of an "Assigned Service Unit Assignment Formula"
which converts higher strength uses into a
service unit value which is comparable to the use
impact of a single-family residential user or
equivalent dwelling unit.The formula for
determining an Assigned Service Unit (ASU)for a
single-family dwelling is set forth in the annual
budget,which is incorporated herein by
reference.
(5)The formula is based on an estimated daily flow of
250 gallons per day plus 280 milligrams per liter
of BOD and 234 milligrams per liter of SS for a
residential equivalent dwelling unit.
(6)For commercial users the flow is based on 85%of
their prior 12-month water consumption to reflect
the amount of water that returns to the system.
The basis for determining estimated flow for
unmetered water will be calculated on the demand
imposed on the water system.The strength of
discharge for commercial user is based on whether
it is classified as a low-strength,medium-
strength or high-strength user.
User Classification
53-10
Low-strength Commercial 1.000 Strength Factor
Car wash
General office and buildings
Barber and beauty shops
Department,retail stores and general
commercial
Hospitals and convalescent homes
Laundromat,laundry and dry cleaners
Professional office or office building
Warehouse
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
Medium-Strength Commercial =1.238 Strength Factor
Bars without dining facilities
Bowling alley
Hotels without dining facilities or cooking
facilities
Auto repair/sales shop and service station
Shopping centers
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
High-Strength Commercial =2.203 Strength Factor
Bakery or bakery with deli
Hotel with dining facilities
Restaurants and bars with food
Supermarkets
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
Institutional =1.000 Strength Factor
Churches:Treated the same as Low-Strength
Commercial.
Schools:For public schools flow is based on
average daily attendance ("ADA")for the prior
school year,including summer school,as .
reported by schools to meet state requirements.
Private schools will be required to file a
report verifying their attendance.For
elementary schools 50 students shall equal 1
ASU.For junior high schools 40 students shall
equal 1 ASU and for high schools 24 students
equals 1 ASU.The formula for schools shall be
the same as applies to single-family
residential.For charges see Appendix A,53.11
E.6.
53-11
Colleges:For colleges,flow is based on the
number of Certificated and Classified Staff,
and students enrolled in each school session
(spring,summer,and fall):
Gallons per day (GPO)no.of students and staff x
no.of weeks spring
session)
+(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks summer
session)
+(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks fall
session)
+(no.of staff x no.of non-
session weeks)
x 23.;.52
ASU Daily Flow x Strength Factor
((GPO x 85%)-;.250]x 1.000
The minimum charge for commercial shall be no lower
than 1 ASU at low strength.Charges are determined
each fiscal year.The formula is set forth in the
annual budget,which is incorporated herein by
reference.
F.Charges to Cover the State Loan Program for the
Treatment Facility.A (see Appendix A,53.11 F.for
fee)fee per ASU shall be attached to the property
tax bills to cover the annual payment on the
$5,000,000 state loan until such loan is paid in
full.
G.Monthly Service Charges for Commercial Sewer
Service.The Monthly Sewer Service charges for
service furnished by the District,shall be:
1.Commercial and Institutional (per ASU)
Commercial users shall be charged based upon
the ASUs derived in Section 53.11 E.(4).For
charges see Appendix A,53.11.G.l.
2.Industrial and Other Users
Charges determined by the Board of Directors on
a case-by-case basis.
Monthly sewer service charges shall commence upon
installation of the water meter to serve the
premises receiving the sewer service,upon
53-12
connection to the District sewer system,upon start
of occupancy of the premises to be served,or one
year after the date the application for sewer
service is filed,whichever is earlier.If a sewer
service connection has been obtained and if sewer
service will not be used until some time after
installation of the water meter,commencement of the
sewer service charge may be deferred until the later
date only upon prior approval of the General
Manager.
H.Issuance and Payment of Sewer Bills
1.Issuance of Statements:Statements for sewer
service or other charges will be mailed monthly
or as soon as practical,after the applicable
charges have been determined.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Due Date:Each statement issued by the
District for such charges shall be due and
payable on the date of mailing or other
presentation to the customer.
Final Payment Date:All charges in each
statement must be paid on or before the final
payment date shown on the statement,which----
shall be at least 20 calendar days following
the date of mailing or presentation of the
statement.
Place of Payment:Payments shall not be
credited to a customer's account until cash,
check,credit card,draft,electronic funds
transfer,money order or any other acceptable
form of payment that will be honored by the
bank has been received by the District at the
District business,office during regular office
hours.Deposit of payment in the mail or at a
location other than the District business
office shall not be credited to a customer's
account until received at the business office.
Returned Check Charge~:A returned payment
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 D.2 for charge)
shall be added to a customer's account in each
instance where payment has been made to the
District with a check,draft,credit card or
any other acceptable form of payment that has
not been honored upon presentment to the bank
upon which it is drawn.
.---
.,
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:0.5",Numbered
+Level:1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indentat:1.5"
Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25"
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:0.5",Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.2S"+Indent at:1.5"
Formatted:List Paragraph,Line spacing:
single,No bullets or numbering
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:0.5",Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Styie:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indent at:1.5"
Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25"
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:0.5",Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indentat:1.5"
Formatted:List Paragraph,Line spacing:
single,No bullets or numbering
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:0.5",Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Startat:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indentat:1.5"
Formatted:Indent:Left:0"
1.Delinguent Accounts
53-13
Formatted:Numbered +Level:1+
Numbering Style:I,II,III,...+Start at:1 +
Alignment:Left +Aligned at:0.5"+Indent at:
1"
1.
2.
Requirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Delinquencies:If payments on a customer
account have become delinquent five or more
times,the General Manager,Chief Financial
Officer,or any person delegated by the General
Manager,shall be authorized to require the
customer to make a deposit with the District,
in cash or any other form satisfactory to the
Gene~~Manager.The deposit amount shall be
established at the discretion of the General
Manager and the Chief Financial Officer,but
shall not exceed two times the highest bill
during the twelve (12)months preceding the
date of demand for a deposit.
Handling of Deposit:A deposit shall not earn +---
interest and shall only be applied to reduce or
satisfy amounts due the District in the event
of termination of service.A deposit does not
constitute payment for service bills and t~
customer shall be required to comply with bill
payment requirements to continue receiving
service.
Formatted:Indent:left:1",Hanging:OS',
Numbered +level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,
3,...+Startat:1 +Alignment:left+Aligned
at:1"+Indent at:1.25"
Formatted:Indent:left:1.5"
Formatted:Indent:left:I",Hanging:OS',
Numbered +level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,
3,...+Startat:1 +Alignment:left +Aligned
at:I"+Indent at:1.25"
3.Refund of Deposit:A deposit required under +,~--~t~h~is Section shall be refunded to the customer
as provided in Section 25.04 B.
53-14
Formatted:list Paragraph,linespacing:
single,No bullets or numbering
Formatted:Indent:left:1",Hanging:OS',
Numbered +level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,
3,...+Startat:1+Alignment:left +Aligned
at:I"+Indent at:1.25"
Attachment C
SECTION 34 ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS
34.01 ISSUANCE,DUE DATE AND FINAL PAYMENT DATE OF
STATEMENT OF CHARGES FOR SERVICE
A.Issuance of Statements.Statements for water
service or other charges will be mailed or presented
as soon as practicable after the water meter has
been read and the applicable charges have been
determined.
B.Due Date.Each statement issued by the District for
such charges shall be due and payable on the date of
mailing or other presentation to the customer.
C.Final Payment Date.All charges in each statement
must be paid on or before the final payment date
shown on the statement,which shall be at least 20
calendar days following the date of mailing or
presentation of the statement.
D.Payment of Charges.
1.Place of Payment.Payments shall not be
credited to a customer's account until cash,check,
credit card,draft,electronic funds transfer,money
order,or any other acceptable form of payment that
will be honored by the bank has been received by the
District at the District business office during
regular office hours.Deposit of payment in the
mail or at a location other than the District
business office shall not be credited to a
customer's account until received at the business
office.
2.Returned Check Charges.A returned payment
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 0.2.for charge)shall
be added to a customer I s account in each instance
where payment has been made to the District with a
check,draft,credit card or any other acceptable
form of payment that has not been honored upon
presentment to the bank upon which it is drawn.
34.02
A.
DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
For Non-Payment of
statement for a
received at the
before the final
become delinquent.
B.Late Payment Charge.A late payment charge (see
Appendix A,34.02 B.for charge)of the total amount
34-1
delinquent shall be added to each delinquent account
at the time any amount becomes delinquent,provided
that the charge shall not be made on any account
which at that time has no delinquencies of record.
When a late payment charge is made,such shall be
added to the delinquent account as of the date the
account becomes delinquent and such charges shall
become an inseparable part of the amount due as of
that time.
C.Notice of Delinquency.A delinquency notice shall
be mailed to each customer whose account is
delinquent,notifying the customer that service will
be turned off unless payment is made.The notice
shall indicate the amount due,including late
payment charges,and that the total amount must be
paid within fifteen (15)calendar days from the date
of mailing or presentation of the notice to the
customer,or service will be discontinued.
D.Record of Delinquent Accounts.The District
maintains records of delinquent accounts.Each year
one delinquency shall be removed from the record of
each account that has one or more delinquencies.
E.Partial Payment on Delinquent Account.A partial
payment on a delinquent account may be accepted and
credited to a customer's account;however,the
partial payment shall not cause removal of the
account from a delinquent status and furthermore,
the partial payment shall not preclude the meter
from being turned off for delinquency.
F.Financial Arrangements for Delinquent Accounts.
1.Continuation of Service.The General Manager,
Chief Financial Officer,or any person delegated by
the General Manager,may authorize continuation of
service to a delinquent account if financial
arrangements,satisfactory to the District,have
been established.
2.Requirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Delinquencies.If payments on a customer account
have become delinquent five or more times,or if a
meter has been turned off three or more times for
non-payment of charges,the General Manager,Chief
Financial Officer,or any person delegated by the
General Manager,shall be authorized to require the
customer to make a deposit with the District,in
cash or any other form satisfactory to the General
Manager.The deposit amount shall be established at
the discretion of the General Manager and the Chief
34-2
Financial Officer,but shall not exceed two times
the highest monthly bill during the twelve (12)
months preceding the date of demand for a deposit.
(a)Handling of Deposit.A deposit shall not earn
interest and shall only be applied to reduce or
satisfy amounts due the District in the event
of termination of service.A deposit does not
constitute payment for service bills and the
customer shall be required to comply with bill
payment requirements to continue receiving
service.
(b)Refund of Deposit.A deposit required under
this Section shall be refunded to the customer
as provided in Section 25.04.8.
G.Termination and Reinstatement of Water Service Under
Delinquent Accounts
1.Termination of Service.The water meter or
meters under delinquent accounts may be turned off
and locked if payment has not been made in
accordance with the Notice of Delinquency.
(a)Where an owner or manager is listed by the Dis-
trict as the customer of record of the service,
the District shall make every good faith effort
to inform the actual users of the services when
the account is in arrears by means of a notice
that service will be terminated in ten days.
The notice shall further inform the actual
users that they have the right to become cus-
tomers of the District without being required
to pay the amount due on the delinquent
account.
(b)Residential water service
nated for non-payment in
situations:
shall not be termi-
any of the following
(1)During an investigation by the District of
a customer dispute or complaint.Any
residential customer who has initiated a
complaint or requested an investigation
within five days of receiving the disputed
bill,or who has,wi thin 13 days of the
mailing of the notice that the customer's
service will be terminated for non-
payment,or made a request for extension
of the payment period of a bill asserted
to be beyond the means of the customer to
pay in full during the normal period for
34-3
payment,shall be given an opportunity for
a review.The review shall include
consideration of whether the customer
shall be permitted to amortize the unpaid
balance of the account over a reasonable
period of time not to exceed 12 months.
No termination of service shall be
effected for any customer complying with
an amortization agreement,if the customer
also keeps the account current as charges
accrue in each subsequent billing period.
Any customer,whose complaint or request
for an investigation has resulted in an
adverse determination by the District,may
appeal the determination to the Board.
(2)When a customer has been granted an exten-
sion of the period for payment of a bill.
(3)On the certification of a licensed physi-
cian and surgeon that to do so will be
life threatening to the customer and the
customer is financially unable to pay for
service within the normal payment period
and is willing to enter into an amortiza-
tion agreement to pay the unpaid balance
of any bill asserted to be beyond the
means of the customer over a period not to
exceed 12 months.
(c)The ten-day notice of proposed termination may
not be sent to the customer until at least 19
days from the date of mailing of the bill for
services.The ten-day period shall not com-
mence until five days after the mailing of the
notice.
(d)The District shall make a reasonable,good
faith effort to contact an adult person resid-
ing at the premises of the customer by tele-
phone or in person,at least 48 hours prior to
any termination of service.A charge (see
Appendix A,34.02 G.1.(d)for charge)shall be
added to the bill for a contact made in person.
(e)Every notice of termination of service pursuant
to subdivisions (a)and (c)shall include all
of the following information:
(1)The name and address of the customer whose
account is delinquent.
34-4
(2)The amount of the delinquency.
(3)The date by which payment or arrangements
for payment is required in order to avoid
termination.
(4)The procedure by which the customer may
initiate a complaint or request an inves-
tigation concerning service or charges,
except that if the bill for service con-
tains a description of that procedure,
then the notice is not required to contain
that information.
(5 )The procedure by which
request amortization
charges.
the
of
customer may
the unpaid
(6)The procedure for the customer to obtain
information on the availability of finan-
cial assistance including private,local,
state or federal sources,if applicable.
(7)The telephone number of a representative
of the District who can provide additional
information or institute arrangements for
payment.
(f)If a residential customer fails to comply with
an amortization agreement,the District shall
not terminate service without giving notice to
the customer at least 48 hours prior to termi-
nation of the conditions the customer is
required to meet to avoid termination,but the
notice does not entitle the customer to further
investigation by the District.
(g)Termination of service shall not occur on any
Friday,Saturday,Sunday,legal holiday or at
any time during which the business offices of
the District are not open to the public.
(h)No termination of service may be effected with-
out compliance with this section and any ser-
vice wrongfully terminated shall be restored,
without charge,for the restoration of service.
(See California Government Code Section 60373.)
2.Reinstatement of Service.
terminated for delinquency may not
until all amounts due and payable,
payment charges and meter "turn-on"
34-5
Water service
be reinstated
including late
charges,have
been paid at the District business office,
credit arrangements satisfactory to the
have been made.
or unless
District
3.Meter "Turn-On"Charge.A "turn-on"charge
shall be made for turning on any meter which has
previously been turned off for a delinquent account.
The charges for turn-on shall be as follows:
(a)For any account turned on during the District's
regular business hours the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(a).
(b)For any account turned on after the District's
regular business hours,the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(b).
ND:4839-5321-9592,v.2
34-6
Attachment D
SECTION 53 FEES,RATES,CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER
SERVICE
53.01 CONDITIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF SEWER SERVICE CAPACITY
Sewer service capacity may be acquired only for service
to a specific address,parcel of land,or a land development
project covered by an approved map.An approved map shall
mean a recorded final map,a recorded parcel map or a
tentative subdivision map that has been approved by the County
or by a City,as applicable.
53.02
A.
SERVICE AREAS
Service Areas.Sewer service shall be furnished by
the District only to property located in Improvement
District No.14 ("1.0.14"),Improvement District
No.18 ("1.0.18"),and Assessment District No.4
("A.D.4"),and the Russell Square Sewer Service
Area.Sewer service to property located outside
such areas may be furnished only upon annexation to
10 18 and payment of all applicable annexation fees.
53.03
53.04
A.
A.
ACQUISITION OF SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR SERVICE IN 1.0.
14,1.0.18 AND A.D.4
There shall be no connection capacity fee for sewer
service to parcels already annexed into Improvement
District No.14,Improvement District No.18 and
Assessment District No.4 on or after December 16,
1998.
ACQUISITION AND PURCHASE OF SEWER CAPACITY FOR
SERVICE IN THE RUSSELL SQUARE SEWER SERVICE AREA
District Acceptance of Sewer Facilities for Russell
Square Area.Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado
Development,Inc.,dated June 28,1981,the District
accepted title to a sewer pump station,force main
and appurtenances for a sewage system to provide
sewer service to the residential dwelling
units to be constructed within the parcels of land
in San Diego County Tentative Parcel Map 17150.
Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado Development,
Inc.,dated June 18,1981,the District agreed to
provide service to such parcels on the terms and
conditions contained therein.On October I,1984,
pursuant to Resolution No.2139,the District Board
of Directors accepted title to the facilities.
53-1
B.Designation of Russell Square Sewer Area.The geo-
graphical area described on the District Map
entitled "Russell Square Sewer Service Area,"dated
October 11,1988,on file with the District
Secretary,constitutes the Russell Square Sewer
Service Area.
C.Connection Fees for Connections for Sewer Service
through the Russell Square Sewer Pump Station.
1.Sewer Connection Fee
A connection fee (see Appendix A,53.04 C.1.
for fee)for each EDU of sewer service provided
through Russell Square Pump Station shall be
collected.The connection fee is due at the
time an application for sewer service is
submitted.The number of EDUs for the con-
nection shall be as set forth in Section 53.09
of the Code.Since the Russell Square Pump
Station and force main were constructed by the
developer or his assignee,at their expense,
for the purpose of providing service to the
parcels within Tentative Parcel Map 17150,the
connection fee shall not apply to connections
for sewer service to the parcels within said
map.Such exempt parcels are currently identi-
fied as Assessor Parcel Nos.497-011-41,497-
011-42,497-011-44,497-011-46 and 497-011-47.
2.Monthly Sewer Service Charge
A monthly sewer service charge (see Appendix A,
53.04 C.2.for charge)to cover normal
operational costs of the Russell Square Pump
Station and force mains shall be collected.
This charge shall be reviewed by the Board of
Directors from time to time to assure that such
charges cover the costs for operation of the
sewer facilities.
3.The proceeds of the fees and charges received
by the District under 1 and 2 above shall be
used by the District solely for maintenance,
replacement or repair under C.1.above and for
the operation of the facilities under C.2.
above.
4.In addition,the customer for such service
shall pay the monthly service charge for sewer
service set forth in Section 53.11.
53-2
53.05
53.06
53.07
53.08
1.
CHARGES FOR INSTALLATION OF SEWER LATERALS
Upon application for construction of one or more
sewer laterals,the customer shall deposit with the
District the estimated costs to be incurred by the
District in connection with the installation of the
facilities required,as determined by the District.
Upon completion of the work,the District shall
calculate the actual costs incurred by the District
in performing the work.If actual costs are less
than the amount deposited,the District shall refund
the balance of the deposit to the customer.If
actual costs exceed the amount deposited,the
customer shall reimburse the District for the
additional costs.
PAYMENT OF FEES
All fees prescribed in the Code shall become owing,
due and payable at the time application is made to
connect a premise to the sewer system of the Dis-
trict.The fees shall be paid to the District prior
to the issuance of any permit authorizing the
connection of such premise to the District sewer
system.If the proposed connection cannot be made,
the fee may be refunded when approved by the General
Manager.
SEWER SERVICE USE CHANGES RESULTING IN INCREASED
SYSTEM UTILIZATION
The use of a sewer connection shall be limited to
the type and number of EDUs authorized by the
original wastewater discharge permit.Before adding
any additional equivalent dwelling units,buildings,
modifying existing buildings,or change of occupancy
type,the property owner shall make a supplementary
wastewater permit application to the District for
such change in use and pay additional sewer
annexation fees per EDU,if necessary,as may be
applicable.Periodic inspection of the premises may
be made by the District and if actual use is greater
than estimated use,an assessment for additional
annexation fees shall be assessed in accordance with
the fee schedule in the then current Code of
Ordinances.
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT ISSUANCE AND LIMITATION
A wastewater discharge permit shall be required for
any property for which a request is made to dis-
charge into the District sewage system.
53-3
2 .
3.
53.09
1.
Every wastewater discharge permit shall expire by
limitations and shall become null and void,if the
construction or work authorized by such permit is
not commenced within 120 days from date of issuance
of such wastewater discharge permit or if the con-
struction or work authorized by such wastewater dis-
charge permit is suspended or abandoned for a period
of 120 days at any time after the work is commenced.
Before such work can be recommenced,a new waste-
water discharge permit application must be filed
with the District.The District may reactivate the
previous wastewater discharge permit provided that
wastewater quantity and type is the same as the
wastewater discharge allowed under the original per-
mit,and provided further that such suspension and
abandonment has not exceeded one year.Fees paid
for the previous wastewater discharge permit may be
credited toward the total permit fees required on
the new permit application.Reactivation of the
previous wastewater discharge permit shall be sub-
ject to District sewer capacity being available at
the time of new application and subject to any
additional costs or charges imposed during the
period of such suspension or abandonment.
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF EDUs
The number of EDUs for sewer service shall be deter-
mined on the following basis:
a)Residential Facilities EDUs
1)Single-Family Residence 1.0
(Includes manufactured homes,and mobile
homes which are on private lots
A secondary structure with a kitchen is
considered an additional EDU
2)
3 )
4 )
Apartments and Multiple Family Housing
Each individual living unit
Residential condominiums
Each individual living unit
Mobile Home and Trailer Parks
Per each individual space
53-4
1.0
1.0
1.0
b)Commercial/Industrial Facilities
1)Food Service Establishments
a)Take-out restaurants with dis-
posable utensils,no dishwasher
and no public restrooms 3.0
b)Miscellaneous food establishments -
ice cream/yogurt shops,bakeries
(sales on premise only)3.0
c)1)Take-out/eat-in restaurants with
disposable utensils,but with
seating and public restrooms 3.0
2)Restaurants with reuseable
utentsils,seating and public
restrooms (0-18 seats)
Each additional 6 seat unit,
or portion thereof
2)Hotels and Motels
3.0
1.0
a)
b)
Per living unit without kitchen
Per living unit with kitchen
0.38
0.60
3)Commercial,Professional,Industrial
Buildings,Establishments not specifi-
cally listed herein
a)Any office,store or industrial
condominium or establishments.
first 1,000 sq.ft.1.2
Each additional 1,000 sq.ft.or
portion thereof 0.7
b)Where occupancy type or usage is
unknown at the time of application
for service,the following EDUs
shall apply.This shall include,
but not be limited to,shopping
centers,industrial parks and profes-
sional office buildings.
First 1,000 sq.ft.of gross build-
ing floor area 1.2
53-5
Each additional 1,000 square feet
of gross building floor area.Por-
tions less than 1,000 sq.ft.will
be prorated.0.7
4)Self-service laundry per washer 1.0
5)Churches,theaters and auditoriums per
each 150 person seating capacity or any
fraction thereof.(Does not include
office spaces,schoolrooms,day-care
facilities,food preparation areas,etc.
Additional EDUs will be assigned for
these supplementary uses).1.5
6)Schools
a)
b)
c)
Elementary Schools -For
each 50 pupils or fraction
thereof
Junior High Schools -For
each 40 pupils or fraction
thereof
High Schools,Colleges and
Universities -For each
24 pupils or fraction
thereof
1.0
1.0
1.0
Additional EDUs will be prorated based
on above values.
The number of pupils shall be based on
the average daily attendance of pupils
at the school during the preceding fiscal
year,computed in accordance with the
education code of the State of California.
However,where the school has had no
attendance during the preceding fiscal
year,the General Manager shall estimate
the average daily attendance for the fiscal
year for which the fee is to be paid and
compute the fee based on such estimate.
7)Convalescent Homes
a)Skilled nursing care facilities,
psychological hospitals,con-
valescent hospitals;licensed by
the Department of Health.
53-6
0.7/bed
53.10
53.11
A.
b)Community Care Facilities with 16
or more beds licensed by the State
Department of Health.0.5/bed
c)Small Community Care Facilities
with 7 to 15 beds licensed by the
County Department of Social
Services 0.5/bed
d)Community Care Homes with six or
fewer total residents,including
resident staff and housekeepers
(to be the same EDU as a single-
family residence).1.0
8)Other
In the case of commercial,industrial and
other business establishments such as bot-
tling works,supermarkets,markets,
deli/markets,convenience stores,hospi-
tals,laundries (other than self-service
laundries),automobile service stations,
mortuaries,day-care centers,bars,pool
halls,and other establishments not
included in items 1)through 7)inclusive,
or when the EDUs specified in items 1)
through 7)are not representative of
actual flow due to the number of employees
or type of operation,the number of
equivalent dwelling units shall be deter-
mined in each case by the General Manager
and shall be based upon the estimated vol-
ume and type of wastewater discharge into
the sewer.
TRANSFER,ASSIGNMENT,OR RESALE OF SEWER
CONNECTION RIGHTS
EDU sewer connection rights obtained by a customer
may not be sold,transferred,or assigned separately
from ownership of the real property for which they
were obtained,unless otherwise stated in an
agreement with the District.
SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES
Set-up Fees for Accounts.A set-up fee (see
Appendix A,53.11 A.for fee)shall be charged for
each account transferred to another customer.
53-7
B.Residential Sewer Charges.
Five-year Rate Increase Schedule -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are subject to a
five-year schedule of rate increases beginning
September I,2009 and periodically thereafter
through June 30,2014.The increases under this
schedule shall be the amount sufficient to cover
cost increases related to operation and maintenance,
but not to exceed 10%per year.
Five-year Periodic Pass-through Rate Increases or
Decreases from District Wholesalers -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are subject to
periodic rate changes from the District's public
agency wholesalers for a five-year period beginning
September I,2009 through June 30,2014.
(1)Winter Average Determination.Sewer service
usage fee shall be based on the "Winter
Average"water consumption,measured in units
of hundred cubic feet (HCF).The winter
average period is January through April.The
winter average is calculated by adding the four
months of water consumption for the preceding
winter and dividing the resulting amount by
four.This average is then reduced by a 15%
usage discount,recognizing that not all water
used flows into the sewer system,to determine
the "Winter Average"for billing purposes.
(2)Usage Fee.The usage fee rate (see Appendix A,
53.11 B.2.for rate)is multiplied by the
"Winter Average"calculation for each customer
(after the above noted 15%discount)and the
resulting amount is added to the Fixed Service
Charge applicable to the size of meter.The
resulting fixed fee shall be charged on a
monthly basis for an entire calendar year,
until a new "Winter Average"is determined for
the following year.
(3)Base Fee.The monthly base fee per meter size
is set forth in Appendix A,53.11 B.3.
(4)Monthly Residential Sewer Rate without
Consumption History.The average residential
sewer charge shall be determined by calculating
the total usage fee for all residential
customers and dividing by the number of
residential customers.Then the monthly base
fee for a 3/4 inch meter is added to this
average fee and this shall be used to determine
53-8
the rate per ASU to be used for commercial
customers.The monthly residential sewer rate
without consumption history is as set forth in
Appendix A,53.11 B.4.
C.Single Residential Winter Averaging
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for individually
metered residential households.
(2)The monthly sewer bill is calculated by adding
the base fee plus the usage fee as described in
5 .11 .B.(1),(2),& (3)above.
(3)The maximum "Winter Average"for individually
metered residential customers is 30 units
(after the 15%discount).
(4)Residential Service without Consumption
History.Sewer service for new accounts with
no prior winter consumption,customers using
well water or other unmetered water shall be
assigned a "Winter Average"for single
individually metered households.See Appendix
A,53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
D.Multi-Residential Rate Charges
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for master metered
water service for multiple-residential
households including for example;duplex,
townhomes,apartments,and mobile homes.
(2)The monthly sewer bill for the complex is
calculated by adding a 3/4 inch base fee (as
set forth in Appendix A,53.11.B.3.)times the
number of units in the complex plus the usage
fee (as set forth in Appendix A,53.11.D.2.)
for the entire complex.(Note:There is no cap
on consumption for the multi-residential
customers.)
(3)New complexes that do not have a prior winter
consumption history to determine their monthly
usage fee shall be assigned a "Winter Average"
for each multiple-residential unit in a master
metered residential complex.See Appendix A,
53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
E.Commercial Sewer Charges
(1)ASU Determination:The charges for commercial
sewer service shall be based on the rate of
discharge and the strength of sewage.The Board
53-9
of Directors may adjust the charges in proportion
to the amount of water not entering the sewer
which is substantiated by the property owner or
discharger.
(2)The strength of sewage is based on its biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD)and the cost of removing
suspended solids (SS).
(3)The formula is derived by taking the total cost of
providing sewer service and charging each user for
a pro-rata share.
(4)The State Revenue Program Guidelines require use
of an IIAssigned Service Unit Assignment Formula"
which converts higher strength uses into a service
unit value which is comparable to the use impact
of a single-family residential user or equivalent
dwelling unit.The formula for determining an
Assigned Service Unit (ASU)for a single-family
dwelling is set forth in the annual budget,which
is incorporated herein by reference.
(5)The formula is based on an estimated daily flow of
250 gallons per day plus 280 milligrams per liter
of BOD and 234 milligrams per liter of SS for a
residential equivalent dwelling unit.
(6)For commercial users the flow is based on 85%of
their prior 12-month water consumption to reflect
the amount of water that returns to the system.
The basis for determining estimated flow for
unmetered water will be calculated on the demand
imposed on the water system.The strength of
discharge for commercial user is based on whether
it is classified as a low-strength,medium-
strength or high-strength user.
User Classification
Low-Strength Commercial =1.000 Strength Factor
Car wash
General office and buildings
Barber and beauty shops
Department,retail stores and general
commercial
Hospitals and convalescent homes
Laundromat,laundry and dry cleaners
Professional office or office building
Warehouse
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
53-10
Medium-Strength Commercial =1.238 Strength Factor
Bars without dining facilities
Bowling alley
Hotels without dining facilities or cooking
facilities
Auto repair/sales shop and service station
Shopping centers
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
High-Strength Commercial =2.203 Strength Factor
Bakery or bakery with deli
Hotel with dining facilities
Restaurants and bars with food
Supermarkets
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
Institutional =1.000 Strength Factor
Churches:Treated the same as Low-Strength
Commercial.
schools:For public schools flow is based on
average daily attendance ("ADA")for the prior
school year,including summer school,as
reported by schools to meet state requirements.
Private schools will be required to file a
report verifying their attendance.For
elementary schools 50 students shall equal 1
ASU.For junior high schools 40 students shall
equal 1 ASU and for high schools 24 students
equals 1 ASU.The formula for schools shall be
the same as applies to single-family
residential.For charges see Appendix A,53.11
E.6.
Colleges:For colleges,flow is based on the
number of Certificated and Classified Staff,
and students enrolled in each school session
(spring,summer,and fall):
Gallons per day (GPD)
+
+
no.of students and staff x
no.of weeks spring
session)
(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks summer
session)
(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks fall
session)
53-11
+(no.of staff x no.of non-
session weeks)
x 23 7 52
ASU Daily Flow x Strength Factor
[(GPD x 85%)7 250]x 1.000
The minimum charge for commercial shall be no lower
than 1 ASU at low strength.Charges are determined
each fiscal year.The formula is set forth in the
annual budget,which is incorporated herein by
reference.
F.Charges to Cover the State Loan Proqram for the
Treatment Facility.A (see Appendix A,53.11 F.for
fee)fee per ASU shall be attached to the property
tax bills to cover the annual payment on the
$5,000,000 state loan until such loan is paid in
full.
G.Monthlv Service Charges for Commercial Sewer
Service.The Monthly Sewer Service charges for
service furnished by the District,shall be:
1.Commercial and Institutional (per ASU)
Commercial users shall be charged based upon
the ASUs derived in Section 53.11 E.(4).For
charges see Appendix A,53.11.G.1.
2.Industrial and Other Users
Charges determined by the Board of Directors on
a case-by-case basis.
Monthly sewer service charges shall commence upon
installation of the water meter to serve the
premises receiving the sewer service,upon
connection to the District sewer system,upon start
of occupancy of the premises to be served,or one
year after the date the application for sewer
service is filed,whichever is earlier.If a sewer
service connection has been obtained and if sewer
service will not be used until some time after
installation of the water meter,commencement of the
sewer service charge may be deferred until the later
date only upon prior approval of the General
Manager.
H.Issuance and Payment of Sewer Bills
1.Issuance of Statements:Statements for sewer
service or other charges will be mailed monthly
or as soon as practical,after the applicable
charges have been determined.
53-12
2.Due Date:Each statement issued by the
District for such charges shall be due and
payable on the date of mailing or other
presentation to the customer.
3.Final Payment Date:All charges in each
statement must be paid on or before the final
payment date shown on the statement,which
shall be at least 20 calendar days following
the date of mailing or presentation of the
statement.
4.Place of Payment:Payments shall not be
credited to a customer's account until cash,
check,credit card,draft,electronic funds
transfer,money order or any other acceptable
form of payment that will be honored by the
bank has been received by the District at the
District business office during regular office
hours.Deposit of paYment in the mail or at a
location other than the District business
office shall not be credited to a customer's
account until received at the business office.
5.Returned Check Charges:A returned payment
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 D.2 for charge)
shall be added to a customer's account in each
instance where payment has been made to the
District with a check,draft,credit card or
any other acceptable form of payment that has
not been honored upon presentment to the bank
upon which it is drawn.
I.Delinquent Accounts
1.Requirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Delinquencies:If payments on a customer
account have become delinquent five or more
times,the General Manager,Chief Financial
Officer,or any person delegated by the General
Manager,shall be authorized to require the
customer to make a deposit with the District,
in cash or any other form satisfactory to the
General Manager.The deposit amount shall be
established at the discretion of the General
Manager and the Chief Financial Officer,but
shall not exceed two times the highest bill
during the twelve (12)months preceding the
date of demand for a deposit.
53-13
2.Handling of Deposit:A deposit shall not earn
interest and shall only be applied to reduce or
satisfy amounts due the District in the event
of termination of service.A deposit does not
constitute payment for service bills and the
customer shall be required to comply with bill
payment requirements to continue receiving
service.
3.Refund of Deposit:A deposit required under
this Section shall be refunded to the customer
as provided in Section 25.04 B.
53-14
AGENDA ITEM 7e
Joseph R,/,ac e ,Chief Financial Officer
Ger~rez,Assistant General Manager,Finance and
Administration
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
Manager W.O./G.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:Adopt Resolution No.4170 to Designate District Agents for
Disaster Assistance
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board adopts Resolution No.4170 designating specific
staff positions to be authorized as Agents to deal with the
State of California,Office of Emergency Services (OES),on the
District's behalf in all matters pertaining to disaster
assistance.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To authorize District staff in the positions of Safety and
Security Administrator,Finance Manager,and Environmental
Compliance Specialist,to be the authorized contacts on behalf
of the District for all matters pertaining to disaster
assistance.
ANALYSIS:
In December 2010,severe rainstorms throughout California caused
extensive damage throughout the State,resulting in a
Presidential declaration of a disaster for the State of
California (FEMA-1952-DR).San Diego County was one of the
areas designated for Public Assistance,and the District has 5
specific areas where storm damage was incurred.Damage repair
is currently expected to include some or all of the following:
1)debris removal,2)fencing,3)road repair,and 4)erosion
control.Total costs could potentially exceed $200,000.
The District is applying to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA),and the State of California,Office of Emergency
Services (OES),for disaster assistance to help pay for these
repairs.FEMA requires all claims to be processed through OES.
OES requires the governing body of each agency to formally
designate specific agents,by position title,to represent the
agency in all matters pertaining to their application for
disaster assistance.OES will not release any grant money to an
agency that has not provided them with a fully executed Agent
Resolution (OES Form 130)(Attachment C).
In December 2007,as a part of working with OES to obtain funds
for repairs to District property from the October 2007 Harris
Fire,the Board passed Resolution No.4115 to Designate District
Agents for Disaster Assistance.However,OES policy mandates
that this resolution is only valid for a maximum of 3 years.
The District has identified the following three positions as
being the most knowledgeable and appropriate for working
directly with OES and FEMA:1)Safety and Security
Administrator;2)Finance Manager;and 3)Environmental
Compliance Specialist.These are the same positions that were
identified for the previous resolution.
Resolution No.4170 (Attachment B)will renew the District's
designation of individuals authorized to work with FEMA and OES,
which allows for the possibility of a change in personnel
assignments to these agent positions without requiring the Board
to execute a new resolution for another 3 years.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Potential reimbursement of expenses in accordance with FEMA and
OES guidelines.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This item supports a strategic objective of maintaining and
protecting District assets and property.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
2
General
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Resolution No.4170
C)OES Form 130
3
ATTACHMENT A
Adopt Resolution No.4170 to Designate District Agents for
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Disaster Assistance
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
discussed this item at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and the
following comments were made:
•Approximately four years ago,during the fires,the
District was able to apply for and receive Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)monies to provide
assistance to the District for expenditures it incurred due
to damage from the fires.Claims for FEMA monies is
handled by the State.
•The State requires that the District identify authorized
agents by resolution to work with FEMA and the State to
obtain funds for repairs.The resolution adopted in 2007
(Resolution No.4115)by the board,for this purpose,has
expired as the resolution is good for only three (3)years.
•Staff is requesting that the board adopt Resolution No.
4170 to renew the District's designation of specific staff
positions to be authorized agents to deal with the State,
on the District's behalf,in matters pertaining to disaster
assistance.The proposed positions are the same identified
in the resolution adopted in 2007.
•Staff is anticipating collecting approximately $200,000 for
damage to fencing,roadways,etc.from FEMA.
Following the discussion,the committee supported presentation
to the board as a consent item.
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgDisasterAssist040611.doc
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO.4170
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
FOR DESIGNATION OF AGENTS TO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
WHEREAS,the Otay Water District Board of Directors have
been presented with a "Designation of Applicant's Agent
Resolution"for the Otay Water District,authorizing it's
agent(s)to execute for and on behalf of the District for the
purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under
P.L.93-288 as amended by the Robert T.Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988,and/or state financial
assistance under the Natural Disaster Assistance Act;and
WHEREAS,the Board needs to authorize its agent(s)to
provide to the State Office of Emergency Services for all matters
pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and
agreements required;and
WHEREAS,it is in the interest of the District to so
designate agents;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,DETERMINED AND ORDERED by
the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District that the
following three positions are so designated as Authorized Agents:
1)Safety and Security Administrator;2)Finance Manager;and 3)
Environmental Compliance Specialist.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
Otay Water District at a board meeting held this 6th day of April
2011,by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
ATTEST:
District Secretary
President
SlateofCIIUfornla
OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Attachment C
OES ID #_
DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION
FOR NON-STATE AGENCIES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(Governing Body)
OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT
(Name ofApplicant)
THAT -=SA~F=-E:::.T:::..Y=-cA:..:.N::..::D~S=E=:C:::::.U",:R=IT7-Y~A,-"D~M:.:;I~N~I~S~T~R~A~T~O~R~_~,OR
(TitleofAuthorized Agent)
FINANCE MANAGER OR-------------------,(Title ofAuthorized Agent)
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
(Title ofAuthorized Agent)
, a public entity
, a public entity established under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia,
of
is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf ofthe Otay Water District
(Name ofApplicant)
established under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia,this application and to file it in the Office ofEmergency Services for
the purpose ofobtaining certain federal financial assistance under P.L.93-288 as amended by the Robert T.Stafford
Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance Act of 1988,and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster
Assistance Act.
THAT the Otay Water District
(Name ofApplicant)
hereby authorizes its agent(s)to provide to the State Office ofEmergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state
disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required.
IKJ This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters.
o This is a disaster specific resolution and is effective for only disaster number(s)_
Passed and approved this __6::::....-__day of__--cA:.:.c:p.::;.r.=i.=l'--__,20_1_1_
Jaime Bonilla,President
(Name and Title ofGoverning Body Representative)
(Name and Title ofGoverning Body Representative)
(Nameand Title ofGoverning Body Representative)
CERTIFICATION
I,Susan Cruz ,duly appointed and District Secretary
(Name)(Title)
__O_t_a~y,,--w_a_t_e_r~D_i_s_t::-r~1._·c':"'t_-:--,do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy ofa
(Name ofApplicant)
resolution passed and approved by the Board of Directors
(Governing body)
ofthe Otay Water District
(NameofApplicant)
on the 6"-t",,h'-O..-__day of April
(Signature)
OIlS Form 130 (OJ/08)DAD Form
,20_1_1_,
(Title)
Page I
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 7f
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Armando Buelna~'/~
Communications Officer
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!. GM):
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:Authorize Agreement with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck for
Comprehensive State and Federal Legislative Issues Advocacy
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors authorize a one (1)year Agreement
with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS)for an amount not-to-
exceed $160,000 for comprehensive State and Federal legislative
issues advocacy.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See "Attachment A".
PURPOSE:
Authorize a one (1)year Agreement with Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck for an amount not-to-exceed $160,000 for comprehensive
State and Federal legislative issues advocacy.
ANALYSIS:
Procedures governing the selection of general consultants in the
performance of District work are outlined in the District's
Purchasing Procedures Manual.
The District had a time and service consulting agreement with BHFS
for legislative advocacy services.This action will replace the
consultant's Legislative Issues and Service Agreement and expand
the Agreement to authorize BHFS to act as government relations
counsel in Sacramento and Washington DC for both general
legislative matters and in connection with the District's interest
in purchasing water from an ocean water desalination project in
Rosarito Beach,Mexico.
Based on past work,the District feels BHFS is uniquely qualified
to best meet the District's needs for comprehensive state and
federal legislative issues advocacy.
In this expanded role,working with the project team,BHFS will
develop a comprehensive state and federal legislative strategy to
support the Rosarito Beach Desalination Project's implementation.
This action would also authorize the General Manager to amend the
Agreement with BHFS to extend the term as necessary to provide for
the continuation of services,terminate elements of the Agreement,
or to include such other services as deemed necessary and
appropriate by the General Manager.
FISCAL IMPACT:~
The total budget for CIP 2451 is $30,000,000.Actual expenditures
to date are $674,702.Total expenditures plus outstanding
commitments and forecast are approximately $4,840,345.See
Attachment B for budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budget,the Project Manager has
determined that the budget is sufficient to support this project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from
the Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund.
General legislative advocacy is included in the General Manager's
Outside Services budget.The total Fiscal Year 2011 budget for
Legislative Advocacy is $42,000.Total expenditures,plus
outstanding commitments for general legislative advocacy in FY
2011 are $5,339,leaving a balance of $36,661.
Based on a financial review of the Genenal Manager's budget,the
Communication Officer has determined that the budget is sufficient
to support the general legislative advocacy services included in
the Agreement.
Funds will be expended in FY 2011 and FY 2012
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This action supports the District's goal for providing the best
quality water service to the customers of the Otay Water District.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment A -Committee Action Statement
Attachment B -Budget Detail
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Authorize Agreement with
for Comprehensive State
Advocacy
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
and Federal Legislative
Schreck
Issues
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee discussed this item
at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and the following comments were made:
•Staff indicated that the Rosarito Desalination Project is progressing
to the point where it is time for the District to begin working on
acquiring State and Federal approvals (California Department of Health,
International Boundary and Water Commission,and Presidential Permit)
to import water from the desalination plant in Mexico.
•Staff is proposing retaining Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck (BHFS)
to act as government relations counsel in Sacramento and Washington DC
for both general legislative matters and in connection with the
District's interest in purchasing water from the Rosarito Desalination
Plant.
•It was discussed that BHFS attorneys,Ms.Chris Frahm and Mr.David
Bernhardt,would be the District's primary contacts for State and
Federal issues respectively.Mr.Bernhardt had worked for the Bureau
of Reclamation and a contact from the Bureau indicated that Mr.
Bernhardt was a very skilled individual who has a great understanding
of the water issues in the south.The contact also noted that Mr.
Bernhardt has been involved in quite a few Presidential Permits so is
very familiar with the process.
•It was discussed that Ms.Frahm has been working with the District on
State issues for some time and this request will expand BHFS's contract
to also provide Federal representation.
Following the discussion,the committee supported staffs'recommendation and
presentation to the board as a consent item.
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Authorize Agreement
for Comprehensive
Advocacy
with
State
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
and Federal Legislative
Schreck
Issues
OtayWater District
P2451 -Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance
Date Updated:March 10,2011
Outstanding ProjectedFinalBudgetCommittedExpendituresCommilmenl&Cost Vendor/Comments
30,000,000 Forecast
Planning
Addl sUbprojects
Labor 288,717 288,717 288,717
Printing 61 61 -61 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
Mileage Reimbursement 138 «_.".PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN138138
Parking a;:;d~-----------_..
PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN555555
45 45 45 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
21 21 21 WATTON,MARK
Airfare and Transportation 8,746 8,746 8,746 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT---_...~•..--._--------._,.._--------_........_-_..--_._....__._--WATTON;M-ARK787878---",,,---------_._-----~._--U-S BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT ---._--Lodging 3,139 3,139 3,139
1,590 1,590 1,590 WATTON,MARK
729 729 729 BONILLA,JAIME------CONSOLIDATEDWATER COMPANY472472472
Meals and Incidentals 237 237 237 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
38 38 38 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT
194 194 194 WATTON,MARK
395 395 -395 CONSOLIDATEDWATER COMPANY----_.._-----.--------_.
Business Meetings 86 86 86 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN-949 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT949949
Insurance 26 26 26 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
27 27 27 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
ProfessionalI..';gal Fees -...._..-...__..._--",.SOLORZANO Cii'-R"VAJAL GONZALEZ Y43,175 43,175 43,175----".-...-._--_._.._-----.'.._-----.__..._._---~A-CALDERON&RUIZ LLP151,001 151,001 151,001
Other Legal Expenses 9,975 9,975 9,975 GARCIA CALDERON&RUIZ LLP
--WOODRUFF,SPRADLIN &SMART
Regulatory AgencyFees COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO----..~.-US FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE"---·-------
Consultant Contracts 112,562 98,577 13,984 112,562 CAMP DRESSER &MCKEE INC
82,795 44,420 38,375 82,795 MARSTON+MARSTONINC
12,200 12,200 12,200 REA &PARKER RESEARCH--------_..--_..._-
SALVADORLOPEZ-CORDOVA45,000 2,013 42,987 45,000
".¥~---
CPM PARTNERS INC
Service Contracls UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
Service Contracts 106 106 106 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
500 500 500 REBECA SOTURANICKERSON.__.._-----------"•......-----_....._.....__._--_..
OLLI BROS
-_..----_.
160,000 160,000 160,000 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
Total Planning 923,056 667,709 255,346 923,056
Design
Labor 6,650 6,650 6,650
Consultant Contracts 3,910,297 3,910,297 3,910,297 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC
Service Contracts 343 343 343 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC--------------
Total Design 3,917,289 6,992 3,910,297 3,917,289
Grand Total 4,840,345 674,702 4,165,643 4,840,345
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Bob Kennedy &\L--
Associate Civil Engineer
AGENDA ITEM 79
MEETING April 6,2011
DATE:
PROJECTI Various DIV.NO.ALL
SUBPROJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod Posada ~~o~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana~~
Assistant General~anager,Engineering and Operations
Award of As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Engineering Services
Contract for Fiscal Years 2011,2012,and 2013
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
authorizes the General Manager to enter into an agreement for
professional services for As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services with
Narasimhan Consulting Services,Inc.(NCS)in an amount not-to-
exceed $175,000 during Fiscal Years 2011,2012 and 2013 (ending
June 3 0,2 0 13).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the award of a professional
services contract for hydraulic modeling services on an as-needed
basis with NCS.The contract amount is not-to-exceed $175,000 for
Fiscal Years 2011, 2012,and 2013.
ANALYSIS:
The District will require the professional services of a hydraulic
modeling consultant on an as-needed basis in support of the
District's Fiscal Years 2011,2012,and 2013 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)projects,developer funded studies,Engineering
planning studies,Information Technology studies.These services
will also be used to integrate GIS updates into the existing model
and support Operations in the field.The As-Needed Hydraulic
Modeling Engineering Services contract will provide the District
with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and
efficient manner and on an as-needed basis.
The District will require the expertise of a hydraulic modeling
consultant to maintain the current hydraulic model developed with
the Water Resource Master Plan completed last year.This will
include integrating new facilities or GIS updates into the model and
performing planning studies for the Engineering,Operations,and
Information Technology departments.The consultant will perform
fire flow calculations in support of new or existing developments
and prepare developer funded studies.
It is more efficient and cost effective to issue a contract on an
as-needed basis.This concept has also been used in the past for
other disciplines like civil engineering,geotechnical,electrical,
and environmental services.
The District will issue task orders to the consultant for specific
projects during the contract period.The consultant will prepare a
detailed scope of work,schedule,and cost estimate for each task
order assigned under the contract.Upon written task order
authorization from the District,the consultant shall then proceed
with the project as described in the scope of work.
The CIP projects that are estimated to require hydraulic modeling
services for Fiscal Years 2011,2012,and 2013,at this time,are
listed below:
CIP DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST
P2451 Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System $20,000
P2083 PS 870-2 Pump Station Replacement $15,000
P2502 803-1 Pump Station Modifications $10,000
P2503 850-2 Pump Station Modifications $10,000
P2511 North District-South District Interconnection $15,000
P2473 PS 711-1 Pump Station Improvements $10,000
R2091 Rec PS 944-1 Pump Station Upgrade $10,000
P2434 Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development $10,000
R2058 Rec PL Airway Road-Otay Mesa Road $10,000
R2077 Rec PL Alta Road $10,000
R2087 Rec PL Wueste Road $10,000
TOTAL:$130,000
The hydraulic modeling services scopes for the above projects are
estimated from preliminary information and past projects.
2
Therefore,staff believes that a $175,000 cap on the As-Needed
Hydraulic Modeling Services contract is adequate,while still
providing a buffer.
The contract is not-to-exceed $175,000 for all task orders.Fees
for professional services will be charged to the CIP projects or to
the Fiscal Year Operations budget.
This As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Engineering Services contract does
not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is
approved to perform work.The District does not guarantee work to
the consultant,nor does the District guarantee to the consultant
that it will expend all of the funds authorized by the contract on
professional services.
The District solicited hydraulic modeling engineering services by
placing an advertisement on the District website,San Diego Union
Tribune,and the San Diego Daily Transcript.Sixteen (16)firms
submitted a letter of interest and a statement of qualifications.
The Request for Proposal (RFP)for As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling
Services was sent to all sixteen (16)firms resulting in five (5)
proposals received on February 11,2011.They are as follows:
•Stetson Engineers,Inc.
•Aegis Engineering Management
•Narasimhan Consulting Services,Inc.
•PBS&J,an Atkins Company
•IDModeling
The nine (9)firms that chose not to propose are Lee &Ro,Inc.,
J.C.Heden and Associates,Inc.,DHI Water &Environment,Inc.,
Proteus Consulting,CVALDO Corporation,Poggemeyer Design Group,
Ludwig Engineering,RBF Consulting,and Marrs Services,Inc.Two
other firms,Psomas and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants joined with
IDModeling as sub-consultants.
In accordance with the District's Policy 21,staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals.NCS received the highest score for
their services based on their experience,understanding of the scope
of work,proposed method to accomplish the work,and their composite
hourly rate.NCS was the most qualified consultant with the best
overall proposal.The District has not worked with NCS on any
project,but they are a highly rated company and are readily
available to provide the services required.A summary of the
complete evaluation is shown in Attachments B.
3
FISCAL IMPACT:
The funds for this contract will be expended from various CIP
project budgets and the Operating budget.The fees for professional
services requested herein are available in the authorized CIP
project budgets and in the Fiscal Year 2011 Operating budget.This
contract is for professional services based on the District's need
and schedule,and expenditures will not be made until a task order
is approved by the District for the consultant's professional
services on a specific project.
The Project Manager anticipates that the Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013
budgets will be sufficient to support the professional services
required in addition to the CIP project budgets for the specific CIP
projects.
Finance has determined that funding is available from the Operating
budget and the various CIP project budgets listed above.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater service to the customers of
the Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner,"and the District's Strategic Goal,in planning for
infrastructure and supply to meet current and future potable water
demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Ge
P:\WORKING\AS Needed Services\Hydraulic Modeling\Fiscal Year 11-13\Staff Report\BD 04-06-11,As-Needed Hydraulic
Modeling Services (BK-RR).doc
BK/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A
Attachment B
4
ATTACHMENT A
r SUBJECi'ip"ROJECT:'Aw~~d""~f"WAs-Need~d~;·d~aulic~~d~ii~g Engi~~~~i~;·ser~i~~~"W'
Various Contract for Fiscal Years 2011,2012,and 2013
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on March 23,2011 and the following
comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board approve and authorize the
General Manager to enter into a professional services
contract with Narasimhan Consulting Services,Inc.(NCS)for
As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Engineering Services in an
amount not-to-exceed $175,000 during Fiscal Years 2011,2012,
and 2013 (ending June 30,2013).
•Staff indicated that the As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling Services
contract would provide the District with the ability to
obtain consulting services in a timely and efficient manner
and on an as-needed basis.NCS will prepare developer funded
studies,engineering planning studies and information
technology studies.They will also support the District's
Capital Improvement Program projects listed on page 2.
•Staff indicated that the process for the selection of a
consultant followed the District's Policy 21.Sixteen (16)
firms submitted a letter of interest and statement of
qualifications and were sent an RFP by the District.Staff
indicated that an oral interview was not applicable to the
selection process because the cost of the project does not
exceed $200,000.
•By the February 11,2011 deadline,the District received five
(5)proposals from:1)Stetson Engineers,Inc.,2)Aegis
Engineering Management,3)Narasimhan Consulting Services,
Inc.,4)PBS&J,an Atkins Company,and 5)IDModeling.
•Staff indicated that the overall evaluation summary on
Attachment B indicates how each firm was scored.NCS
received the highest overall score based on their experience,
proposed method to accomplish the work,and their ability to
complete projects on schedule.
•Also included in Attachment B are fees that were evaluated by
comparing billing rates for four (4)positions:1)Principal,
2)Project Manager,3)Hydraulic Modeling,and 4)GIS
Technician.
•Staff stated that the District has not worked with NCS on any
project,but they are a highly rated company and are readily
available to provide the services required.
•The Committee inquired about the Consultant's Commitment to
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE).Staff indicated
that NCS is a DBE and stated that it is encouraged,but not
required.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling
WRITTEN
Understanding of Soundness and INDIVIDUAL AVERAGE Consultant's REFERENCESQualificationsofViabilityof.Staff Scope.Schedule Proposed Projed SUBTOTAL·SUBTOTAL·Proposed Rates·Commitment to TOTAL SCORE
andResources Plan WRITTEN WRITTEN OBE
MAXIMUM POINTS 30 25 30 85 85 15 YIN 100 Poor/Good!
ExcAllent
DavidCharles 24 21 24 69
RogerHolly 21 17 20 58StetsonMingZhao30 68 3 Y 71Engineers,Inc.23 28 81
Dan;e1 Kay 25 18 21 64
Kevin Cameron 25 19 23 67
DavidCharles 24 23 24 71
Aegis RogerHo/ly 20 17 18 55
Engineering MingZhao 20 20 22 62 65 12 Y 77
Management Danie/Kay 23 21 25 69
Kevin Cameron 24 20 22 66
DavidCharles 25 24 27 76
RogerHolly 27 20 21 66
NCS Engineers MingZhao 25 25 26 76 75 15 Y 90 Good
DanialKay 24 22 27 73
Kevin CaTn6ron 29 24 28 81
David Charles 26 23 25 74
RogerHolly 29 24 29 82PBS&J,an Minglhao 25 25 26 76 77 11 Y 88AtkinsCompany
Daniel Kay 25 23 27 75
K8vin Cameron 28 23 27 78
David Charlos 26 24 27 77
RogerHofly 27 19 21 67
IDModeling MingZhao 28 20 25 73 75 1 Y 76
DanielKay 25 23 28 74
Kevin Cameron 30 23 29 82
ReVIew Panel does notsee orconsiderrates when sCOflngothercategories.Ratesare scored by thePM.who ISnot on ReviewPanel.
RATES SCORINGCHART
Consultant ProposedRates Position Score
NCS Engineers $442 lowest 15
AegisEngineering $480 12
PBS&J $503 11
Stetson Engineers $610 3
IDModeling $645 highest 1
The fees were evaluated bycomparing rates for four positions.These
positions include Principal,Project Manager,Hydraulic Modeling,and GIS
technician.The sum ofthese fourrates are noted on the table above.
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Award of As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling
Engineering Services Contract for Fiscal Years
2011,2012,and 2013
Project No.:Various
Document Description:Staff Report for April 6,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
Signature
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
Date
Date
:?lrlll
Date
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.
AGENDA ITEM 7h
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:April 6,2011TYPEMEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Bob Kennedy l>'t--
Associate Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
W.O.lG.F.No.:00833-DIV.NO.2
090093
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM)
SUBJECT:
Rod posada~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Maga~~E-=-
Assistant General M nager,Engineering and Operations
Approval of Water pply Assessment Report (February 2011)
for the Rabago Technology Park
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors
(Board)approve the Water Supply Assessment Report (WSA Report)
dated February 2011 for the Rabago Technology Park (Rabago)
Project,as required by Senate Bill 610 (see Exhibit A for
Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board approval of the February 2011 WSA Report for the
Rabago Project,as required by Senate Bill 610 (SB 610).
ANALYSIS:
SB 610 requires a city or county to evaluate whether total water
supplies will meet the projected water demand for certain
"projects"that are otherwise subject to the requirement of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).SB 610 provides
its own definition of "project"in Water Code Section 10912.
The County of San Diego (County)submitted a request for a WSA
to the District pursuant to SB 610.SB 610 requires that,upon
request of the city or county,a water purveyor,such as the
District,prepare a water supply assessment to be included in
the CEQA documentation.
The requirements of SB 610 are addressed by the WSA Report for
the Rabago Project.Prior to transmittal to the County,the WSA
Report must be approved by the District Board.Additional
information of the intent of SB 610 is provided in Exhibit Band
the Rabago Project WSA Report is attached as Exhibit C.
For the Rabago Project,the County is the responsible land use
agency that requested the SB 610 water supply assessment from
the District,as the water purveyor for the proposed Rabago
Technology Park Project.The request for the WSA Report,in
compliance with SB 610 requirements,was made by the County
because the Rabago Project meets or exceeds one or both of the
following SB 610 criteria:
• A proposed industrial,manufacturing or processing plant,
or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000
persons,occupying more than 40 acres of land,or having
more than 650,000 square feet of area.
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent
to,or greater than,the amount of water required by a 500
dwelling unit project.
The Rabago Project development plan proposes the development of
19 industrial business park lots on 71.1 acres.
The District,as the proposed water purveyor for the Rabago
Project,does not have to comply with the requirements of Senate
Bill 221 (SB 221)because the Project is an industrial
subdivision and SB 221 applies to residential subdivisions.
Pursuant to SB 610,the WSA Report incorporates by reference the
current Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources
planning documents of the District,the San Diego County Water
Authority (Water Authority),and the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California (Metropolitan).The District prepared
the WSA Report in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering,
Inc.,and the Water Authority which demonstrates and documents
that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended
to be made available over a 20-year planning horizon under
2
supply conditions and in single and multiple dry years to meet
the projected demand of the Rabago Project and other planned
development projects within the District.
The expected demand for the Rabago Project is 67.5 acre-feet per
year.This is consistent with the estimated demands in the
District's 2009 Water Resources Master Plan Updated November
2010 (WRMP).The projected recycled water demand for the Rabago
Project is 8.7 acre-feet per year,representing about 11 percent
of the total water demand.
Metropolitan's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)identifies a mix
of resources (imported and local)that,when implemented,will
provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands through
the attainment of regional targets set for conservation,local
supplies,State Water Project supplies,Colorado River supplies,
groundwater banking,and water transfers.Metropolitan's 2010
update to the IRP (2010 IRP Update)includes a water supply
planning buffer to mitigate the risk associated with
implementation of local and imported supply programs.The
planning buffer identifies an additional increment of water that
could potentially be developed if other supplies are not
implemented as planned.As part of the establishment of the
planning buffer,Metropolitan periodically evaluates supply
development to ensure that the region is not under-or over-
developing supplies.If managed properly,the planning buffer,
along with other alternative supplies,will help ensure that the
Southern California region,including San Diego County,will
have adequate supplies to meet future demands.
The County Water Authority Act,Section 5,Subdivision 11,
states the Water Authority,"as far as practicable,shall
provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of
water to meet their expanding and increasing needs."
The intent of the SB 610 legislation is that the land use
agencies and the water agencies coordinate their efforts in
planning for new development and thus plan for sufficient water
supplies to meet the needs.
As per the requirements of SB 610,if the water supply
assessment finds that the supply is sufficient,then the
governing body of the water supplier (District)must approve the
water supply assessment and deliver it to the lead agency
(County)within 90 days.The County's WSA request letter dated
December 22,2010 was received by the District January 10,2011.
At the request of the District,the County of San Diego modified
3
the SB Compliance Request letter February 8,2010 to focus the
request for the Rabago Technology Park to comply with SB 610.
Pursuant to SB 610,if the water supply assessment finds overall
supplies are insufficient,the water supplier shall provide to
the lead agency "its plans for acquiring additional water
supplies,setting forth measures that are being undertaken to
acquire and develop those water supplies,"and the water
supplier governing body must approve the assessment and deliver
it to the lead agency within 90 days.If the water supplier
does conclude that additional water supplies are required,the
water supplier should indicate the status or stage of
development of the actions identified in the plans it provides.
Identification of a potential future action in such plans does
not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to proceed
with the action has been made.
Once either of the two actions listed above are accomplished,
the District's SB 610 water supply assessment responsibilities
are complete.
SB 610 provides that if the SB 610 water supply assessment is
not received by the lead agency from the water supplier within
the prescribed 90 day period,and any requested time extension,
the lead agency may seek legal relief,such as writ of mandamus.
The County's request letter dated December 22,2010 was received
by the District January 10,2011 so the 90 day deadline for the
District to provide the WSA Report to the County is April 9,
2011.
Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face
climatological,environmental,legal,and other challenges that
impact water source supply conditions,such as the court ruling
regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues.Challenges
such as these are always present.The regional water supply
agencies,the Water Authority,Metropolitan,and the District
nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient,reliable supplies
to serve the Rabago Project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
/~
The District has been reimbursed $8,000 for all costs associated
with the preparation of the Rabago Project WSA Report.The
reimbursement was accomplished via an $8,000 deposit the Project
proponents placed with the District on February 2,2011.
4
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The preparation and approval of the Rabago Project WSA Report
supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide the best
quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of the
Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner"and the District's Strategic Goal,in planning for
infrastructure and supply to meet current and future potable
water demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Approval of a WSA Report for the Rabago Project in form and
content satisfactory to the Board of Directors would allow the
District to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 610.
P,\~IORKING\I'lO D0833-Rabago Tech Park\Staff Report\BD 04-06-1I,Staff Report,Rabago Tech Park \'ISA (BK-RRI.doc
BK/RR:j f
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Actions
Exhibit A -Project Location Map
Exhibit B Explanation of the Intent of SB 610
Exhibit C Rabago Technology Park WSA Report
Exhibit D Presentation
5
ATTACHMENT A
I
......................................ml
........................._-.....-..____..-....._............•.._.........
SUBJECTIPROJECT:I Approval of Water Supply Assessment Report (February 2011)
D0833-090093 for the Rabago Technology Park
i _.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on March 23,2011
and the following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Otay Water District (District)
Board of Directors (Board)approve the February 2011 Water
Supply Assessment Report for the Rabago Technology Park
(Rabago),as required by Senate Bill 610.
•Staff indicated that Board approval for the submittal of
the WSA Report to the County of San Diego is required.
"Exhibit A"was provided to the Committee that showed the
location of the project site.
•Staff stated that the Rabago Project is a 71.1-acre
development plan involving 19 industrial business park
lots,and indicated that SB 221 Water Supply Verification
does not apply to this Project since it is an industrial
subdivision.
•Staff indicated that the Rabago Project's expected demand
is 67.5 acre-feet per year for potable water,and 8.7 acre-
feet per year for recycled water.
•It was indicated that staff consulted with Dexter Wilson
Engineering and the Water Authority to prepare the February
2011 WSA Report.
• A PowerPoint presentation was provided to the Committee
that included the following:
o Background of Senate Bill 610,which became effective on
January 1,2002,and its intent and how it relates to the
WSA Report
o Land use plan and description for the Rabago Project
o Potable demand estimates for the Rabago Project
o County of San Diego's East Otay Mesa Business Park
Specific Plan,and SANDAG's 2050 Regional Growth Forecast
o Otay Water District's,San Diego County Water
Authority's,and Metropolitan Water District's Urban
Water Management Plan
•Staff indicated that the County's Otay Mesa Business Park
Specific Plan was forwarded to SANDAG who updated its
Series 12 and was made available to the Metropolitan Water
District for their use in updating their Integrated
Resource Plan and their Urban Water Management Plan,and to
CWA to update their Urban Water Management Plan.Staff
noted that the information will also be used in the
District's Urban Water Management Plan scheduled to be
completed by the end of this Fiscal Year.
•Staff indicated that the WSA Report states the following:
"The regional and local water supply agencies acknowledge
the challenges of supply and fully intend to develop
sufficient reliable supplies to meet demands.Water
suppliers recognize additional water supplies are necessary
and portfolios need to be reassessed and redistributed with
intent to serve existing and future needs."
•Staff indicated that the status of the current water supply
situation is documented in the WSA Report with the intent
that the water agencies plan to develop sufficient water
supplies to meet demands.Staff believes that the Board has
met the intent of SB 610 statute in that Land use agencies
and water suppliers have demonstrated strong linkage.
•It was noted that the Robago Project WSA Report includes
(3)three other Otay Water District Planned Local Water
Supply Projects:
o Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well (500-600 AFY)
o Rosarito Ocean Desalination Project (24,000-50,000 AFY)
o Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well (300-400 AFY)
• A slide was presented that showed the Projected Balance of
Potable Water Supplies and Demands in Normal Year
Conditions (AFY).Staff indicated that the projection is
based on collective data and the Otay Water District's 2005
Urban Water Management which is updated every 5 years with
projected water demands.It was noted that the Projected
Demands shown on the slide was recently updated and will be
replaced with updated information at the end of the fiscal
year when the District's 2010 Urban Management Plan is
completed.
•The Committee noted that according to staff,the initial
development plan for the Otay Mesa Business Park Specific
Plan has changed approximately seven times over the years
and inquired if the projected water supply demand has
increased or decreased.Staff indicated that industrial
use for the Specific Plan remains the same,so there are no
changes to the projected water supply demand.
•The Committee inquired if a decrease in the projected water
supply demand was considered now that reclaimed water is
available,which was not available when the Specific Plan
was first initiated.Staff said no because although
recycled water was not available at that time,a projected
reclaimed water demand was included in the initial Specific
Plan,and the District's Urban Management Plan,in
anticipation that recycled water would be made available at
a later date.
•Staff indicated that the District's Engineering Department
maintains growth estimates that helps staff project water
supply demands for future development plans and that an
economist has been retained to provide additional
information on anticipated growth.
•Staff stated that the Rabago Project SB 610 WSA
demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies
are planned for and are intended to be available over the
next 20 years,and that staff believes no challenges are
anticipated for this project.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent
item.
SCALE:1
....VIa.
~,.,
~
"~I-I---;:~-'-"--·_---------"'~~~~~j-----,~-
~<'l
D0833-090093
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
RABAGO TECHNOLOGY PARK
LOCATION MAP
~
.0-~a.
~
o
o.D.
1&~1---~---.oII"'-""------"-----_.l._------------.,~i .,&\g
a:L.__....I~----~E~X~H~IB~I~T~A~------_...
EXHIBIT B
Background Information
The Otay Water District (District)prepared the February 2011 Water Supply
Assessment Report (WSA Report)for the Rabago Technology Park Project (Rabago
Project)development proposal at the request of the County of San Diego (County).
The County's WSA request letter dated December 22,2010 was received by the
District on January 10,2011 so the 90 day deadline for the District to provide the
Board approved WSA Report to the County ends April 9,2011.The Rabago
Investment Group LLC,A California Limited Liability Company submitted an
entitlement application to the County for the development of the Rabago Project.
The Rabago Project is located within the jurisdictions of the District,the San Diego
County Water Authority (Water Authority),and the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (Metropolitan).See Exhibit A for Project location.To obtain
permanent imported water supply service,land areas are required to be within the
jurisdictions of the District,Water Authority,and Metropolitan.
The February 2011 WSA Report for the Rabago Project has been prepared by the
District in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering,Inc.,the Water Authority,and
the County pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water
Code Sections 10631,10656,10910,10911,10912,and 10915 referred to as
Senate Bill (SB)610.SB 610 amended state law,effective January 1,2002,
intending to improve the link between information on water supply availability and
certain land use decisions made by cities and counties.SB 610 requires that the
water purveyor of the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be
included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)environmental
documentation and approval process of certain proposed projects.The requirements
of SB 610 are addressed in the February 2011 WSA Report for the Rabago Project.
The Rabago Investment Group,LLC proposes the development of 19 industrial
business park lots on 71.1 acres.
The expected demands for the Rabago Project is 60,290 gallons per day (gpd)or
about 67.5 acre feet per year (ac-ft/yr).This is consistent with the estimated
demands in the District's Water Resource Master Plan Updated November 2010
(WRMP).The projected recycled water demand for the proposed Rabago Project is
approximately 7,740 gpd pr 8.7 ac-ft/yr,representing about 11 %of the total Rabago
Project water demand.
The District currently depends on the Water Authority and the Metropolitan for all of
its potable water supplies and regional water resource planning.
The District's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)relies heavily on the
UWMP's and Integrated Water Resources Plans (IRPs)of the Water Authority and
Metropolitan for documentation of supplies available to meet projected demands.
These plans are developed to manage the uncertainties and variability of multiple
supply sources and demands over the long-term through preferred water resources
strategy adoption and resource development target approvals for implementation.
The new uncertainties that are significantly affecting California's water resources
include:
•The recent Federal Court ruling on previous operational limits on Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta to protect the Delta species;Water agencies are still trying
to determine what effect the ruling will have on state water project deliveries.
Actual supply curtailments for Metropolitan are contingent upon fish
distribution,behavioral patterns,weather,Delta flow conditions,and how water
supply reductions are divided between state and federal projects.
•Extended drought conditions.
These uncertainties have rightly caused concern among Southern California water
supply agencies regarding the validity of the current water supply documentation.
Metropolitan's October 9,2007 IRP Implementation Report acknowledges that
significant challenges in some resource areas will likely require changes in strategies
and implementation approaches in order to reach long-term lRP water supply targets.
Significant progress in program implementation is being realized in most resource
areas.However,a further examination of the uncertainty of State Water Project
supplies,among other uncertainties,will be required to assess the ability of achieving
the long-term IRP targets.
Metropolitan is currently involved in several proceedings concerning Delta operations
to evaluate and address environmental concerns.In addition,at the State level,the
Delta Vision and Bay-Delta Conservation Plan processes are defining long-term
solutions for the Delta.Metropolitan is actively engaged in these processes and in
October 2010,approved the update of their IRP.An approved implementation
strategy update may not be forthcoming for a year or more.
The State Water Project (SWP)represents approximately 9%of Metropolitan's 2025
Dry Resources Mix with the supply buffer included.A 22%cutback in SWP supply
represents an overall 2%(22%of 9%is 2%)cutback in Metropolitan supplies in
2025.Neither the Water Authority nor Metropolitan has stated that there is
insufficient water for future planning in Southern California.Each agency is in the
process of reassessing and reallocating their water resources.
Under preferential rights,Metropolitan can allocate water without regard to historic
water purchases or dependence on Metropolitan.Therefore,the Water Authority and
its member agencies are taking measures to reduce dependence on Metropolitan
2
through development of additional supplies and a water supply portfolio that would
not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation.
As calculated by Metropolitan,the Water Authority's current preferential right is
17.22%of Metropolitan's supply,while the Water Authority accounted for
approximately 25%of Metropolitan's total revenue.So Metropolitan could
theoretically take a 7.8%cut out of the Water Authority's supply and theoretically,the
Water Authority should have alternative water supply sources to make up for the
difference.
In the Water Authority's 2005 UWMP,they had already planned to reduce reliance on
Metropolitan supplies to 372,922 acre-feet per year by 2030,which is a 28%
reduction from the Fiscal Year 2005 Water Authority purchase from Metropolitan.
This reduction is planned to be achieved through diversification of their water supply
portfolio.
The Water Authority's Drought Management Plan (May 2006)provides the Water
Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to engage when
faced with a shortage of imported water supplies due to prolonged drought
conditions.Such actions help avoid or minimize impacts of shortages and ensure an
equitable allocation of supplies throughout the San Diego County region.
The District Board of Directors should acknowledge the ever-present challenge of
balancing water supply with demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and
adaptable water supply implementation strategy that can be relied upon during
normal and dry weather conditions.The responsible regional water supply agencies
have and will continue to adapt their resource plans and strategies to meet
climatological,environmental,and legal challenges so that they may continue to
provide water supplies to their service areas.The regional water suppliers (i.e.,the
Water Authority and Metropolitan),along with the District,fully intend to maintain
sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal,single,
and multiple dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the Rabago Project,
along with existing and other planned development projects within the District's
service area.
If the regional water suppliers determine additional water supplies will be required,or
in this case,that water supply portfolios need to be reassessed and redistributed with
the intent to serve the existing and future water needs throughout Southern
California,the agencies must indicate the status or stage of development of actions
identified in the plans they provide.Metropolitan's 2010 IRP update will then cause
the Water Authority to update its IRP and UWMP,which will then provide the District
with the necessary water supply documentation.Identification of a potential future
action in such plans does not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to
proceed with the action has been made.The District's Board approval of the Rabago
Project WSA Report does not in any way guarantee water supply to the Rabago
Project.
3
Alternatively,if the WSA Report is written to state that water supply is or will be
unavailable;the District must include,in the assessment,a plan to acquire additional
water supplies.At this time,the District should not state there is insufficient water
supply.
So the best the District can do right now is to state the current water supply situation
clearly,indicating intent to provide supply through reassessment and reallocation by
the regional,as well as,the local water suppliers.In doing so,it is believed that the
Board has met the intent of the SB 610 statute,that the land use agencies and the
water agencies are coordinating their efforts in planning water supplies for new
development.
With District Board approval of the Rabago Project WSA Report,the Project
proponents can proceed with the draft environmental documentation required for the
CEQA review process.The water supply issues will be addressed in these
environmental documents,consistent with the WSA Report.
The District,as well as others,can comment on the draft EIR with recommendations
that water conservation measures and actions be employed on the Rabago Project.
Some recent actions regarding water supply assessments and verification reports by
entities within Southern California are as follows:
•The City approved water supply assessment reports for both the La Jolla
Crossings Project and the Quarry Falls Project in September 2007.
•Padre Dam Municipal Water District approved a water supply assessment
report for the City of Santee's Fanita Ranch development project in April 2006.
In October 2007,a follow-up letter was prepared stating the current
uncertainties associated with the regional water supply situation.However,
the letter concludes that sufficient water exists over the long run in reliance
upon the assurances,plans,and projections of the regional water suppliers
(Metropolitan and Water Authority).
•The District unanimously approved in July 2007 the Eastern Urban Center
Water Supply and Assessment Report.The Board also approved the Judd
Company Otay Crossings Commerce Park WSA Report on December 5,2007
and the Otay Ranch L.P.Otay Ranch Preserve and Resort Project Water
Supply Assessment and Verification Report on February 4,2009.
•The District approved water supply assessment and verification reports for the
City of Chula Vista Village 8 West Sectional Plan Area and Village 9 Sectional
Plan Area.The District also approved the water supply assessment report for
the San Diego-Tijuana Cross Border Facility. The Pio Pico Power Plant on
4
Alta Road within the County of San Diego may also require a WSA for the
temporary use of potable water to serve the power plant.
Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed Rabago Project,
along with existing and other projected future users,as well as the actions necessary
to develop these supplies,have been identified in the water supply planning
documents of the District,the Water Authority,and Metropolitan.
The WSA Report includes,among other information,an identification of existing
water supply entitlements,water rights,water service contracts,or agreements
relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Rabago Project.The
WSA Report demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned
and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon,under normal
conditions and in single and multiple dry years to meet the projected demand of the
proposed Rabago Project and the existing and other planned development projects
within the District.
Accordingly,after approval of a WSA Report for the Rabago Project by the District's
Board of Directors,the WSA Report may be used to comply with the requirements of
the legislation enacted by Senate Bills 610 as follows:
Senate Bill (SB)610 Water Supply Assessment:The District's Board of Directors
approved WSA Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)compliance process for the Rabago Project as a water supply
assessment report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by
5B 610.The County,as lead agency under the CEQA for the Rabago Project
environmental documentation,may cite the approved WSA Report as evidence
that a sufficient water supply is planned and intended to be available to serve the
Rabago Project.
5
EXHIBIT C
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REPORT
for the
Rabago Technology Park
Prepared by:
Bob Kennedy, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Otay Water District
in consultation with
Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.
and
San Diego County Water Authority
February 2011
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
February 2011
Rabago Technology Park
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1 - Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Section 2 - Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Section 3 - Project Description .................................................................................................................. 8
Section 4 – Otay Water District ................................................................................................................. 9
Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands .......................................................................... 11
5.1 Demand Management (Water Conservation) ......................................... 16
Section 6 - Existing and Projected Supplies ........................................................................................... 18
6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2005
Regional Urban Water Management Plan ............................................. 19
6.2 San Diego County Water Authority Regional Water Supplies ................ 21
6.2.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for
Acquiring Additional Supplies ................................................... 22
6.3 Otay Water District ............................................................................... 33
6.3.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for
Acquiring Additional Supplies ................................................... 34
Section 7 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies .................................................................. 49
Source Documents ........................................................................................................................ 55
Appendices
Appendix A: Rabago Technology Park Vicinity Map
Appendix B: Rabago Technology Park Development Plan
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
1
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
February 2011
Rabago Technology Park
Executive Summary
The Otay Water District (WD) prepared this Water Supply Assessment Report (WSA Report)
at the request of the County of San Diego (County) for the Rabago Technology Park (Rabago)
Project. Rabago Investment Group LLC, a California Limited Liability Company submitted
an entitlement application to the County for the development of the Rabago Project.
The Rabago Project is located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the San Diego County
Water Authority (Water Authority), and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan). To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are
required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and Metropolitan..
The Rabago Project development plan proposes the development of 19 industrial business
park lots on 71.1 acres. The development plan is consistent with the East Otay Mesa Specific
Plan.
The expected demands for the Rabago Project is 60,290 gallons per day (gpd) or about 67.5
acre feet per year (ac-ft/yr). This is consistent with the estimated demands in the District‟s
Water Resource Master Plan Updated November 2010 (WRMP). The projected recycled
water demand for the proposed Rabago Project is approximately 7,740 gpd or 8.7 ac-ft/yr,
representing about 11% of the total Rabago Project water demand.
The Rabago Project development proponents are required to use recycled water for irrigation
and other potential purposes. The primary benefit of using recycled water is that it will offset
the potable water demand by an estimated 8.7 ac-ft/yr. The WRMP and 2005 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) anticipated that the Rabago Project site would use both potable
and recycled water.
Planned Imported Water Supplies from the Water Authority and Metropolitan
The Water Authority and Metropolitan have an established process that ensures supplies are
being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
2
plans are captured in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updated
forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves
as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast
information. The Water Authority and Metropolitan update their demand forecasts and
supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to
coincide with preparation of their Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP). Prior to the
next forecast update, local jurisdictions with land use authority may require water supply
assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the
Otay WD, Water Authority, or Metropolitan jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed
annexations) or that have revised land use plans with either lower or higher development
intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending
or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand
and supply requirements than previously anticipated. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and
Metropolitan next demand forecast and supply requirements and associated planning
documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a
result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions.
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which is included in the
California Water Code, requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare an
UWMP and update it every five years. The purpose and importance of the UWMP has
evolved since it was first required 25 years ago. State agencies and the public frequently use
the document to determine if agencies are planning adequately to reliably meet future
demands. As such, UWMPs serve as an important element in documenting supply
availability for the purpose of compliance with state laws, Senate Bill 610, linking water
supply sufficiency to large land-use development approval. Agencies must also have a
UWMP prepared, pursuant to the Act, in order to be eligible for state funding and drought
assistance.
The Water Authority has started their update to their 2005 UWMP however a new legislative
mandate, SBX 7-7 (2009) requires retail agencies to report their target for a 20 percent
reduction in urban per capita use by December 31, 2020. To address the new per capita water
use reduction measures, the bill grants a 6-month extension to urban retail water suppliers to
submit their approved UWMP to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by
July 1, 2011.
The District‟s WRMP updated November, 2010 includes the 67.5 acre-foot per year demand
estimate in the District‟s demand projections that was forwarded to the Water Authority for
inclusion in their UWMP update. The Series 12 update was also used by Metropolitan for
their demand projections for their 2010 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update.
Metropolitan‟s IRP identifies a mix of resources (imported and local) that, when
implemented, will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands through the
attainment of regional targets set for conservation, local supplies, State Water Project
supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. The 2004
update to the IRP (2004 IRP Update) includes a planning buffer supply intended to mitigate
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
3
against the risks associated with implementation of local and imported supply programs and
for the risk that future demands could be higher than projected. The planning buffer identifies
an additional increment of water that could potentially be developed when needed and if other
supplies are not fully implemented as planned. As part of implementation of the planning
buffer, Metropolitan periodically evaluates supply development, supply conditions, and
projected demands to ensure that the region is not under or over developing supplies.
Managed properly, the planning buffer will help ensure that the southern California region,
including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future
demands.
Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climate, environmental, legal,
and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings
regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues and the current ongoing drought
impacting the western states. Challenges such as these essentially always will be present.
The regional water supply agencies, the Water Authority and Metropolitan, along with Otay
WD nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands.
In Section II.4 of their 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP),
Metropolitan states that through effective management of its water supply, they fully expect
to be 100 percent reliable in meeting all non-discounted non-interruptible demands throughout
the next twenty-five years. Metropolitan‟s 2005 RUWMP identifies potential reserve supplies
in the supply capability analysis (Tables II-7, II-8, and II-9), which could be available to meet
the anticipated demands such as those related to the Rabago Project.
The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority
“as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of
water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.”
As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment report, an agency‟s shortage
contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 9 of
the Water Authority‟s 2005 Updated UWMP contains a detailed shortage contingency
analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management.
The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the
Emergency Response Plan, Emergency Storage Project, and Drought Management Plan
(DMP) are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water
supplies. The DMP, completed in May 2006, provides the Water Authority and its member
agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a shortage of imported
water supplies from Metropolitan due to prolonged drought or other supply shortfall
conditions. The actions will help the region avoid or minimize the impacts of shortages and
ensure an equitable allocation of supplies.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
4
Otay WD Water Supply Development Program
In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Rabago Project development
proponents will be required to participate in the water supply development program being
implemented by the Otay WD. This is intended to be achieved through financial participation
in several local and/or regional water supply development projects envisioned by the Otay
WD. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in
the current Water Authority and Metropolitan UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning
documents. These new water supply projects are in response to the regional water supply
issues. These new additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in
various stages of the planning process. Imported water supplies along with the Otay WD
water supply development projects supplies are planned to be developed and are intended to
increase water supplies to serve the Rabago Project water supply needs and that of other
similar situated development projects. The Otay WD water supply development program
includes but is not limited to projects such as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin
Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept, the Rosarito
Ocean Desalination Facility project, and the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project. The
Water Authority and Metropolitan‟s next forecasts and supply planning documents would
capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by
the Otay WD.
Findings
This WSA Report for the Rabago Project has been prepared by the Otay WD in consultation
with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the County pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10657,
10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 610. SB 610 amended state
law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply
availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires that
the water purveyor of the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be
included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation
and approval process of certain proposed projects. The County requested that Otay WD
prepare a water supply assessment as per the requirements of SB 610. The requirements of
SB 610 are being addressed by this WSA Report.
The Rabago Project development concept exceeds the thresholds contained in the legislation
enacted by SB 610 and therefore requires preparation of a WSA report. The Rabago Project
is considered as an industrial development and is not a residential subdivision project of more
than 500 units and hence it is not subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 221 for
preparation of a Water Supply Verification Report.
The WSA Report identifies and describes the processes by which water demand projections
for the proposed Rabago Project will be fully included in the water demand and supply
forecasts of the Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
5
documents of the Water Authority and Metropolitan. Water supplies necessary to serve the
demands of the proposed Rabago Project, along with existing and other projected future users,
as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, have been identified in
the Rabago Project WSA Report and will be included in the future water supply planning
documents of the Water Authority and Metropolitan.
This WSA Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water
supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, water supply projects, or
agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Rabago Project.
This WSA Report demonstrates, and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for
and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and
in single and multiple dry years to meet the projected demand of the proposed Rabago Project
and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the Otay WD.
Accordingly, after approval of a WSA Report for the Rabago Project by the Otay WD Board
of Directors (Board), the WSA Report may be used to comply with the requirements of the
legislation enacted by Senate Bill 610 as follows:
Senate Bill 610 Water Supply Assessment: The Otay WD Board approved Rabago
Project WSA Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) compliance process for the Rabago Project as a water supply assessment
report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610. The
County, as lead agency under CEQA for the Rabago Project EIR, may cite the
approved WSA Report as evidence that a sufficient water supply is planned for and is
intended to be made available to serve the Rabago Project.
Section 1 - Purpose
Rabago Technology Park, LLC submitted an entitlement application to the County of San
Diego (County) for the development of the Rabago Technology Park (Rabago) Project. The
County requested that the Otay Water District (WD) prepare a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) Report for the Rabago Project. The Rabago Project description is provided in Section
3 of this WSA Report.
This WSA Report for the Rabago Project has been prepared by the Otay WD in consultation
with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the San Diego County Water Authority (Water
Authority), and the County pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and
California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 referred to as
Senate Bill (SB) 610. SB 610 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, intending to
improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use
decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of the public
water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the California
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
6
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation and approval process of
certain proposed projects. The requirements of SB 610 are being addressed by this WSA
Report.
The Rabago Project development concept exceeds the thresholds contained in the legislation
enacted by SB 610 and therefore requires preparation of a WSA report. The Rabago Project
is considered as an industrial development and is not a residential subdivision project of more
than 500 units and hence it is not subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 221 for
preparation of a Water Supply Verification Report.
This WSA Report evaluates water supplies that are planned to be available during normal,
single dry year, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year planning horizon to meet
existing demands, expected demands of the Rabago Project, and reasonably foreseeable
planned future water demands to be served by Otay WD. The Otay WD Board of Directors
approved WSA Report is planned to be used by the County in its evaluation of the Rabago
Project under the CEQA approval process procedures.
Section 2 - Findings
The Otay WD prepared this WSA Report at the request of the County for the Rabago Project.
Rabago Technology Park, LLC submitted an entitlement application to the County for the
development of the Rabago Project.
The Rabago Project is located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the Water Authority,
and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). To obtain
permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the
jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and Metropolitan to utilize imported water
supply.
The expected demand for the Rabago Project is 60,290 gallons per day (gpd) or about 67.5
acre feet per year (ac-ft/yr). This is unchanged from the demand estimate in the District‟s
WRMP. The projected recycled water demand for the proposed Rabago Project is
approximately 7,740 gpd or 8.7 ac-ft/yr, representing about 11% of the total Rabago Project
water demand.
The Rabago Project development proponents are required to use recycled water for irrigation
and appropriate uses. The primary benefit of using recycled water is that it will offset the
potable water demands by an estimated 8.7 ac-ft/yr. The Otay WD WRMP and 2005 Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipated that the land area to be utilized for the Rabago
Project would use both potable and recycled water.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
7
In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Rabago project proponents are
required to participate in the development of alternative water supply project(s). This can be
achieved through payment of the New Water Supply Fee adopted by the Otay Water District
Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as
sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and Metropolitan UWMP, IRP, Master
Plans, and other planning documents. These new water supply projects are in response to the
regional water supply issues related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current
ongoing western states drought conditions. These new additional water supply projects are
not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. A few examples of
these alternative water supply projects include the Middle Sweetwater River Basin
Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept, the Rosarito
Ocean Desalination Facility project, and the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project. The
Water Authority and Metropolitan next forecast and supply planning documents would
capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by
the Otay WD.
The Water Authority and Metropolitan have an established process that ensures supplies are
being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use
plans are captured in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updated
forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves
as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast
information. The Water Authority and Metropolitan update their demand forecasts and
supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to
coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast
update, local jurisdictions may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for
proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water Authority, or
Metropolitan jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use
plans with lower or higher land use intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts.
Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans,
typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements than anticipated. The
Otay WD, the Water Authority, and Metropolitan next demand forecast and supply
requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease
in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning
decisions.
This process is utilized by the Water Authority and Metropolitan to document the water
supplies necessary to serve the demands of any proposed development project, along with
existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop any
required water supplies. Through this process the necessary demand and supply information
is thus assured to be identified and incorporated within the water supply planning documents
of the Water Authority and Metropolitan.
This WSA Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water
supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, proposed water supply projects, and
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
8
agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Rabago Project.
This WSA Report incorporates by reference the current Urban Water Management Plans and
other water resources planning documents of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and
Metropolitan. The Otay WD prepared this WSA Report to assess and document that
sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired to meet projected
water demands of the Rabago Project as well as existing and other reasonably foreseeable
planned development projects within the Otay WD for a 20-year planning horizon, in normal
supply years and in single dry and multiple dry years.
Based on a normal water supply year, the five-year increments for a 20-year projection
indicate projected potable and recycled water supply is being planned for and is intended to be
acquired to meet the estimated water demand of the Otay WD (49,812 acre-feet (ac-ft) in
2010 to 82,405 ac-ft in 2030 per the Otay WD 2005 UWMP). Based on dry year forecasts,
the estimated water supply is also being planned for and is intended to be acquired to meet the
projected water demand, during single dry and multiple dry year scenarios. On average, the
dry-year demands are about 7% higher than the normal demands. The Otay WD recycled
water supply is assumed to be drought-proof and not subject to reduction during dry periods.
Together, these findings assess, demonstrate, and document that sufficient water supplies are
planned for and are intended to be acquired, as well as the actions necessary and status to
develop these supplies are and will be further documented, to serve the proposed Rabago
Project and the existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects
within the Otay WD in both normal and single and multiple dry year forecasts for a 20-year
planning horizon.
Section 3 - Project Description
The Rabago Project is located within the Otay Mesa Specific Plan (OMSP) area in the County
of San Diego. Refer to Appendix A for a vicinity map of the proposed Rabago Project. The
Rabago Project is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Otay Mesa Road and
Enrico Fermi Drive. The Rabago Project is within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the
Water Authority, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan).
Although the proposed development is subject to the County‟s land use jurisdiction, the Otay
WD is the potable and recycled water purveyor.
The proposed development concept for the approximately 71.1 acre Rabago Project is planned
as industrial business park lots as shown in Table 1.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
9
Table 1
Rabago Project Proposed Land Uses
Project Element Land Use Gross Area Lots
Rabago Technology Park Industrial 71.1 acres 19
The Rabago Project is on approximately 71.1 acres and is planned to include 19 industrial
business park lots ranging from 1.7 to 8.0 acres in size. As each of these lots develops in the
future, it would be subject to the project approval and permitting processes of the County and
Otay WD. Refer to Appendix B for the proposed development plan of the Rabago Project.
The County has discretionary authority on land use decisions for the Rabago Project and can
establish actions and/or permit approval requirements. The projected potable and recycled
water demands associated with the Rabago Project have considered the anticipated County
discretionary actions and/or permit approvals and are incorporated into and used in this WSA
Report. The water demands for the proposed Rabago Project are included in the projected
water demand estimates provided in Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands.
Section 4 – Otay Water District
The Otay WD is a municipal water district formed in 1956 pursuant to the Municipal Water
District Act of 1911 (Water Code §§ 71000 et seq.). The Otay WD joined the Water
Authority as a member agency in 1956 to acquire the right to purchase and distribute imported
water throughout its service area. The Water Authority is an agency responsible for the
wholesale supply of water to its 24 public agency members in San Diego County.
The Otay WD currently relies on the Water Authority for 100 percent of its treated water
supply. The Water Authority is the agency responsible for the supply of imported water into
San Diego County through its membership in Metropolitan. The Water Authority currently
obtains about half of its imported supply from Metropolitan, but is in the process of further
diversifying its available supplies.
The Otay WD provides water service to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
customers, and for environmental and fire protection uses. In addition to providing water
throughout its service area, Otay WD also provides sewage collection and treatment services
to a portion of its service area known as the Jamacha Basin. The Otay WD also owns and
operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) which has an
effective treatment capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd) or about 1,300 acre feet per
year (ac-ft/yr) to produce recycled water. On May 18, 2007 an additional source of recycled
water supply, at least 6 mgd, or about 6,720 ac-ft/yr, became available to Otay WD from the
City of San Diego‟s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP).
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
10
The Otay WD jurisdictional area is generally located within the south central portion of San
Diego County and includes approximately 125 square miles. The Otay WD serves portions of
the unincorporated communities of southern El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul,
Spring Valley, Bonita, and Otay Mesa, the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista and a
portion of the City of San Diego on Otay Mesa. The Otay WD jurisdiction boundaries are
roughly bounded on the north by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, on the northwest
by the Helix Water District, and on the west by the South Bay Irrigation District (Sweetwater
Authority) and the City of San Diego. The southern boundary of Otay WD is the international
border with Mexico.
The planning area addressed in the Otay WD 2009 WRMP and the Otay WD revised 2005
Urban Water Management Plan (2005 UWMP) includes the land within the jurisdictional
boundary of the Otay WD and those areas outside of the present Otay WD boundaries
considered to be in the Area of Influence of the Otay WD. Figure 2-1 contained within the
Otay WD 2009 WRMP shows the jurisdictional boundary of the Otay WD and the Area of
Influence. The planning area is approximately 143 square miles, of which approximately 125
square miles are within the Otay WD current boundaries and approximately 18 square miles
are in the Area of Influence. The area east of Otay WD is rural and currently not within any
water purveyor jurisdiction and potentially could be served by the Otay WD in the future if
the need for imported water becomes necessary, as is the case for the Area of Influence.
The City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego are the three
land use planning agencies within the Otay WD jurisdiction. Data on forecasts for land use
planning, demographics, economic projections, population, and the future rate of growth
within Otay WD were obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and
provides forecast information through the year 2050. Population growth within the Otay WD
service area is expected to increase from the 2005 figure of approximately 179,000 to an
estimated 268,000 by 2025, and is estimated to be 277,000 at ultimate build out. Land use
information used to develop water demand projections are based upon Specific or Sectional
Planning Areas, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, East Otay
Mesa Specific Plan Area, San Diego County Community Plans, and City of San Diego, City
of Chula Vista, and County of San Diego General Plans.
The Otay WD long-term historic growth rate has been approximately 3% per year. Up until
the recent economic downturn, growth was occurring at a faster rate due to accelerated
residential development in the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista. The growth rate
has significantly slowed due to the current economic conditions and it is expected to slow as
the inventory of developable land is diminished.
Climatic conditions within the Otay WD service area are characteristically Mediterranean
near the coast, with mild temperatures year round. Inland areas are both hotter in summer and
cooler in winter, with summer temperatures often exceeding 90 degrees and winter
temperatures occasionally dipping to below freezing. Most of the region‟s rainfall occurs
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
11
during the months of December through March. Average annual rainfall is approximately 9.4
inches per year.
Historic climate data were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center for Station
042706 (El Cajon). This station was selected because its annual temperature variation is
representative of most of the Otay WD service area. While there is a station in the City of
Chula Vista, the temperature variation at the City of Chula Vista station is more typical of a
coastal environment than the conditions in most of the Otay WD service area.
Urban Water Management Plan
In accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, the Otay WD
Board of Directors adopted an Urban Water Management Plan in December 2005 and
subsequently submitted the plan to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR).
DWR required Otay WD to make revisions to the submitted plan. The Otay WD Board of
Directors adopted the revised Otay WD 2005 UWMP in July 2007. As required by law, the
Otay WD 2005 UWMP includes projected water supplies required to meet future demands
through 2030. In accordance with Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2) and Government Code
Section 66473.7 (c)(3), information from the Otay WD 2005 UWMP along with supplemental
information from the Otay WD 2009 WRMP updated November, 2010 have been utilized to
prepare this WSA Report and are incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands
The projected demands for the Otay WD are based on Specific or Sectional Planning Areas,
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, the East Otay Mesa Specific
Plan Area, San Diego County Community Plans, and City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista,
and County of San Diego General Plans. This land use information is also used by SANDAG
as the basis for its most recent forecast data. This land use information is utilized in the
preparation of the Otay WD 2009 WRMP updated November, 2010 and Otay WD 2005
UWMP to develop the forecasted demands and supply requirements.
In 1994, the Water Authority selected the Institute for Water Resources-Municipal and
Industrial Needs (MAIN) computer model to forecast municipal and industrial water use for
the San Diego region. The MAIN model uses demographic and economic data to project
sector-level water demands (i.e. residential and non-residential demands). This econometric
model has over a quarter of a century of practical application and is used by many cities and
water agencies throughout the United States. The Water Authority‟s version of the MAIN
model was modified to reflect the San Diego region‟s unique parameters and is known as
CWA-MAIN.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
12
The foundation of the water demand forecast is the underlying demographic and economic
projections. This was a primary reason, why, in 1992 the Water Authority and SANDAG
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in which the Water Authority agreed to
use the SANDAG current regional growth forecast for water supply planning purposes. In
addition, the MOA recognizes that water supply reliability must be a component of San Diego
County‟s regional growth management strategy required by Proposition C, as passed by the
San Diego County voters in 1988. The MOA ensures a strong linkage between local general
plan land use forecasts and water demand projections and resulting supply needs for the San
Diego region.
Consistent with the previous CWA-MAIN modeling efforts, on February 26, 2010, the
SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the Series 12: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. The
2050 Regional Growth Forecast will be used by SANDAG as the foundation for the next
Regional Comprehensive Plan update. SANDAG forecasts also are used by local
governments for planning, including the San Diego County Water Authority 2010 Urban
Water Management Plan update. The SANDAG Series 12: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast
included the current land use of the County of San Diego General Plan that forms the basis for
the entitlement densities and intensities of development for this project.
The municipal and industrial forecast also included an updated accounting of projected
conservation savings based on projected regional implementation of the California Urban
Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best Management Practices and SANDAG
demographic information for the period 2005 through 2030. These savings estimates were
then factored into the baseline municipal and industrial demand forecast.
A separate agricultural model, also used in prior modeling efforts, was used to forecast
agricultural water demands within the Water Authority service area. This model estimates
agricultural demand to be met by the Water Authority‟s member agencies based on
agricultural acreage projections provided by SANDAG, crop distribution data derived from
the Department of Water Resources and the California Avocado Commission, and average
crop-type watering requirements based on California Irrigation Management Information
System data.
The Water Authority and Metropolitan update their water demand and supply projections
within their jurisdictions utilizing the SANDAG most recent growth forecast to project future
water demands. This provides for the important strong link between demand and supply
projections to the land use plans of the cities and the county. This provides for consistency
between the retail and wholesale agencies water demand projections, thereby ensuring that
adequate supplies are and will be planned for the Otay WD existing and future water users.
Existing land use plans, any revisions to land use plans, and annexations are captured in the
SANDAG updated forecasts. The Water Authority and Metropolitan will update their
demand forecasts based on the SANDAG most recent forecast approximately every five years
to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast
update, local jurisdictions may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
13
consistent with Senate Bills 610 and 221 for proposed land use developments that either have
pending or proposed annexations into the Otay WD, Water Authority, and Metropolitan or
that have revised land use plans than originally anticipated. The Water Authority and
Metropolitan‟s next forecasts and supply planning documents would then capture any increase
or decrease in demands caused by annexations or revised land use plans.
The state of California Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Government Code
Sections 65867.5, 66455.3, and 66473.7, are referred to as SB 221, requires affirmative
written verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water
supplies are to be available for certain residential subdivisions of property prior to approval of
a tentative map. SB 221 compliance does not apply to the Rabago Project as it is an industrial
subdivision.
In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Rabago Project development
proponents will be required to participate in the development of alternative water supply
project(s). This can be achieved through payment of the New Water Supply Fee adopted by
the Otay Water District Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to
those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and Metropolitan
UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new water supply projects
are in response to the regional water supply issues related to climatological, environmental,
legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court
rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current ongoing western states
drought conditions. These new additional water supply projects are not currently developed
and are in various stages of the planning process. The Otay WD water supply development
program includes but is not limited to projects such as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin
Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept, the Rosarito
Ocean Desalination Facility project, and the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project. The
Water Authority and Metropolitan‟s next forecasts and supply planning documents would
capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by
the Otay WD.
In addition, Metropolitan‟s 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan identified potential
reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables II-7, II-8, and II-9), which could be
available to meet any unanticipated demands. The Water Authority and Metropolitan‟s next
forecasts and supply planning documents would capture any increase in necessary supply
resources resulting from any new water supply resources.
Demand Methodology
The Otay WD water demand projection methodology utilizes a component land use approach.
This is done by applying representative values of water use to the acreage of each land use
type and then aggregating these individual land use demand projections into an overall total
demand for the Otay WD. This is called the water duty method, and the water duty is the
amount of water used in gallons per day per acre per year. This approach is used for all the
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
14
land use types except residential development where a demand per dwelling unit was applied.
In addition, commercial and industrial water use categories are further subdivided by type
including separate categories for golf courses, schools, jails, prisons, hospitals, etc. where
specific water demands are established.
To determine water duties for the various types of land use, the entire water meter database of
the Otay WD is utilized and sorted by the appropriate land use types. The metered
consumption records are then examined for each of the land uses, and water duties are determined for
the various types of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. For example
the water duty factors for commercial and industrial land uses are estimated using 1,785 and 893
gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre) respectively. Residential water demand is established based on
the same data but computed on a per-dwelling unit basis. The focus is to ensure that for each of the
residential land use categories (very low, low, medium, and high densities), the demand criteria
used is adequately represented based upon actual data. This method is used because
residential land uses constitute a substantial percentage of the total developable planning area of the
Otay WD.
The underlying land use designation for the Rabago Project lots will be the industrial land use
designation.
The 2009 WRMP calculates potable water demand by taking the gross acreage of a site and
applying a potable water reduction factor (PWRF), which is intended to represent the
percentage of acreage to be served by potable water and that not served by recycled water for
irrigation. For industrial land use, as an example, the PWRF is 0.95 (i.e., 95% of the site is
assumed to be served by potable water, 5% of the site is assumed to be irrigated with recycled
water). The potable net acreage is then multiplied by the unit demand factor corresponding to
its respective land use. This approach is used in the 2009 WRMP for all the land use types
except residential development where a demand per dwelling unit is applied. In addition,
commercial and industrial water use categories are further subdivided by type including
separate categories for golf courses, schools, jails, prisons, hospitals, etc. where specific water
demands are allocated.
Otay WD Projected Demand
By applying the established water duties to the proposed land uses, the projected water
demand for the entire Otay WD planning area at ultimate development is determined.
Projected water demands for the intervening years were determined using growth rate
projections consistent with data obtained from SANDAG and the experience of the Otay WD.
The historical and projected potable water demands for Otay WD are shown in Table 2.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
15
Table 2
Historical and Projected Potable Water Fiscal Year Demands (acre-feet)
Incorporating Water Conservation BMP Efforts1
Water Use Sectors 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Single Family Residential 10,604 15,331 19,850 25,442 29,130 33,316 37,211 42,089
Multi-Family Residential 1,880 1,986 2,893 3,708 4,245 4,855 5,423 6,134
Commercial & Industrial 1,650 3,043 1,549 1,986 2,274 2,600 2,904 3,285
Institutional & Governmental 1,680 2,089 2,115 2,711 3,104 3,550 3,965 4,485
Landscape 3,983 6,256 8,512 10,910 12,491 14,286 15,956 18,048
Agricultural 487 171 2,268 2,907 3,328 3,806 4,251 4,809
Known Losses * * 511 655 749 857 957 1,083
System Losses * 1,733 1,076 1,494 1,711 1,957 2,186 2,472
Totals 20,284 30,609 38,774 49,813 57,032 65,227 72,853 82,405
1 Source: Otay WD 2005 UWMP.
* Known losses (i.e. unaccounted for water in the Otay WD 2005 UWMP) and system losses unavailable.
The historical and projected recycled water demands for Otay WD are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Historical and Projected Recycled Water Fiscal Year Demands (acre-feet)
Incorporating Water Conservation BMP Efforts1
Water Use Sector 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Landscape 614 1,274 1,155 4,040 4,684 5,430 6,294 7,297
Totals 614 1,274 1,155 4,040 4,684 5,430 6,294 7,297
1 Source: Otay WD 2005 UWMP.
Rabago Project Projected Water Demand
Using the land use demand projection noted above, the projected potable water demand and
projected recycled water demand for the proposed Rabago Project are shown in Table 4 and
Table 5 respectively. The projected potable water demand is 60,290 gpd, or about 67.5 ac-
ft/yr. The projected recycled water demand is 7,740 gpd, or about 8.7 ac-ft/yr, representing
about 11% of the total Rabago Project demand.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
16
Table 4
Rabago Facility Project Projected Potable
Water Annual Average Demands
Location (Land Use) Gross
Acreage
Potable
Water
Factor
Net Potable
Acreage/Units Unit Rate Average
Demand
Industrial Lots 71.1 95% 67.5 ac 893 gpd/ac 60,290 gpd
The Rabago Project development proponents are required to use recycled water for irrigation
and for other appropriate uses. The primary benefit of using recycled water is that it will
offset the potable water demands by an estimated 13 ac-ft/yr. The 2009 WRMP and 2005
UWMP anticipated that the Rabago Project site would use both potable and recycled water.
Table 5
Rabago Project Projected Recycled
Water Average Demands
Location (Land Use) Gross
Acreage
Recycled
Water
Factor
Net Recycled
Acreage Unit Rate Average
Demand
Industrial Lots 71.1 acres 5% 3.6 acres 2,151 gpd/acre 7,740 gpd
The Otay WD 2009 WRMP projected a potable water demand for the project site based on
land uses in the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan. The current development plan does not
propose any changes to the Specific Plan land uses and, therefore, the proposed development
has been accounted for in the Otay WD planning documents.
5.1 Demand Management (Water Conservation)
Demand management, or water conservation is a critical part of the Otay WD 2005 UWMP
and its long term strategy for meeting water supply needs of the Otay WD customers. Water
conservation, is frequently the lowest cost resource available to any water agency. The goals
of the Otay WD water conservation programs are to:
Reduce the demand for more expensive, imported water.
Demonstrate continued commitment to the Best Management Practices (BMP).
Ensure a reliable water supply.
The Otay WD is signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Urban
Water Conservation in California, which created the California Urban Water Conservation
Council (CUWCC) in 1991 in an effort to reduce California‟s long-term water demands.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
17
Water conservation programs are developed and implemented on the premise that water
conservation increases the water supply by reducing the demand on available supply, which is
vital to the optimal utilization of a region‟s water supply resources. The Otay WD
participates in many water conservation programs designed and typically operated on a shared
cost participation program basis among the Water Authority, Metropolitan, and their member
agencies. The demands shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 take into account implementation of
water conservation measures within Otay WD.
As one of the first signatories to the MOU Regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California, the Otay WD has made BMP implementation for water conservation the
cornerstone of its conservation programs and a key element in its water resource management
strategy. As a member of the Water Authority, Otay WD also benefits from regional
programs performed on behalf of its member agencies. The BMP programs implemented by
Otay WD and regional BMP programs implemented by the Water Authority that benefit all
their member agencies are addressed in the Otay WD 2005 UWMP. In partnership with the
Water Authority, the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and
developers, the Otay WD water conservation efforts are expected to grow and expand. The
resulting savings directly relate to additional available water in the San Diego County region
for beneficial use within the Water Authority service area, including the Otay WD.
Additional conservation or water use efficiency measures or programs practiced by the Otay
WD include the following:
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System
The Otay WD implemented and has operated for many years a Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system to control, monitor, and collect data regarding the operation of
the water system. The major facilities that have SCADA capabilities are the water flow
control supply sources, transmission network, pumping stations, and water storage reservoirs.
The SCADA system allows for many and varied useful functions. Some of these functions
provide for operating personnel to monitor the water supply source flow rates, reservoir
levels, turn on or off pumping units, etc. The SCADA system aids in the prevention of water
reservoir overflow events and increases energy efficiency.
Water Conservation Ordinance
California Water Code Sections 375 et seq. permit public entities which supply water at retail
to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by the
people therein for the purpose of conserving water supplies of such public entity. The Otay
WD Board of Directors established a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to
California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies
and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future shortage. A water shortage could exist
based upon the occurrence of one or more of the following conditions:
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
18
1. A general water supply shortage due to increased demand or limited supplies. 2. Distribution or storage facilities of the Water Authority or other agencies become inadequate. 3. A major failure of the supply, storage, and distribution facilities of Metropolitan, Water Authority, and/or Otay WD.
The Otay WD water conservation ordinance finds and determines that the conditions
prevailing in the San Diego County area require that the available water resources be put to
maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or
unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented and that the
conservation of such water be encouraged with a view to the maximum reasonable and
beneficial use thereof in the interests of the people of the Otay WD and for the public welfare.
As a signatory to the MOU Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, the Otay WD
is required to submit biannual reports that detail the implementation of current water
conservation practices. The Otay WD voluntarily agreed to implement the fourteen water
conservation Best Management Practices beginning in 1992. The Otay WD submits its report
to the CUWCC every two years. The Otay WD BMP Reports for 2001 to 2004, as well as the
BMP Coverage Report for 2003-04, are included in the Otay WD 2005 UWMP.
The Rabago Project will implement the CUWCC Best Management Practices for water
conservation such as installation of ultra low flow toilets, development of a water
conversation plan, and potential beneficial use of recycled water, all of which are typical
requirements of development projects within the County of San Diego.
Section 6 - Existing and Projected Supplies
The Otay WD currently does not have an independent raw or potable water supply source.
The Otay WD is a member public agency of the Water Authority. The Water Authority is a
member public agency of Metropolitan. The statutory relationships between the Water
Authority and its member agencies, and Metropolitan and its member agencies, respectively,
establish the scope of the Otay WD entitlement to water from these two agencies.
The Water Authority through two delivery pipelines, referred to as Pipeline No. 4 and the La
Mesa Sweetwater Extension Pipeline, currently supply the Otay WD with 100 percent of its
potable water. The Water Authority in turn, currently purchases about half of its water from
Metropolitan. Due to the Otay WD reliance on these two agencies, this WSA Report includes
referenced documents that contain information on the existing and projected supplies, supply
programs, and related projects of the Water Authority and Metropolitan. The Otay WD,
Water Authority, and Metropolitan are actively pursuing programs and projects to further
diversify their water supply resources.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
19
The description of local recycled water supplies available to the Otay WD is also discussed
below.
6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2005 Regional
Urban Water Management Plan
In November 2005, Metropolitan adopted its 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan
(RUWMP). The 2005 RUWMP provides Metropolitan‟s member agencies, retail water
utilities, cities, and counties within its service area with, among other things, a detailed
evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet future demands, and an evaluation of reasonable
and practical efficient water uses, recycling, and conservation activities. During the
preparation of the 2005 RUWMP, Metropolitan also utilized the previous SANDAG regional
growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority service area.
6.1.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies
Metropolitan is a wholesale supplier of water to its member public agencies and obtains its
supplies from two primary sources: the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct
(CRA), which it owns and operates, and Northern California, via the State Water Project
(SWP). The 2005 RUWMP documents the availability of these existing supplies and
additional supplies necessary to meet future demands.
6.1.1.1 Metropolitan Supplies
Metropolitan‟s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) identifies a mix of resources (imported and
local) that, when implemented, will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands
through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation, local supplies, State Water
Project supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. The
2010 update to the IRP (2010 IRP Update) includes a planning buffer supply intended to
mitigate against the risks associated with implementation of local and imported supply
programs and for the risk that future demands could be higher than projected. The planning
buffer identifies an additional increment of water that could potentially be developed when
needed and if other supplies are not fully implemented as planned. As part of implementation
of the planning buffer, Metropolitan periodically evaluates supply development, supply
conditions, and projected demands to ensure that the region is not under or over developing
supplies. Managed properly, the planning buffer will help ensure that the southern California
region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet future
demands.
In November 2005, Metropolitan adopted its 2005 RUWMP in accordance with state law.
The resource targets included in the preceding 2004 IRP Update serve as the foundation for
the planning assumptions used in the 2005 RUWMP. Metropolitan‟s 2005 RUWMP contains
a water supply reliability assessment that includes a detailed evaluation of the supplies
necessary to meet demands over a 25-year period in average, single dry year, and multiple dry
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
20
year periods. As part of this process, Metropolitan also uses the current SANDAG regional
growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority‟s service area.
As stated in Metropolitan‟s 2005 RUWMP, that plan may be used as a source document for
meeting the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 until the next scheduled update is completed
in 2011. The 2005 RUWMP includes a “Justifications for Supply Projections” in Appendix
A.3, that provides detailed documentation of the planning, legal, financial, and regulatory
basis for including each source of supply in the plan. A copy of Metropolitan‟s 2005
RUWMP can be found on the internet at the following site address:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP_2005.pdf
SANDAG has included the proposed land use density from this project in their latest Series
12 Update. Now that Metropolitan has updated their IRP, both Metropolitan and the Water
Authority will be updating their UWMPs. The UWMP for both Metropolitan and the Water
Authority will include the increase in demand projections included in SANDAG‟s Series 12
Update and from the projections from Otay WD 2009 WRMP updated November, 2010.
Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climate, environmental, legal,
and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings
regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current western states drought
conditions. Challenges such as these essentially always will be present. The regional water
supply agencies, the Water Authority and Metropolitan, along with Otay WD nevertheless
fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands.
6.1.1.2 Pipeline 6
Metropolitan completed its System Overview Study (SOS) in fall 2005 based on the 2004
IRP. The SOS determines if Metropolitan‟s current system is capable of delivering the
supplies to meet the demands shown in the older 2004 IRP.
Pipeline 6 is included in the SOS as an untreated water pipeline to deliver additional
Metropolitan supplies to the San Diego County region. The addition of Pipeline 6 would
allow the Water Authority and Metropolitan to convert one of the existing untreated water
pipelines to a treated water pipeline. With the conversion, the capacity to import both treated
and untreated water would increase significantly, thereby enabling Metropolitan to increase
both treated and untreated imported water delivery capacity to the San Diego County region.
Based on current planning assumptions of the Water Authority and Metropolitan, new
imported supplies delivered though Pipeline 6 would be required no earlier than 2018, absent
development of new supplies from seawater desalination or some combination of new local
supplies, totaling 56,000 ac-ft/yr (see Section 6.2.1 below). With development of 56,000 ac-
ft/yr, Pipeline 6 would not be needed until 2023. Activities associated with implementation of
Pipeline 6 include the following:
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
21
Coordination between Metropolitan and the Water Authority regarding planning and
design of Pipeline 6 is ongoing.
An alignment for the entire approximately 30-mile pipeline was identified in the
original 1993 Environmental Impact Report. Metropolitan is conducting a feasibility
study to revisit the 1993 alignment and evaluate alternative alignments north of the
San Luis Rey River in light of changed conditions since 1993. The Water Authority
plans to conduct a similar feasibility study of Pipeline 6 alignments south of the San
Luis Rey River. Based on these updated feasibility studies, an updated environmental
analysis for the project is also planned.
6.1.2 Metropolitan Capital Investment Plan
Metropolitan prepares a Capital Investment Plan as part of its annual budget approval process.
The cost, purpose, justification, status, progress, etc. of Metropolitan‟s infrastructure projects
to deliver existing and future supplies are documented in the Capital Investment Plan. The
financing of these projects is addressed as part of the annual budget approval process.
Metropolitan‟s Capital Investment Plan includes a series of projects identified from
Metropolitan studies of projected water needs, which, when considered along with operational
demands on aging facilities and new water quality regulations, identify the capital projects
needed to maintain infrastructure reliability and water quality standards, improve efficiency,
and provide future cost savings. All projects within the Capital Investment Plan are evaluated
against an objective set of criteria to ensure they are aligned with the Metropolitan‟s goals of
supply reliability and quality.
6.2 San Diego County Water Authority Regional Water Supplies
The Water Authority has adopted plans and is taking specific actions to develop adequate
water supplies to help meet existing and future water demands within the San Diego region.
This section contains details on the supplies being developed by the Water Authority. A
summary of recent actions pertaining to development of these supplies includes:
In accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the Water Authority
adopted their 2005 UWMP in November 2005 and updated the 2005 UWMP in April
2007. The updated Water Authority 2005 UWMP identifies a diverse mix of local and
imported water supplies to meet future demands. A copy of the updated Water
Authority 2005 UWMP can be found on the internet at http://www.sdcwa.org
Deliveries of conserved agricultural water from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to
San Diego County have increased annually since 2003, with 70,000 ac-ft of deliveries in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
22
As part of the October 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), the Water
Authority was assigned Metropolitan‟s rights to 77,700 ac-ft/yr of conserved water from
the All-American Canal (AAC) and Coachella Canal (CC) lining projects. The Water
Authority has nearly completed implementation of these projects, with the CC project
now complete and deliveries being made to the San Diego County region.
Through implementation of the Water Authority and member agency planned supply projects,
along with reliable imported water supplies from Metropolitan, the region anticipates having
adequate supplies to meet existing and future water demands.
To ensure sufficient supplies to meet projected growth in the San Diego region, the Water
Authority uses the SANDAG most recent regional growth forecast in calculating regional
water demands. The SANDAG regional growth forecast is based on the plans and policies of
the land-use jurisdictions with San Diego County. The existing and future demands of the
member agencies are included in the Water Authority‟s projections.
6.2.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies
The Water Authority currently obtains imported supplies from Metropolitan, conserved water
from the AAC and CC lining projects, and an increasing amount of conserved agricultural
water from IID. Of the twenty-seven member agencies that purchase water supplies from
Metropolitan, the Water Authority is Metropolitan‟s largest customer. In FY 2006, the Water
Authority purchased 577,944 ac-ft from Metropolitan, an increase of approximately 4,000 ac-
ft over the FY 2005 amount.
Section 135 of Metropolitan‟s Act defines the preferential right to water for each of its
member agencies. As calculated by Metropolitan, the Water Authority‟s current preferential
right is 17.22% of Metropolitan‟s supply, while the Water Authority accounted for
approximately 25% of Metropolitan‟s total revenue. Under preferential rights, Metropolitan
could allocate water without regard to historic water purchases or dependence on
Metropolitan. The Water Authority and its member agencies are taking measures to reduce
dependence on Metropolitan through development of additional supplies and a water supply
portfolio that would not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation. Metropolitan has
stated, consistent with Section 4202 of its Administrative Code that it is prepared to provide
the Water Authority‟s service area with adequate supplies of water to meet expanding and
increasing needs in the years ahead. When and as additional water resources are required to
meet increasing needs, Metropolitan stated it will be prepared to deliver such supplies. In
Section II.4 of their 2005 RUWMP, Metropolitan states that through effective management of
its water supply, they fully expect to be 100 percent reliable in meeting all non-discounted
non-interruptible demands throughout the next twenty-five years.
The Water Authority has made large investments in Metropolitan‟s facilities and will continue
to include imported supplies from Metropolitan in the future resource mix. As discussed in
the Water Authority‟s 2005 UWMP, the Water Authority and its member agencies are
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
23
planning to diversify the San Diego regions supply portfolio and reduce purchases from
Metropolitan.
As part of the Water Authority‟s diversification efforts, the Water Authority is now taking
delivery of conserved agricultural water from IID and water saved from the AAC and CC
lining projects. The CC lining project is complete and the Water Authority has essentially
completed construction of the AAC lining project. Table 7 summarizes the Water Authority‟s
supply sources with detailed information included in the sections to follow. Deliveries from
Metropolitan are also included in Table 7, which is further discussed in Section 6.1 above.
The Water Authority‟s member agencies provided the verifiable local supply targets for
groundwater, groundwater recovery, recycled water, and surface water, which are discussed in
more detail in Section 5 of the Water Authority‟s 2005 UWMP.
Table 7
Projected Verifiable Water Supplies – Water Authority Service Area
Normal Year (acre feet)
Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Water Authority Supplies
Metropolitan Supplies 445,858 399,855 331,374 342,870 372,922
Water Authority/IID Transfer 70,000 100,000 190,000 200,000 200,000
AAC and CC Lining Projects 77,700 77,700 77,700 77,700 77,700
Member Agency Supplies
Local Surface Water 59,649 59,649 59,649 59,649 59,649
Recycled Water 33,668 40,662 45,548 46,492 47,584
Seawater Desalination 0 34,689 36,064 37,754 40,000
Groundwater 17,175 18,945 19,775 19,775 19,775
Groundwater Recovery 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400 11,400
Total Projected Supplies 715,450 742,900 771,510 795,640 829,030
Source: The Water Authority 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
Section 5 of the Water Authority‟s 2005 UWMP also includes a discussion on the local
supply target for seawater desalination. Seawater desalination supplies represent a significant
future local resource in the Water Authority‟s service area. Poseidon Resources is pursuing
the development of a local, privately owned desalination project located adjacent to the
Encina Power Station. As of June 2007, Poseidon has contracted with the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District (MWD) (up to 28,000 ac-ft/yr depending on demands), Valley Center MWD
(7,500 ac-ft/yr), Rincon Del Diablo MWD (4,000 ac-ft/yr), and Sweetwater Authority (2,400
ac-ft/yr) to supply up to 41,900 ac-ft/yr of desalinated seawater. The verifiable seawater
desalination figure is based on the contract amounts and projected seawater desalination
deliveries to Carlsbad MWD. As shown in Table 7, the verifiable projected local seawater
desalination supplies vary each year based on the Carlsbad MWD demands (which are less
than their desalinated seawater contract amount of 28,000 ac-ft/yr). There are several
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
24
contingencies related to Poseidon‟s agreements with these member agencies and the Water
Authority that must be satisfied before implementation of the project and its ultimate yield
can be determined. These contingencies include obtaining legal entitlements for construction
of the project, determination of a mutually acceptable delivery interconnection points and
delivery charge, and engagement of a third party exchange agency partner where physical
delivery to the contracting agency is not practical. The Water Authority is negotiating
specific elements for a water purchase agreement with Poseidon which include water
purchase price, allocation of risk and options to eventually purchase the project‟s pipeline and
the entire desalination plant. This agreement will supersede the contracts Poseidon has
negotiated with the four Districts. Before negotiations begin on a final agreement, Poseidon
must secure sufficient financial commitments from private investors to meet requirements for
fully funding project construction. In addition, Poseidon must execute all agreements for
construction and operation of the project and finalize the documents needed to finance the
project in the bond market.
The Water Authority‟s existing and planned supplies from the IID transfer and canal lining
projects are considered “drought-proof” supplies and should be available at the yields shown
in Table 7 in normal, single dry, and multiple dry year scenarios. For dry year yields from
Metropolitan supplies, refer to Metropolitan‟s 2005 RUWMP, discussed in Section 6.1 above.
As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment and/or verification report, an
agency‟s shortage contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of
supply. Section 9 of the Water Authority‟s 2005 UWMP contains a detailed shortage
contingency analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought
management. The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies,
through the Emergency Response Plan, Emergency Storage Project, and Drought
Management Plan (DMP) are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an
interruption of water supplies. The DMP, completed in May 2006, provides the Water
Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a
shortage of imported water supplies from Metropolitan due to prolonged drought or other
supply shortfall conditions. The actions will help the region avoid or minimize the impacts of
shortages and ensure an equitable allocation of supplies throughout the San Diego region.
6.2.1.1 Water Authority-Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation and Transfer
Agreement
The QSA was signed in October 2003, and resolves long-standing disputes regarding priority
and use of Colorado River water and creates a baseline for implementing water transfers. With
approval of the QSA, the Water Authority and IID were able to implement their Water
Conservation and Transfer Agreement. This agreement not only provides reliability for the San
Diego region, but also assists California in reducing its use of Colorado River water to its legal
allocation.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
25
On April 29, 1998, the Water Authority signed a historic agreement with IID for the long-term
transfer of conserved Colorado River water to San Diego County. The Water Authority-IID
Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement (Transfer Agreement) is the largest agriculture-to-
urban water transfer in United States history. Colorado River water will be conserved by
Imperial Valley farmers who voluntarily participate in the program and then transferred to the
Water Authority for use in San Diego County.
Implementation Status
On October 10, 2003, the Water Authority and IID executed an amendment to the original 1998
Transfer Agreement. This amendment modified certain aspects of the 1998 Agreement to be
consistent with the terms and conditions of the QSA and related agreements. It also modified
other aspects of the agreement to lessen the environmental impacts of the transfer of conserved
water. The amendment was expressly contingent on the approval and implementation of the
QSA, which was also executed on October 10, 2003.
On November 5, 2003, IID filed a complaint in Imperial County Superior Court seeking
validation of 13 contracts associated with the Transfer Agreement and the QSA. Imperial
County and various private parties filed additional suits in Superior Court, alleging violations of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Water Code, and other laws
related to the approval of the QSA, the water transfer, and related agreements. The lawsuits have
been coordinated for trial. The IID, Coachella Valley Water District, Metropolitan, the Water
Authority, and State are defending these suits and coordinating to seek validation of the
contracts. Implementation of the transfer provisions is proceeding during litigation. For further
and the latest information regarding the litigation and current progress, please contact the Water
Authority‟s General Counsel.
Expected Supply
Deliveries into San Diego County from the transfer began in 2003 with an initial transfer of
10,000 ac-ft. The Water Authority received 20,000 ac-ft in 2004, 30,000 in 2005, and 40,000 in
2006. The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 ac-ft by 2021 then remain fixed for the
duration of the Transfer Agreement. The initial term of the Transfer Agreement is 45 years, with
a provision that either agency may extend the agreement for an additional 30-year term.
During dry years, when water availability is low, the conserved water will be transferred under
the IID Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the Lower Colorado River
Basin. Without the protection of these rights, the Water Authority could suffer delivery
cutbacks. In recognition for the value of such reliability, the 1998 contract required the Water
Authority to pay a premium on transfer water under defined regional shortage circumstances.
The shortage premium period duration is the period of consecutive days during which any of the
following exist: 1) a Water Authority shortage; 2) a shortage condition for the Lower Colorado
River as declared by the Secretary; and 3) a Critical Year. Under terms of the October 2003
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
26
amendment, the shortage premium will not be included in the cost formula until Agreement Year
16.
Transportation
The Water Authority entered into a water exchange agreement with Metropolitan on October 10,
2003, to transport the Water Authority-IID transfer water from the Colorado River to San Diego
County. Under the exchange agreement, Metropolitan will take delivery of the transfer water
through its Colorado River Aqueduct. In exchange, Metropolitan will deliver to the Water
Authority a like quantity and quality of water. The Water Authority will pay Metropolitan‟s
applicable wheeling rate for each acre-foot of exchange water delivered. According to the water
exchange agreement, Metropolitan will make delivery of the transfer water for 35 years, unless
the Water Authority elects to extend the agreement another 10 years for a total of 45 years.
Cost/Financing
The costs associated with the transfer are proposed to be financed through the Water
Authority‟s rates and charges. In the agreement between the Water Authority and IID, the
price for the transfer water started at $258 per acre-foot and increases by a set amount for the
first five years. The 2005 price for transfer water is $276 per acre-foot. Procedures are in
place to evaluate and determine market-based rates following the first five-year period.
In accordance with the October 2003 amended exchange agreement between Metropolitan
and the Water Authority, the initial cost to transport the conserved water was $253 per acre-
foot. Thereafter, the price would be equal to the charge or charges set by Metropolitan‟s
Board of Directors pursuant to applicable laws and regulation, and generally applicable to the
conveyance of water by Metropolitan on behalf of its member agencies. The transportation
charge in 2005 was $258 per acre-foot.
The Water Authority is providing $10 million to help offset potential socioeconomic impacts
associated with temporary land fallowing. IID will credit the Water Authority for these funds
during years 16 through 45. At the end of the fifth year of the transfer agreement (2007), the
Water Authority will prepay IID an additional $10 million for future deliveries of water. IID
will credit the Water Authority for this up-front payment during years 16 through 30.
As part of implementation of the QSA and water transfer, the Water Authority also entered
into an environmental cost sharing agreement. The agreement specifies that the Water
Authority will contribute $64 million for the purpose of funding environmental mitigation
costs and contributing to the Salton Sea Restoration Fund.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
27
Written Contracts or Other Proof
The supply and costs associated with the transfer are based primarily on the following
documents:
Agreement for Transfer of Conserved Water by and between IID and the Water Authority
(April 29, 1998). This Agreement provides for a market-based transaction in which the Water
Authority would pay IID a unit price for agricultural water conserved by IID and transferred
to the Water Authority.
Revised Fourth Amendment to Agreement between IID and the Water Authority for Transfer of
Conserved Water (October 10, 2003). Consistent with the executed Quantification Settlement
Agreement (QSA) and related agreements, the amendments restructure the agreement and
modify it to minimize the environmental impacts of the transfer of conserved water to the Water
Authority.
Amended and Restated Agreement between Metropolitan and Water Authority for the Exchange
of Water (October 10, 2003). This agreement was executed pursuant to the QSA and provides
for delivery of the transfer water to the Water Authority.
Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding, and Habitat Conservation Plan Development
Agreement among IID, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), and Water Authority
(October 10, 2003). This Agreement provides for the specified allocation of QSA-related
environmental review, mitigation, and litigation costs for the term of the QSA, and for
development of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
Quantification Settlement Agreement Joint Powers Authority Creation and Funding
Agreement (October 10, 2003). The purpose of this agreement is to create and fund the QSA
Joint Powers Authority and to establish the limits of the funding obligation of CVWD, IID,
and Water Authority for environmental mitigation and Salton Sea restoration pursuant to SB
654 (Machado).
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
Federal Endangered Species Act Permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a
Biological Opinion on January 12, 2001, that provides incidental take authorization and certain
measures required to offset species impacts on the Colorado River regarding such actions.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Petition. SWRCB adopted Water Rights Order
2002-0016 concerning IID and Water Authority‟s amended joint petition for approval of a long-
term transfer of conserved water from IID to the Water Authority and to change the point of
diversion, place of use, and purpose of use under Permit 7643.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
28
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. As lead agency,
IID certified the Final EIR for the Conservation and Transfer Agreement on June 28, 2002.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement on the
Bureau of Reclamation's Voluntary Fish and Wildlife Conservation Measures and Associated
Conservation Agreements with the California Water Agencies (12/18/02). The U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service issued the biological opinion/incidental take statement for water transfer
activities involving the Bureau of Reclamation and associated with IID/other California water
agencies' actions on listed species in the Imperial Valley and Salton Sea (per the June 28, 2002
EIR).
Addendum to EIR for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. IID as lead agency and Water
Authority as responsible agency approved addendum to EIR in October 2003.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. Bureau of
Reclamation issued a Record of Decision on the EIS in October 2003.
CA Department of Fish and Game California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit
#2081-2003-024-006). The California Department of Fish and Game issued this permit
(10/22/04) for potential take effects on state-listed/fully protected species associated with
IID/other California water agencies' actions on listed species in the Imperial Valley and Salton
Sea (per the June 28, 2002 EIR).
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit. A CESA permit was issued by California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on April 4, 2005, providing incidental take authorization
for potential species impacts on the Colorado River.
6.2.1.2 All-American Canal and Coachella Canal Lining Projects
As part of the QSA and related contracts, the Water Authority was assigned Metropolitan‟s
rights to 77,700 ac-ft/yr of conserved water from projects that will line the All-American
Canal (AAC) and Coachella Canal (CC). The projects will reduce the loss of water that
currently occurs through seepage, and the conserved water will be delivered to the Water
Authority. This conserved water will provide the San Diego region with an additional 8.5
million acre-feet over the 110-year life of the agreement.
Implementation Status
The Coachella Canal lining project is complete and operational and the All-American Canal
lining project is operational complete with some remaining construction activities to be
concluded.
Earthwork for the Coachella Canal lining project began in November 2004 and involves
approximately 37 miles of canal. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
29
documentation is complete, including an amended Record of Decision by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR). The amendment was required after revising the project design: instead
of lining the canal in place, the project entailed the construction of a parallel canal. The
project was completed in 2006, and deliveries of conserved water started in 2007.
The construction related activities are mostly complete on the AAC lining project. The lining
project consists of constructing a concrete-lined canal parallel to 24 miles of the existing AAC
from Pilot Knob to Drop 3.
In July 2005, a lawsuit (CDEM v United States, Case No. CV-S-05-0870-KJD-PAL) was filed
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of U.S. and Mexican groups
challenging the lining of the AAC. The lawsuit, which names the Secretary of the Interior as
a defendant, claims that seepage water from the canal belongs to water users in Mexico.
California water agencies note that the seepage water is actually part of California's Colorado
River allocation and not part of Mexico's allocation. The plaintiffs also allege a failure by the
United States to comply with environmental laws. Federal officials have stated that they
intend to vigorously defend the case.
Expected Supply
The AAC lining project will yield 67,700 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water for
allocation upon completion of construction. The CC lining project will yield 26,000 acre-feet
of Colorado River water each year available for allocation upon completion of construction.
The October 10, 2003, Allocation Agreement states that 16,000 acre-feet per year of
conserved CC lining water will be allocated to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights
Settlement Parties. The remaining amount, 10,000 acre-feet per year from the CC lining
conserved water plus the 67,700 acre-feet per year AAC lining conserved water totaling
77,700 acre-feet per year, will be available to the Water Authority. According to the
Allocation Agreement, IID has call rights to a portion (5,000 acre-feet per year) of the
conserved water upon termination of the QSA for the remainder of the 110 years of the
Allocation Agreement and upon satisfying certain conditions. The term of the QSA is for up
to 75 years.
Transportation
The October 10, 2003, Exchange Agreement between the Water Authority and Metropolitan
also provides for the delivery of the conserved water from the canal lining projects. The
Water Authority will pay Metropolitan‟s applicable wheeling rate for each acre-foot of
exchange water delivered. In the Agreement, Metropolitan will deliver the canal lining water
for the term of the Allocation Agreement (110 years).
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
30
Cost/Financing
Under California Water Code Section 12560 et seq., the Water Authority will receive $200
million in state funds for construction of the projects. In addition, under California Water
Code Section 79567, $20 million from Proposition 50 is also available for the lining projects.
Additionally, the Water Authority will receive $35 million for groundwater conjunctive use
projects as part of the agreement. The Water Authority would be responsible for additional
expenses above the funds provided by the state.
The rate to be paid to transport the canal lining water will be equal to the charge or charges set
by Metropolitan‟s Board of Directors pursuant to applicable law and regulation and generally
applicable to the conveyance of water by Metropolitan on behalf of its member agencies.
In accordance with the Allocation Agreement, the Water Authority will also be responsible
for a portion of the net additional Operation, Maintenance, and Repair (OM&R) costs for the
lined canals. Any costs associated with the lining projects as proposed, are to be financed
through the Water Authority‟s rates and charges.
Written Contracts or Other Proof
The expected supply and costs associated with the lining projects are based primarily on the
following documents:
U.S. Public Law 100-675 (1988). Authorized the Department of the Interior to reduce seepage
from the existing earthen AAC and CC. The law provides that conserved water will be made
available to specified California contracting water agencies according to established priorities.
California Department of Water Resources - Metropolitan Funding Agreement (2001).
Reimburse Metropolitan for project work necessary to construct the lining of the CC in an
amount not to exceed $74 million. Modified by First Amendment (2004) to replace
Metropolitan with the Authority. Modified by Second Amendment (2004) to increase funding
amount to $83.65 million, with addition of funds from Proposition 50.
California Department of Water Resources - IID Funding Agreement (2001). Reimburse IID for
project work necessary to construct a lined AAC in an amount not to exceed $126 million.
Metropolitan - CVWD Assignment and Delegation of Design Obligations Agreement (2002).
Assigns design of the CC lining project to CVWD.
Metropolitan - CVWD Financial Arrangements Agreement for Design Obligations (2002).
Obligates Metropolitan to advance funds to CVWD to cover costs for CC lining project design
and CVWD to invoice Metropolitan to permit the Department of Water Resources to be billed
for work completed.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
31
Allocation Agreement among the United States of America, The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, San Diego
County Water Authority, the La Jolla, Pala, Pauma, Rincon, and San Pasqual Bands of Mission
Indians, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, the City of Escondido, and Vista
Irrigation District (October 10, 2003). This agreement includes assignment of Metropolitan‟s
rights and interest in delivery of 77,700 acre-feet of Colorado River water previously intended to
be delivered to Metropolitan to the Water Authority. Allocates water from the AAC and CC
lining projects for at least 110 years to the Water Authority, the San Luis Rey Indian Water
Rights Settlement Parties, and IID, if it exercises its call rights.
Amended and Restated Agreement between Metropolitan and Water Authority for the Exchange
of Water (October 10, 2003). This agreement was executed pursuant to the QSA and provides
for delivery of the conserved canal lining water to the Water Authority.
Agreement between Metropolitan and Water Authority regarding Assignment of Agreements
related to the AAC and CC Lining Projects. This agreement was executed in April 2004 and
assigns Metropolitan's rights to the Water Authority for agreements that had been executed to
facilitate funding and construction of the AAC and CC lining projects:
Assignment and Delegation of Construction Obligations for the Coachella Canal Lining Project
under the Department of Water Resources Funding Agreement No. 4600001474 from the San
Diego County Water Authority to the Coachella Valley Water District, dated September 8, 2004.
Agreement Regarding the Financial Arrangements between the San Diego County Water
Authority and Coachella Valley Water District for the Construction Obligations for the
Coachella Canal Lining Project, dated September 8, 2004.
Agreement No. 04-XX-30-W0429 Among the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the
Coachella Valley Water District, and the San Diego County Water Authority for the
Construction of the Coachella Canal Lining Project Pursuant to Title II of Public Law 100-675,
dated October 19, 2004.
California Water Code Section 12560 et seq. This Water Code Section provides for $200
million to be appropriated to the Department of Water Resources to help fund the canal lining
projects in furtherance of implementing California‟s Colorado River Water Use Plan.
California Water Code Section 79567. This Water Code Section identifies $20 million as
available for appropriation by the California Legislature from the Water Security, Clean
Drinking Water, Coastal, and Beach Protection Fund of 2002 (Proposition 50) to DWR for
grants for canal lining and related projects necessary to reduce Colorado River water use.
According to the Allocation Agreement, it is the intention of the agencies that those funds will be
available for use by the Water Authority, IID, or CVWD for the AAC and CC lining projects.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
32
California Public Resources Code Section 75050(b)(1). This section identifies up to $36 million
as available for water conservation projects that implement the Allocation Agreement as defined
in the Quantification Settlement Agreement.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
AAC Lining Project Final EIS/EIR (March 1994). A final EIR/EIS analyzing the potential
impacts of lining the AAC was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in March
1994. A Record of Decision was signed by Reclamation in July 1994, implementing the
preferred alternative for lining the AAC. A re-examination and analysis of these environmental
compliance documents by Reclamation in November 1999 determined that these documents
continued to meet the requirements of the NEPA and the CEQA and would be valid in the future.
CC Lining Project Final EIS/EIR (April 2001). The final EIR/EIS for the CC lining project was
completed in 2001. Reclamation signed the Record of Decision in April 2002. An amended
Record of Decision has also been signed to take into account revisions to the project description.
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for Coachella Canal Lining Project, SCH
#1990020408; prepared by Coachella Valley Water District, May 16, 2001.
Environmental Commitment Plan for the Coachella Canal Lining Project, approved by the US
Bureau of Reclamation (Boulder City, NV) on March 4, 2003.
Environmental Commitment Plan and Addendum to the All-American Canal Lining Project
EIS/EIR California State Clearinghouse Number SCH 90010472 (June 2004, prepared by
IID).
Addendum to Final EIS/EIR and Amendment to Environmental Commitment Plan for the
All-American Canal Lining Project (approved June 27, 2006, by IID Board of Directors).
6.2.2 Water Authority Capital Improvement Program and Financial Information
The Water Authority‟s capital improvement program (CIP) budget document includes a
description of each of the projects and programs being implemented to ensure existing and
future facilities are adequate to deliver water supplies throughout the region. The project
costs, along with information on the activities that need to be completed, are included in the
CIP document. The Water Authority‟s Master Plan identifies future facilities and other
improvements to the Water Authority‟s system that are necessary to maintain reliability
throughout the region. A programmatic environmental impact report was certified by the
Water Authority Board of Directors for the Master Plan in November 2003. Projects
identified in the Master Plan will be included in the CIP based on Water Authority Board of
Directors‟ approval. Information on the Water Authority‟s most recent CIP can be found on
the internet at www.sdcwa.org/infra/cip.phtml.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
33
One of the highest priority projects identified in the Master Plan is the development of
additional treatment capacity within the region. During recent summers, the Water Authority
experienced peak-demand conditions that have exceeded the region‟s rated treatment
capacity. The Master Plan recommended development of an additional 50 mgd of treatment
capacity immediately and another 50 mgd capacity by 2010. In response to this
recommendation, the Water Authority board of directors in September 2005, approved
construction of a 100 mgd water treatment plant. The water treatment plant was completed
and placed into operation in 2008.
The Master Plan also identified carryover storage as a way to improve water supply reliability
for the region. The Water Authority identified the three main benefits of carryover storage as:
1) enhance water supply reliability by providing a reliable and readily available source of
water during periods of potential shortage, such as during dry years; 2) increase system
efficiency by providing operational flexibility to serve above normal demands, such as those
occurring in dry years, from storage rather than by the over-sizing of the Water Authority‟s
imported water transmission facilities; and 3) better management of water supplies to allow
the Water Authority to accept additional imported deliveries during periods of availability,
such as during wet years, to ensure water availability during dry years. The Water Authority
prepared an EIR/EIS for a carryover storage project, with the preferred alternative being an
expansion of the San Vicente Reservoir.
The Water Authority Board of Directors is provided a semi-annual and annual report on the
status of development of the CIP projects. As described in the Water Authority‟s biennial
budget, a combination of long and short term debt and cash (pay-as-you-go) will provide
funding for capital improvements. Additional information is included in the Water
Authority‟s biennial budget, which also contains selected financial information and
summarizes the Water Authority‟s investment policy.
6.3 Otay Water District
The Otay WD 2009 Water Resource Master Plan updated November, 2010 provides projected
demands at build out and the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan contains comparisons of
projected supply and demands through the year 2030. Projected potable water resources to
meet planned demands as documented were planned to be supplied entirely with imported
water received from the Water Authority. Recycled water resources to meet projected
demands are planned to be supplied from local wastewater treatment plants. The Otay WD
currently has no local supply of raw water, potable water, or groundwater resources.
The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater, recycled water market
expansion, and seawater desalination supplies by the Otay WD have evolved and are planned
to occur in response to the regional water supply issues. These water supply projects are in
addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and
Metropolitan UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new
additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
34
planning process. These local and regional water supply projects will allow for less reliance
upon imported water and are considered a new water supply resource for the Otay WD.
The Otay WD expansion of the market areas for the use of recycled water within the
watersheds upstream of the Sweetwater Reservoir and the Lower Otay Reservoir, and Otay
Mesa will increase recycled water use and thus require less dependence on imported water for
irrigation purposes.
The supply forecasts contained within this WSA Report do consider development and/or
acquisition of potential groundwater, recycled water market expansion, and seawater
desalination supplies by the Otay WD.
6.3.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies
The availability of sufficient potable water supplies and plans for acquiring additional potable
water supplies to serve existing and future demands of the Otay WD is founded upon the
preceding discussions regarding Metropolitan‟s and the Water Authority‟s water supply
resources and water supplies to be acquired by the Otay WD. Historic imported water
deliveries from the Water Authority to Otay WD and recycled water deliveries from the Otay
WD Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) are shown in Table 8.
Since the year 2000 through mid May 2007, recycled water demand has exceeded the
recycled water supply capability typically in the summer months. The RWCWRF is limited
to a maximum production of about 1,300 ac-ft/yr. The recycled water supply shortfall had
been met by supplementing with potable water into the recycled water storage system as
needed by adding potable water supplied by the Water Authority. On May 18, 2007 an
additional source of recycled water supply from the City of San Diego‟s South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) became available. The supply of recycled water from the
SBWRP is a result of completing construction and commencement of operations of the
transmission, storage, and pump station systems necessary to link the SBWRP recycled water
supply source to the existing Otay WD recycled water system.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
35
Table 8
Otay Water District
Historic Imported and Local Water Supplies
Calendar
Year
Imported Water
(acre-feet)
Recycled Water
(acre-feet)
Total
(acre-feet)
1980 12,558 0 12,558
1985 14,529 0 14,529
1990 23,200 0 23,200
1995 20,922 614 21,536
2000 30,936 948 31,884
2005 40,322 1,227 41,549
2009 37,566 4,533 42,099
Source: Otay WD operational records.
6.3.1.1 Imported and Regional Supplies
The availability of sufficient imported and regional potable water supplies to serve existing
and planned uses within Otay WD is demonstrated in the above discussion on Metropolitan
and the Water Authority‟s water supply reliability. The County Water Authority Act, Section
5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of
its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing
needs.” The Water Authority provides between 75 to 95 percent of the total supplies used by
its 24 member agencies, depending on local weather and supply conditions. In calendar year
2009 the supply to Otay WD was 37,566 ac-ft of supply from the Water Authority. An
additional 4,533 ac-ft of recycled water was received from the City of San Diego and from the
District‟s Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility. The demand for potable water
within the Otay WD is expected to increase to about 72,900 ac-ft by 2025 as per the Otay WD
2005 UWMP. These figures take into account the amount of local supply (i.e. groundwater,
conservation, recycling, etc.) that is expected to meet demands within Otay WD service area.
Potable Water System Facilities
The Otay WD continues to pursue diversification of its water supply resources to increase
reliability and flexibility. The Otay WD also continues to plan, design, and construct potable
water system facilities to obtain these supplies and to distribute potable water to meet
customer demands. The Otay WD has successfully negotiated two water supply
diversification agreements that enhance reliability and flexibility, which are briefly described
as follows.
The Otay WD entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego, known as the Otay
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Agreement. The Otay WTP Agreement provides for raw
water purchase from the Water Authority and treatment by the City of San Diego at their
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
36
Otay WTP for delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the Otay
WTP Agreement to access the regions raw water supply system and the local water
treatment plant became fully operational in August 2005. This supply link consists of the
typical storage, transmission, pumping, flow measurement, and appurtenances to receive
and transport the treated water to the Otay WD system. The City of San Diego
obligation to supply 10 mgd of treated water under the Otay WTP Agreement is
contingent upon there being available 10 mgd of surplus treatment capacity in the Otay
WTP until such time as Otay WD pays the City of San Diego to expand the Otay WTP to
meet the Otay WD future needs. In the event that the City of San Diego‟s surplus is
projected to be less than 10 mgd the City of San Diego will consider and not
unreasonably refuse the expansion of the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs.
The Otay WTP existing rated capacity is 40 mgd with an actual effective capacity of
approximately 34 mgd. The City of San Diego‟s typical demand for treated water from
the Otay WTP is approximately 20 mgd. It is at the City of San Diego‟s discretion to
utilize either imported raw water delivered by the Water Authority Pipeline No. 3 or local
water stored in Lower Otay Reservoir for treatment to supply the Otay WD demand.
The Otay WD entered into an agreement with the Water Authority, known as the East
County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP Agreement). The
ECRTWIP Agreement provides for transmission of raw water to the Helix WD R. M.
Levy WTP for treatment and delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement
the ECRTWIP Agreement is complete allowing access to the regions raw water supply
system and the local water treatment plant. This supply link consists of the typical
transmission, pumping, storage, flow control, and appurtenances to receive and transport
the potable water from the R. M. Levy WTP to Otay WD. The Otay WD is required to
take a minimum of 10,000 ac-ft/yr of treated water from the R.M. Levy WTP supplied
from the regions raw water system.
Cost and Financing
The capital improvement costs associated with water supply and delivery are financed
through the Otay WD water meter capacity fee and user rate structures. The Otay WD
potable water sales revenue are used to pay for the wholesale cost of the treated water supply
and the operating and maintenance expenses of the potable water system facilities.
Written Agreements, Contracts, or Other Proof
The supply and cost associated with deliveries of treated water from the Otay WTP and the R.M.
Levy WTP is based on the following documents.
Agreement for the Purchase of Treated Water from the Otay Water Treatment Plant between the
City of San Diego and the Otay Water District. The Otay WD entered into an agreement dated
January 11, 1999 with the City of San Diego that provides for 10 mgd of surplus treated water to
the Otay WD from the existing Otay WTP capacity. The agreement allows for the purchase of
treated water on an as available basis from the Otay WTP. The Otay WD pays the Water
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
37
Authority at the prevailing raw water rate for raw water and pays the City of San Diego at a rate
equal to the actual cost of treatment to potable water standards.
Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District Regarding
Implementation of the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program. The
ECRTWIP Agreement requires the purchase of at least 10,000 ac-ft per year of potable water
from the Helix WD R.M. Levy WTP at the prevailing Water Authority treated water rate. The
ECRTWIP Agreement is dated April 27, 2006.
Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District for Design,
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification.
The Otay WD entered into the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification Agreement dated
January 24, 2007 with the Water Authority to increase the physical capacity of the Otay 14 Flow
Control Facility. The Water Authority and Otay WD to 50% share the capital cost to expand its
capacity from 8 mgd to 16 mgd.
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
The Otay WD constructed the pipeline and pump station associated with the Otay WTP
supply source and for the 640-1 and 640-2 water storage reservoirs project associated with the
ECRTWIP after securing all of the permits and completing the CEQA documentation.
The transmission main project constructed about 26,000 feet of a 36-inch diameter steel
pipeline from the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility to the 640-1 and 640-2 Reservoirs project.
The Otay 14 Flow Control Facility modification increased the capacity of the existing systems
from 8 mgd to 16 mgd. CEQA documentation is complete for both projects. Construction of
both of these projects was completed October 2010.
The City of San Diego and the Helix Water District are required to meet all applicable federal,
state, and local health and water quality requirements for the potable water produced at the
Otay WTP and the R.M. Levy WTP respectively.
6.3.1.2 Recycled Water Supplies
Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services provided by the Otay WD is limited to
a relatively small area within what is known as the Jamacha Basin, located within the Middle
Sweetwater River Basin watershed upstream of the Sweetwater Reservoir and downstream of
Loveland Reservoir. Water recycling is defined as the treatment and disinfection of
municipal wastewater to provide a water supply suitable for non-potable reuse. The Otay WD
owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility, which produces
recycled water treated to a tertiary level for landscape irrigation purposes. The recycled water
market area of the Otay WD is located primarily within the eastern area of the City of Chula
Vista and on the Otay Mesa. The Otay WD distributes recycled water to a substantial market
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
38
area that includes but is not limited to the U.S. Olympic Training Center, the EastLake Golf
Course, Otay Ranch, and other development projects.
The Otay WD projects that annual average demands for recycled water will increase to about
6,294 ac-ft/yr by 2025 and are estimated to approach 10,000 ac-ft/yr at ultimate build out for
irrigation purposes. About 1,300 ac-ft/yr of supply is generated by the RWCWRF, with the
remainder planned to be supplied to Otay WD by the City of San Diego‟s SBWRP.
North District Recycled Water Concept
The Otay WD is a recognized leader in the use of recycled water for irrigation and other
commercial uses. The Otay WD continues the quest to investigate all viable opportunities to
expand the successful recycled water program into areas that are not currently served. One of
these areas is in the portion of the service area designated as the North District, located within
the Middle Sweetwater River Basin watershed upstream of the Sweetwater River. The close
proximity of the recycled water markets in the North District to the Otay WD source of
recycled water, the RWCWRF, means that the distribution system to serve this area could be
constructed relatively cost effectively. This makes the North District a logical location for the
expansion of the Otay WD recycled water system and market area.
The purpose of the North District Recycled Water System Development Project, Phase I
Concept Study, is to identify the feasibility of using recycled water in the North District and
to investigate and assess any limitations or constraints to its use. The Phase I study
components of the North District Recycled Water Concept encompassed the preparation of
six technical memorandums including the project definition, a discussion of the regulatory
process, a discussion of the protection of the watershed that would be affected by recycled
water use in the North District, identification of stakeholders, public outreach, and an
implementation plan.
Several opportunities that could be realized with the implementation of the use of recycled
water in the North District were identified. These include a reduction of demand on the
potable water system and maximizing recycled water resources which in turn minimizes
treated wastewater discharges to the local ocean outfall. Other opportunities are a possible
partnership with Sweetwater Authority to monitor any benefits and impacts of increased
recycled water use in the watershed and stakeholder outreach to resolve any water quality
concerns and to retain consumer confidence. Also identified were two major constraints
associated with the North District Recycled Water System Development Project. One
constraint is the water quality objectives for the Middle Sweetwater Basin that will affect the
effluent limitations for the recycled water produced at the RWCWRF. At this time, the
effluent limit that is of concern is total nitrogen. An examination as to how the treatment
process might be modified to enhance nitrogen removal and a design is underway to remedy
the total nitrogen issue. The other major constraint is the cost of the infrastructure needed to
convey and store recycled water in the North District. These costs are estimated to be in the
range of $14 to $15 million dollars.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
39
There are two additional phases proposed for the North District Recycled Water System
Development Project. Phase II would include further investigation of the issues identified in
Phase I as requiring further study. These include stakeholder outreach, regulatory issues, and
facility planning. The third phase of the effort would include the facility planning, permitting,
environmental compliance, design, and construction of the improvements necessary for
delivery of recycled water to the North District markets.
The estimated amount of imported water saved at full implementation of the North District
Recycled Water System Development Project is 1,200 ac-ft/yr. This saved imported water
could than be used to offset new potable water demands.
Recycled Water System Facilities
The Otay WD has and continues to construct recycled water storage, pumping, transmission,
and distribution facilities to meet projected recycled water market demands. For nearly 20
years, millions of dollars of capital improvements have been constructed. The supply link
consisting of a transmission main, storage reservoir, and a pump station to receive and
transport the recycled water from the City of San Diego‟s SBWRP are complete and recycled
water deliveries began on May 18, 2007.
Cost and Financing
The capital improvement costs associated with the recycled water supply and distribution
systems are financed through the Otay WD water meter capacity fee and user rate structures.
The Otay WD recycled water sales revenue, along with Metropolitan and the Water
Authority‟s recycled water sales incentive programs are used to help offset the costs for the
wholesale purchase and production of the recycled water supply, the operating and
maintenance expenses, and the capital costs of the recycled water system facilities.
Written Agreements, Contracts, or Other Proof
The supply and cost associated with deliveries of recycled water from the SBWRP is based on
the following document.
Agreement between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of
Reclaimed Water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The agreement provides for the
purchase of at least 6,721 ac-ft per year of recycled water from the SBWRP at an initial price of
$350 per acre-foot. The Otay WD Board of Directors approved the final agreement on June 4,
2003 and the San Diego City Council approved the final agreement on October 20, 2003.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
40
Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals
The Otay WD has in place an agreement with Metropolitan for their recycled water sales
incentive program for supplies from the RWCWRF and the SBWRP. Also, the Otay WD has
in place an agreement with the Water Authority for their recycled water sales incentive
program for supplies from the RWCWRF and the SBWRP. The Water Authority sales
incentive agreement was approved by Water Authority on July 26, 2007 and by Otay WD on
August 1, 2007. All permits for the construction of the recycled water facilities to receive,
store, and pump the SBWRP supply have been acquired through the typical planning,
environmental approval, design, and construction processes.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (RWQCB) “Master
Reclamation Permit for Otay Water District Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Facility” was
adopted on May 9, 2007 (Order No. R9-2007-0038). This order establishes master
reclamation requirements for the production, distribution, and use of recycled water in the
Otay WD service area. The order includes the use of tertiary treated water produced and
received from the City of San Diego„s SBWRP. Recycled water received from and produced
by the SBWRP is regulated by Regional Board Order No. 2000-203 and addenda. The City
of San Diego is required to meet all applicable federal, state, and local health and water
quality requirements for the recycled water produced at the SBWRP and delivered to Otay
WD in conformance with Order No. 2000-203.
6.3.1.3 Potential Groundwater Supplies
The Otay WD 2009 WRMP, 2005 UWMP, and the Otay WD March 2007 Integrated Water
Resources Plan (2007 IRP) both contain a description of the development of potential
groundwater supplies. Over the past several years, Otay WD has studied numerous potential
groundwater supply options that have shown, through groundwater monitoring well activities,
poor quality water and/or insufficient yield from the basins at a cost effective level. The Otay
WD has developed capital improvement program projects to continue the quest to develop
potential groundwater resources. Local Otay WD groundwater supply development is
currently considered as a viable water supply resource to meet projected demands.
The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater supply projects by the Otay WD
have evolved and have been resurrected in response to the regional water supply issues related
to water source supply conditions. Local ground water supply projects will allow for less
reliance upon imported water, achieve a level of independence of the regional wholesale
water agencies, and diversify the Otay WD water supply portfolio consistent the Otay WD
2007 IRP.
In recognition of the need to develop sufficient alternative water supplies, the Otay WD has
taken the appropriate next steps towards development of production groundwater well
projects.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
41
There are four groundwater well projects that the Otay WD is actively pursuing to develop as
new local water supplies. They are known as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin
Groundwater Well, the Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well, the Rancho del Rey Groundwater
Well, and the Otay River Groundwater Well Desalination project.
Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well
The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is a new additional water supply
project had been thoroughly studied and documented in the 1990‟s. The Middle Sweetwater
River Basin is located within the Sweetwater River watershed and is that reach of the river
from Sweetwater Reservoir to the upstream Loveland Reservoir. The next step in
development of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is the implementation
of a pilot well project.
The Otay WD in cooperation with Sweetwater Authority and the Water Authority prepared a
water resources audit for the Middle Sweetwater River Groundwater Basin in June 1991. The
document was prepared by NBS Lowry and is entitled “Middle Sweetwater River System
Study Water Resources Audit”. The report was prepared as part of an overall study to
identify and evaluate water management alternatives within the Middle Sweetwater River
System (MSRS). The report graphically summaries water resources data for the MSRS.
The Otay WD in cooperation with Sweetwater Authority and the Water Authority prepared an
alternatives evaluation study of the Middle Sweetwater River System Study Water Resources
Audit in May 1993. The document was prepared by Michael R. Welch and is entitled
“Middle Sweetwater River System Study Alternatives Evaluation”. The overall goal of the
study was to identify physical projects and/or management strategies which could enhance the
availability and quality of surface and ground waters within the MSRS.
The Otay WD prepared potential conjunctive use strategies for the Middle Sweetwater River
Basin in September 1994. A report was prepared by Michael R. Welch and is entitled
“Middle Sweetwater River Basin Conjunctive Use Alternatives”. The report was prepared for
the consideration of the Otay WD and Sweetwater Authority. The conceptual level planning
information within report identifies and evaluates eight conjunctive use alternatives within the
Middle Sweetwater River Basin.
The ultimate objective of the Otay WD is to develop a groundwater well production system
within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of potable
water as a local supply.
The purpose of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot project is to
identify the feasibility of developing a groundwater resource production system and to
determine and assess any limitations or constraints that may arise.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
42
The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project scope of work will
accomplish six primary goals as follows:
Update project setting
Update applicable project alternatives analysis
Prepare groundwater well pilot project implementation plan
Construct and test pilot monitoring and extraction wells
Provide recommendations regarding costs and feasibility to develop a groundwater
well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of
producing a sustainable yield of potable water
Prepare groundwater well production project implementation plan and scope of work
The groundwater conjunctive use concept planned to be developed is described as the
extraction of the quantity of water from the groundwater basin that was placed there by
customers of the Otay WD by means of their use of imported treated water that contributed to
the overall volume of groundwater within the basin. This quantity has been estimated to be
on the order of 12.5% of the total consumption of the Otay WD customers within that basin as
measured by their water meters. In the 1994/1995 time frame 810 ac-ft/yr was the estimated
quantity that was placed into the groundwater basin. Currently, that 12.5% quantity could be
on the order of 1,000 ac-ft/yr. The consultant contract scope of work will address this Phase I
concept while further development of the groundwater basin as an additional supply resource
is appropriately considered.
Further development of the groundwater basin to enhance the total groundwater production
could be accomplished by the Otay WD by means of additional extraction of water from the
basin that is placed there by means of either injection and/or spreading basins using imported
untreated water as the resource supply (Phase II). The existing La Mesa Sweetwater
Extension Pipeline, owned by the Water Authority, once converted to an untreated water
deliver system, could be the conveyance system to transport untreated water for this
conjunctive use concept.
These two distinct water resource supply conjunctive use concepts will be addressed so they
may coexist and to allow for their development as separate phases.
The scope of work to complete Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot
Project consists of many major tasks and is to address the groundwater supply concepts
outlined above. It is anticipated that the cost for the entire scope of work, will be on the order
of $2,000,000, which includes a contingency and may take up to one and a half years to
complete.
The primary desired outcome of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot
Project is for the engineering consultant to determine and make recommendations if it is
financially prudent and physically feasible to develop a Phase I groundwater well production
system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
43
up to 1,500 ac-ft/yr of potable water for the Otay WD. If it is deemed that a Middle
Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Production Project is viable than the consultant
will develop and provide a groundwater well production project implementation plan and
related scope of work.
Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well
In early 2001 the Otay WD was approached by a landowner representative about possible
interest in purchasing an existing well or alternatively, acquiring groundwater supplied from
the well located on Otay Mesa. The landowner, National Enterprises, Inc., reportedly stated
that the well could produce 3,200 ac-ft/yr with little or no treatment required prior to
introducing the water into the Otay WD potable water system or alternatively, the recycled
water system. In March 2001 authorization to proceed with testing of the Otay Mesa Lot 7
Groundwater Well was obtained and the Otay WD proceeded with the investigation of this
potential groundwater supply opportunity.
The May 2001 Geoscience Support Services, Inc. completed for the Otay WD the preparation
of a report entitled, “Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well Investigation,” to assess the Otay Mesa Lot 7
Well. The scope of work included a geohydrologic evaluation of the well, analyses of the
water quality samples, management and review of the well video log, and documentation of
well pump testing.
The primary findings, as documented in the report, formed the basis of the following
recommendations:
For the existing well to be use as a potable water supply resource, a sanitary seal must
be installed in accordance with the CDPH guidelines.
Drawdown in the well must be limited to avoid the possibility of collapsing the casing.
Recover from drawdown from pumping is slow and extraction would need to be
terminated for up to 2 days to allow for groundwater level recovery.
The well water would need to be treated and/or blended with potable water prior to
introduction into the potable water distribution system.
In October 2001, the outcome and recommendations of the Geoscience Support Services, Inc.
Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well efforts were presented to the Otay WD Board of Directors. The
existing Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well, based upon the above findings, was determined not to be a
reliable municipal supply of potable water and that better water quality and quantity perhaps
could be discovered deeper or at an alternative location within the San Diego Formation.
The Otay WD is continuing to pursue the Otay Mesa groundwater well opportunity with due
consideration of the recommendations of the existing report and plans to develop a
groundwater well production facility to extract perhaps at least 600 ac-ft/yr. The steps
necessary to put such a well into production are as follows:
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
44
Review the results of available water quality data, video survey for casing and screen
condition, and pump testing.
Investigate, discover, and confirm a reliable sufficient quality and quantity of source
water.
Establish feasibility and cost effectiveness of a production well system.
Negotiate the purchase of a well site.
Proceed with the planning, environmental compliance, permitting, design, and
construction of a groundwater well production system.
Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
In 1991, the McMillin Development Company drilled the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
to augment grading water supplies for their Rancho del Rey development projects. Although
the well was considered a “good producer,” little was known regarding its water quality and
sustainable yield for the water was used solely for earthwork (i.e. dust control and soil
compaction). The well was drilled to 865 feet, with a finished depth of 830 feet and produced
approximately 400 ac-ft/yr of low quality water for four years until its use was discontinued in
April 1995 as McMillin Development Company no longer needed the well. McMillin
Development Company had previously notified the Otay WD of its intent to sell off the
groundwater well asset.
The Otay WD continued discussions with McMillin Development Company and decided to
determine if the Otay WD could use the water from the well and establish if purchase the
property along with the existing well were appropriate. The Otay WD retained Quality
Assurance Laboratories to conduct water quality testing in February 1995. It was established
that the water from the well had a high total dissolved solids levels that exceeded well over
2,000 milligrams per liter. The Otay WD also retained engineering and well drilling firms,
Barrett Consulting Group and Multi Water Systems respectively, which performed pump
draw down tests in December 1995. The results of these efforts established the well‟s long
term yield to be about 629 ac-ft/yr. In February 1996 the Otay WD retained Boyle
Engineering Corporation to prepare a feasibility study to compare alternatives for treating and
using the groundwater and to provide a benefit/cost analysis. The September 1996 Boyle
Engineering Corporation, “Groundwater Treatment Feasibility Study Ranch del Ray Well
Site,” report concluded that a Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project could be feasible. It
was established that both capital and operation and maintenance costs would require the well
to produce at least 700 ac-ft/yr for a minimum of ten years to make the project economically
viable. In October 1997 the Otay WD became owners of the property and well.
In May 1997 the Otay WD prepared and submitted to CDPH an Application for an Amended
Operating Permit to add as a source water supply the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well. The
CDPH established that it would not issue an amended permit for the operation of the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well and any related treatment facilities until the system design and
specifications have reviewed and approved and the facilities must pass field inspection
following construction.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
45
In April 1998 the Otay WD received four proposals from consultants interested in designing
the project. These proposals came in at almost double the estimated cost and in March 2000
the Otay WD decided to suspend further work on the developing the Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well until the project becomes economically viable or other circumstance would
make it desirable to pursue development of the well.
In 2009 the Otay WD decided to reestablish the pursuit of the Rancho del Rey Groundwater
Well project based upon the current water supply and water pricing conditions. Toward this
end, in January 2010, the Board authorized Phase I of the project, the drilling and
development of the Ranch del Rey Well. A new 12-inch production well was drilled 900 feet
below through the groundwater formation and into fractured bedrock below. Testing
completed in September 2010, showed the long-term yield to be 450 gpm, higher than the
previous studies had estimated.
Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI) conducted a detailed economic analysis to confirm the
annualized unit cost of the new water source was economically viable. The SPI study was
complete in November 2010 and on January, 2011, the Board authorized staff to proceed with
the design of a wellhead treatment facility.
Otay River Groundwater Desalination Facility
Many local entities in San Diego County have studied the San Diego Formation and are
interested in its potable water supply potential. These include the Sweetwater Authority, the
Water Authority, City of San Diego, Otay WD, and the United Stated Geological Service.
The San Diego Formation extends from the California-Mexico border to near Mission Bay in
San Diego County, a distance of approximately 16 miles and from the coast to approximately
six miles inland.
What is known about the San Diego Formation is that the geology is complex, and at present,
only partly understood. The heterogeneity of the aquifer makes it extremely difficult to
accurately predict groundwater flow or well performance. Few, if any, investigations have
been performed on the San Diego Formation in the Otay River Valley. Most of the
knowledge is based in the Sweetwater River Valley and the Tijuana River Valley. Therefore,
the Otay River Groundwater Desalination Facility (Otay River) project would produce
valuable and useful data to aid in characterizing the San Diego Formation that could
ultimately lead to the production of potable water.
The objective of Otay WD and Sweetwater Authority is to plan, and potentially permit,
design, and construct an Otay River project within the Lower Otay River Basin capable of
producing a sustainable yield of potable water as a local supply. The Lower Otay River Basin
is located within the Otay River watershed and is that reach of the river below the Lower Otay
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
46
Reservoir. The San Diego Formation is the principal aquifer in the South San Diego Bay area
and underlies the Otay River Basin and other river basins.
The purpose of the Otay River project is to increase the quantity of local water supply within
the South San Diego Bay region by development of a brackish groundwater well and
desalination production system to extract, to the maximum extent practical, groundwater from
the San Diego Formation; thereby, reducing imported and treated water demand from the
Water Authority and Metropolitan.
The development of the Otay River project is being developed in a phased approach. The
Sweetwater Authority and Otay WD are proceeding with the Otay River project and are
participating in all phases of development and intend share equally all aspects and outcomes
such as costs, risks, water supply, benefits, etc.
The Otay River project effort is currently being accomplished in two phases. Phase I, which
is well underway, is envisioned as the planning and feasibility aspects of the project intended
to determine the viability of extracting brackish groundwater from the San Diego Formation
with the purpose to eventually construct brackish groundwater desalination treatment and
transport facilities. Phase II is envisioned as proceeding with a pilot project, environmental
compliance, permitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and other requirements
of the Otay River project production and transport facilities to treat the groundwater and
deliver the produced potable water to customers of both Sweetwater Authority and Otay WD.
Proceeding with Phase II is dependent upon the outcomes of the Phase I efforts.
In 2006, Sweetwater Authority, in partnership with Otay WD received notification from the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) that Sweetwater Authority had been
selected to receive a matching grant for the Otay River Basin Brackish Groundwater
Desalination Study. The grant amount from DWR is $242,000. The combined Sweetwater
Authority and Otay WD contribution is $357,000, for a total of $599,000 to accomplish the
DWR grant study. Through the Otay River Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalination Study,
Sweetwater Authority and Otay WD will determine the feasibility of extracting brackish
groundwater from the San Diego Formation. A portion of the work involves the United States
Geological Society (USGS) services to construct multi-depth monitoring wells near the Otay
River. The monitoring wells have been constructed.
In 2007, Sweetwater Authority , in partnership with Otay WD received notification from the
Water Authority that Sweetwater Authority had been selected to receive a matching grant
from the Water Authority Local Investigations and Studies Assistance (LISA) grant funding
program for the USGS Study of the San Diego Formation for Potential In-lieu Conjunctive
Use concept. The grant amount is $1,500,000. The combined Sweetwater Authority and
Otay WD contribution is $1,500,000, for a total of $3,000,000 to complete the LISA grant
study.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
47
The USGS Study of the San Diego Formation for Potential In-lieu Conjunctive Use effort has
two primary objectives as follows.
Develop an integrated, comprehensive understanding of the geology and hydrology of
the San Diego Formation and the overlying alluvial deposits. With this understanding,
the sustainable yield of the San Diego Formation can be determined founded upon
good science.
Use this understanding to evaluate use of the alluvial deposits and the San Diego
Formation for an in-lieu conjunctive use project for expanded extraction.
The study phase, Phase I, of the Otay River project is to collect necessary geologic,
groundwater, and water quality data that can be used to determine the safe yield from the
aquifer and to develop a solidified plan for completing a Otay River project that could
potentially yield at least 4,500 ac-ft/yr of desalinated potable water.
The achievable goals of the Otay River project are as follows:
Obtain valuable well data that can be used to determine the hydro geological
condition of the San Diego Formation in the Otay River Basin.
Determine the water quality of the aquifer in this region.
Conceptually layout the facilities needed to collect, treat, and deliver desalinated
water to potable water customers of Sweetwater Authority and Otay WD.
Develop a long-range monitoring program for well development and an
implementation plan that clearly identifies the steps needed to complete the
ultimate project.
The Otay River project will allow the partnering each agency to complete a significant step
towards developing a new potable water source from brackish groundwater that is currently
not used.
6.3.1.4 Potential Ocean Desalination Supplies
The Otay WD is currently investigating the feasibility of purchasing desalinated water from a
seawater reverse osmosis plant that is planned to be located in Rosarito, Mexico. This project
is known as the Rosarito Ocean Desalination Facility (Rosarito) project. The treatment
facility is intended to be designed, constructed, and operated in Mexico by a third party. On
June 21, 2010 a report was prepared for the Otay WD by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
entitled Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project.
The Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project report
discusses the likely issues to be considered in terms of water treatment and monitoring,
potential conveyance options within the United States from the international border to
potential delivery points, and environmental, institutional, and permitting considerations for
Otay WD to import the Rosarito project product water as a new local water supply resource.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
48
The three main treatment considerations addressed are:
Treatment required for a reliable, high quality source, which blends effectively with
the existing water supply.
Treatment and monitoring required for compliance with the California Department of
Public Health (CDPH) regulations.
Treatment required for public perception concerns.
While the treatment facility for the Rosarito project will likely not be designed or operated by
the Otay WD as the lead agency, it is important that Otay WD maintain involvement with the
planning, design, and construction of the facility to ensure that the implemented processes
provide a product water of acceptable quality for distribution and use within the Otay WD
system as well as potentially in other agencies‟ systems in the region that may use the product
water, e.g. City of San Diego, the Water Authority, etc. A seawater reverse osmosis treatment
plant removes constituents of concern from the seawater, producing a water quality that far
exceeds established United States and California drinking water regulations for most
parameters, however, a two-pass treatment system may be required to meet acceptable
concentrations of boron and chlorides, similar to the levels seen within the existing Otay WD
supply sources. The Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System
Project report addresses product water quality that is considered acceptable for public health
and distribution.
The Otay WD, or any other potential participating agencies, will be required to get approval
from the CDPH in order to use the desalinated seawater as a water source. Three alternatives
approaches are identified for getting this approval: 1) Certification of the Rosarito project in
Mexico by CDPH; 2) Disinfection treatment only in the United States, receiving a waiver of
specific filtration requirements through CDPH; and 3) Full filtration and disinfection
treatment of water entering the United States with waiver of certain typical Watershed
Sanitary Survey requirements. These alternatives vary in their cost and their likelihood of
meeting CDPH approval.
The Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project report
addresses two supply targets for the desalinated water (i.e. local and regional). The local
alternative assumes that only Otay WD would participate and receive desalinated water, while
the regional alternative assumes that other regional and/or local agencies would also
participated in the Rosarito project.
On November 3, 2010, the District authorized the General Manager to enter into an agreement
with AECOM for the engineering design, environmental documentation, and the permitting
for the construction of the conveyance pipeline, pump station, and disinfection facility to be
constructed within the District. The supply target is assumed to be 50 mgd.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
49
The Otay WD is proceeding with negotiations among the parties to establish water supply
resource acquisition terms through development of a Principles of Understanding document.
6.3.2 Otay WD Capital Improvement Program
The Otay WD plans, designs, constructs, and operates water system facilities to acquire
sufficient supplies and to meet projected ultimate demands placed upon the potable and recycled
water systems. In addition, the Otay WD forecasts needs and plans for water supply
requirements to meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The necessary water facilities and
water supply projects are implemented and constructed when development activities proceed and
require service to achieve timely and adequate cost effective water service.
New water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire
Otay WD service area are defined and described within the Otay WD 2009 WRMP updated
November, 2010. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay WD Six Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) for implementation when required to support development
activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceed through the land use
jurisdictional agency approval processes, Otay WD prepares water system requirements
specifically for the proposed development project consistent with the Otay WD 2009 WRMP
updated November, 2010. These requirements document, define, and describe all the potable
water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and
adequate level of service to the proposed land uses, as well as the financial responsibility of the
facilities required for service. The Otay WD funds the facilities identified as CIP projects.
Established water meter capacity fees and user rates are collected to fund the CIP project
facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service
to their project.
Section 7 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies
The Rabago Project is currently located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water
Authority, and Metropolitan. To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas
are required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and Metropolitan
to utilize imported water supply.
The Water Authority and Metropolitan have an established process that ensures supplies are
being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use
plans are captured in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updated
forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves
as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast
information. The Water Authority and Metropolitan update their demand forecasts and
supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to
coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
50
update, local jurisdictions with land use authority may require water supply assessment and/or
verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water
Authority, or Metropolitan jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have
revised land use plans with either lower or higher development intensities than reflected in the
existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations, or
revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements
than previously anticipated. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and Metropolitan next demand
forecast and supply requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any
increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised
land use planning decisions.
Metropolitan‟s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) identifies a mix of resources (imported and
local) that, when implemented, will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands
through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation, local supplies, State Water
Project supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. The
2010 update to the IRP includes a planning buffer supply intended to mitigate against the risks
associated with implementation of local and imported supply programs and for the risk that
future demands could be higher than projected. The planning buffer identifies an additional
increment of water that could potentially be developed when needed and if other supplies are
not fully implemented as planned. As part of implementation of the planning buffer,
Metropolitan periodically evaluates supply development, supply conditions, and projected
demands to ensure that the region is not under or over developing supplies. Managed
properly, the planning buffer will help ensure that the southern California region, including
San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands.
In Section II.4 of their 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP),
Metropolitan states that through effective management of its water supply, they fully expect
to be 100 percent reliable in meeting all non-discounted non-interruptible demands throughout
the next twenty-five years. Metropolitan‟s 2005 RUWMP identifies potential reserve supplies
in the supply capability analysis (Tables II-7, II-8, and II-9), which could be available to meet
the unanticipated demands.
The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority
“as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of
water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.”
As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment report, an agency‟s shortage
contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 9 of
the Water Authority‟s 2005 Updated UWMP contains a detailed shortage contingency
analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management.
The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the
Emergency Response Plan, Emergency Storage Project, and Drought Management Plan
(DMP) are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water
supplies. The DMP, completed in May 2006, provides the Water Authority and its member
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
51
agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a shortage of imported
water supplies from Metropolitan due to prolonged drought or other supply shortfall
conditions. The actions will help the region avoid or minimize the impacts of shortages and
ensure an equitable allocation of supplies.
The WSA Report identifies and describes the processes by which water demand projections
for the proposed Rabago Project will be fully included in the water demand and supply
forecasts of the Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning
documents of the Water Authority and Metropolitan. Water supplies necessary to serve the
demands of the proposed Rabago Project, along with existing and other projected future users,
as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, have been identified in
the Rabago Project WSA Report and will be included in the future water supply planning
documents of the Water Authority and Metropolitan.
This WSA Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water
supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, water supply projects, or
agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Rabago Project.
This WSA Report assesses, demonstrates, and documents that sufficient water supplies are
planned for and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal
conditions and in single and multiple dry years to meet the projected demand of the proposed
Rabago Project and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the
Otay WD.
Table 9 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and required supplies for the Otay
WD service area under average or normal year conditions. The OWD 2005 UWMP demand
projection for FY 2010 of 49,812 acre feet is substantially higher than the actual demand for
that fiscal year. The total actual demand for FY 2010 was 36,500 acre feet. The demand for
FY 2010 is 6,500 acre feet lower than the peak demand of FY 2006 of 43,000 acre feet. The
drop in demand is a result of the unit price of water, the conservation efforts of users as a
result of the prolonged drought, and the economy.
The projected potable demand and supply requirements shown the Tables 9, 10, and 11 are
from the Otay WD revised 2005 UWMP.
Hot, dry weather may generate urban water demands that are about 7 percent greater than
normal. This percentage was utilized to generate the dry year demands shown in Tables 10
and 11. The recycled water and groundwater supplies are assumed to experience no reduction
in a dry year.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
52
Table 9
Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies
Normal Year Conditions (acre feet)
Description FY 2010 FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030
Demands
Otay WD Demand 49,812 57,033 65,229 72,854 82,405
Total Demand 49,812 57,033 65,229 72,854 82,405
Supplies
Water Authority Supply 45,772 52,349 59,799 66,560 75,108
Recycled Water Supply 4,040 4,684 5,430 6,294 7,297
Total Supply 49,812 57,033 65,229 72,854 82,405
Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0
Table 10 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD
service area under single dry year conditions.
Table 10
Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies
Single Dry Year Conditions (acre feet)
Description FY 2010 FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030
Demands
Otay WD Demand 53,299 61,025 69,795 77,954 88,173
Total Demand 53,299 61,025 69,795 77,954 88,173
Supplies
Water Authority Supply 49,259 56,341 64,365 71,660 80,876
Recycled Water Supply 4,040 4,684 5,430 6,294 7,297
Total Supply 53,299 61,025 69,795 77,954 88,173
Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0
Dry year demands assumed to generate a 7% increase in demand over normal conditions for each year in
addition to new demand growth.
Table 11 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD
service area under multiple dry year conditions for the five year period ending in 2015 as
from the Otay WD revised 2005 UWMP adjusted to reflect additional groundwater supply
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
53
development of 600 ac-ft/yr by the Otay WD. The multiple dry year conditions for periods
ending 2020, 2025, and 2030 are provided in the Otay WD revised 2005 UWMP.
Table 11
Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies
Multiple Dry Year Conditions (acre feet)
Description FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Demands
Otay WD Demand 54,844 56,389 57,935 59,480 61,025
Total Demand 54,844 56,389 57,935 59,480 61,025
Supplies
Water Authority Supply 50,675 52,091 53,509 54,925 56,341
Recycled Water Supply 4,169 4,298 4,426 4,555 4,684
Total Supply 54,844 56,389 57,935 59,480 61,025
Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0
Dry year demands assumed to generate a 7% increase in demand over normal conditions for each year in
addition to new demand growth.
In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Rabago Project development
proponents will be required to participate in the development of alternative water supply
project(s). This can be achieved through payment of the New Water Supply Fee adopted by
the Otay Water District Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to
those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and Metropolitan
UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new water supply projects
are in response to the regional water supply issues related to climatological, environmental,
legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court
rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current ongoing western states
drought conditions. These new additional water supply projects are not currently developed
and are in various stages of the planning process. The Otay WD water supply development
program includes but is not limited to projects such as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin
Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept, the Rosarito
Ocean Desalination Facility project, and the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project. The
Water Authority and Metropolitan‟s next forecasts and supply planning documents would
capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by
the Otay WD.
The Otay WD acknowledges the ever-present challenge of balancing water supply with
demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and adaptable water supply
implementation strategy that can be relied upon during normal and dry weather conditions.
The responsible regional water supply agencies have and will continue to adapt their resource
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
54
plans and strategies to meet climate, environmental, and legal challenges so that they may
continue to provide water supplies to their service areas. The regional water suppliers along
with Otay WD fully intend to maintain sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year
planning horizon under normal, single, and multiple dry year conditions to meet projected
demand of the Rabago Project, along with existing and other planned development projects
within the Otay WD service area.
This WSA Report assesses, demonstrates, and documents that sufficient water supplies are
planned for and are intended to be acquired, as well as the actions necessary and status to
develop these supplies, to meet projected water demands of the Rabago Project as well as
existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD
for a 20-year planning horizon, in normal and in single and multiple dry years.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
55
Source Documents
County of San Diego, December 22, 2010, Letter Request to Initiate the Preparation of a
Water Supply Assessment for the Rabago Technology Park, SB 610 and SB 221 Compliance.
Compliance request letter received January 10, 2011.
County of San Diego, February 8, 2010, Letter Request to Initiate the Preparation of a Water
Supply Assessment for the Rabago Technology Park, TM 5568, SB 610 Compliance.
Compliance request letter received February 9, 2011.
City of Chula Vista, “Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, The Otay Ranch
Joint Planning Project,” October 1993 amended June 1996.
County of San Diego, “East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area,” adopted July 27, 1994.
Otay Water District, “2009 Water Resources Master Plan Update,” dated November, 2010..
MWH Americas, Inc. and Otay Water District, “Otay Water District 2005 Urban Water
Management Plan,” December 2005 amended July 2007.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., “Otay Water District Integrated Water Resources Plan,” March
2007
San Diego County Water Authority, “Urban Water Management Plan 2005 Update,”
November 2005 amended May 2007.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, “Regional Urban Water Management
Plan,” November 2005.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., “Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection
System Project,” June 21, 2010.
PBS&J, “Draft Otay Water District North District Recycled Water System Development
Project, Phase I Concept Study,” December 2008.
NBS Lowry, “Middle Sweetwater River System Study Water Resources Audit,” June 1991.
Michael R. Welch, “Middle Sweetwater River System Study Alternatives Evaluation,” May
1993.
Michael R. Welch, “Middle Sweetwater River Basin Conjunctive Use Alternatives,”
September 1994.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
56
Geoscience Support Services, Inc., “Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well Investigation,” May 2001.
Boyle Engineering Corporation, “Groundwater Treatment Feasibility Study Ranch del Ray
Well Site,” September 1996.
Agreement for the Purchase of Treated Water from the Otay Water Treatment Plant between
the City of San Diego and the Otay Water District.
Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District regarding
Implementation of the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program.
Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District for
Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility
Modification.
Agreement between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of
Reclaimed Water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant.
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
1
Appendix A
Rabago Technology Park Vicinity Map
00833-090093
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
RABAGO TECHNOLOGY PARK
VICINITY MAP•DZ
S~L.._......I~__~~~~...
APPENDIX A
Otay Water District
Water Supply Assessment Report
Rabago Technology Park
2
Appendix B
Rabago Technology Park Development Plan
LONE STAR ROAD
~c::UJu.
1
I~c::Cl
u.
...J
UJ<tJ:()
~
~~O:71 --(;-~-----
LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 12
STREET'B'LOT 13
1 r-'UJ 9
LOT 6 LOT 5 ;:::f-
I c::LOT 10 UJ
Cl LOT 11 UJc::
>-f-
<t CIl
DAVID Cl RIDGE DRIVE<t::t c::~<tf-f-LOT 3 UJ LOT 4 LOT 18 LOT 17UJ UJ LOT 14c::UJ
I~c::I~
LOT 2 LOT 1 LOT 19 LOT 16 LOT 15
OTAY MESA ROAD
UJ
1=1z~I
Clc::~UJ...J
::Jo[lJ
AREA TOTALS
LOT TOTAL.
PUBUC ROADS TOTAL ..
55.70 AC
15.37 AC
SUBDIVISION TOTAL.71.07 AC
LOT AREAS
GROSS AREA =OVERALL LOT AREA
LOT NO.GROSS AREA CAC)
1 2.82
2 2.75
3 2.64
4 2.70
5 2.19
6 3.90
7 3.83
8 2.20
9 2.65
10 2.03
LOT NO.GROSS AREA CAC)
11 1.74
12 2.20
13 8.05
14 3.92
15 4.02
16 1.98
17 1.84
18 2.15
19 2.09
LAND USE:COMMERICAL/INDUSTRIAL
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
RABAGO TECHNOLOGY PARK
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00833-090093
APPENDIX B
Otay Water District
Board of Directors Meeting
April 6,2011
LONE STAR ROAD
1
I~
0::C
:E0::Wu.1
18
0::zW
LOT 13
LOT 9 LOT 12
C
LOT 18 LOT 17 ~w LOT 14w0::~\
LOT 19 LOT 16 LOT 15
MESA ROA
LOT 5
DAVID
LOT 6
~
~
LOT 3 w LOT 4w
0::
I ~\
LOT 2 LOT 1
OTAY
zz<>
w
f=1z~I
c
0::1<Gjl
..J
::lom
Water Supply Assessment Report for the
Rabago T'echnology Park
58 610 Comprance
Background
Senate Bills 610 and 221 became effective on Janluary 1,
2002,with the primary intent to improve the link between
water supply availability and land use decisions.
S 22 ater Supply Verification:
•D'oe,s not apply to the Rabago Project for it is an
--".,-.-..~-in:dustrial subdivision.
58 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA):
~.Requires water purveyor to prepare,a Water Sul!.ll!¥
Assessment report for inclusion in land use agency
C.EQA documentation.
-
The Rabago Project Water Supply Assessment Report
•Board app1roval required for sub,mittal of the WSA to
the County of San Diego.2
Rabago Technology Park~'~~_
•19 Industrial Lots on 71.1 acres
•Potable Demand:67.5 AFY I Recycled Demand 8.7 AFY
~L:J'I.I r~-r:'\r-~''',JV~;\~'
'c:c;t:N-,',I..'~·S/'J'.!.c E':J;J
_,,".
,"",,,,,,rp;wdIlWO'I»D~.M;lff\l'lI'l:nr"""!I)'~,Jl'.:rrto'lgpcn~'~
P:"""l\l.'I..rO<llCllv.'.I",t""I"'ldofdt<JWaprw:.'ptlQf1rorl<A~.':/I<.>WlhIbtr..thorIQl",...t..=~\<;>................loot.-,~~-.c_""""~MN.-cl1cu
TM~050Rogi<lmd GroW",h rDreca5~..onecI ~fino:~"fK 1M dtwlopl"9 :hi!;ro:i(l llegi..,,11~""I'W!'I,_........-.-.,.-!"'"ftIPII"'-.......-~...
ecmm......'"...Str~~ylSCS)••no",~:Of me RTP.",.,.;I In.!llf900n.J1 I;"",ong NoN;II"""""""t (RHNAJ ....callfo",,",~nIIl"~II )1~lSI!~7~)10"w0ptar"'.staWtaIat~lXl81 In
~i'."~~-'I._ll~.....,_t.ot..ft~b_""'"SI"..,.\Gruwtl,I""",t_Pr""J'''''''.,.......~wi ""Pl<Il .np......n."t ..1<1 _..,~..
plll..,,'ngItv""-9:lOl'"Inn'''9I{11'l Thl.tQl"OC.l!::reomlll",~W11~.,~"IlPI1t:lolo=1'>1"'''1m1df"Oul:ll1t\rll,:;:~~:~::'RTP.s::s,IlI'IdRHNArr.."583751l1"1dthllCr Ifom'~""r.~Commlll'llmOrclt
'M:ll:!oII~""",~~.......,..:r~_".'.....~IQolool.~~
endtoIto::!*l0111<1.11$Ollutur.plol'ln'~~nCl'anc.....aosumpt>c"•._donII-.dna>cn01heu..-oJ ofCl~...wn;l.nlJ~Iy.SA/<lOAG""ff......."llrJ"1PU~on 111.ror_~f,<;"lhod'......bd(tK.ll1~l
C'ly Cwnr.;1.lloordofSupor",IC;r••.>nIlplu",,",'Jtom'"''''''nm"'"l"'!j>dlr.-.gt....l;m".m:nln:.Th~I(>form~non ~nCl ~ommt!m~0I!ftetl!dd..oir.q1M'"m...rirtrPMdIU~,nr~r,..rK'>llIt1<lda~9f1lfltar1f Im~er on fOf!TIUkIIllr'lg In.r.~on·.nlO5l~1k¥ly~..,~elopmenlpIItternOWl"C~.Mil~U~..."
n~<J:j,hor.towork,,'Il wlmIrx::.JjLJt'~h:I~Jn>SANO"'G"-'ITwtIf~edcbl;ulyw,lh 1<X.:ll'e.itlUIOO
n9l"""~lIIlrl~,~~pro.t"",,,,10Ir.rorporDI~"'"Ir~:IOUn:~"'PPI~.,r<'ll"mnT>On I'>ltl1MfO/"tl(all:ll:l...
........-.-.........:H1.
DtJr,ng IN'1"'1S:1.momn-.S,&.NDAC ::rutf ~nd
ll'IpI'Il\l!!nt",j""IMld~1ecrad I'>l'r,c,~~frem....e'lCfll'lll
sz.,Dfe90"9101'$19pl.a~tioollul,.~
t09tllwIOdlVll'OPlllong"'llI1~;rc.W'J'lron.ea>tfor
:lI!~~=t;:':=~~~::'fCllt
_t6
~-...-ACCa'1'
Ilw ~~I'''''''''il tomrru_",_n,tNulhl!IWn::l;1l0.-.eten-.pt d.2OSO llIojjKNI Growlh~\I""'IlV.~Q5,OIlwgIoIYITrOflllUUltllln~~~lll/....~V.fflll1.
DRAFT
THE MfTROPOLITAN WATERDlSTRIO
OF SOUTHERNCAliFORNIA
Rabago Project Water Supply Assessment
•The regional and local walter supply agencies
ackno,wledge the challenges and fully intend to
develop,sufficient,reliable supplies to meet
demands.
Water suppliers recognize additio,nal water
su'p'plies are necessary and po,rtfolios need to,be
r'eassessed nd redistributed with intent to serve
existing and future needs.~::-:::-.---JI.-.......~--~---..-:--------,
5
-
Rabago Project Water Supply Assessment
•The WSA Repo,rt docu,ments the planned water
supply projects and the actions necessary to
develop the supplie,s.
•Water supply for the Rab,ago Project and for
..existi 9 and future developments within the
O'istrict for a 20-year plannin:g horizon,under
normal··n!d in single and multiple dry years are
planned for and are inte'nded to be made available.
•s •6
Oltay Water District
Planned Local Water Su Iy Projects
•Rancho Del Rey Gro,undwater Well (500-600 AFY)
~.Rosarito Ocean Desalinatio,n Project (24,0010-
50,000 AFY)
7
Projected Balance of Potable Water Supplies and Demands
Normlal Year Conditions (AFY)
,-
Description FY 2010 FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030
Demands
c,.
Otay WD Demand 49,812 57,033 65,229 72,854 82,405 I~·
Total Demand 49,812 57,033 65,229 72,854 82,405
Supplies
Water Authority Supply 45,772 52,349 59,799 66,560 75,108
Recycled Water Supply 4,040 4,684 5,430 6,294 7,297
Total Supply 49,812 57,033 65,229 72,854 82,405
.Supply Surplus/(Deficit)0 0 0 0 0
-$'C -Wil
InC'........._--2005UWMP_i
-Actual Demands
!-Projected Demands
I
Actual [)e.nand vs.2005 UWMP
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000o
r00 ,,0 ,,0 ~O (~0 ~0~0 ~O ~0~o/~r6>~r6>~o/~"P'~o/~o/~o/~o/
Fiscal Year
Conclusion
•Water demand and supply fo,recasts are
included in the planning documents of
Metropolitan,Water Authority,and the Otay
Water District.-
•Actions necessary to develop the identified
water supplies are documen,ted.-.
P Rabago Project 58 610'WSA demonstrates and
documents that sufficient water !!up,plies are
planned for and are intended to be avai a e~---'
over the next 20 yea,rs.
-..9
-
•
Conclu!sion contiln ued
It is bel1ieved that the Board has met the
intent of SB 610 statute in that:
1)Land use agencies and water
suppliers have demonstrated
strong linkage.
:rhe Rabago Project Water Supp,ly
ssessment clearly documents
the current water supply
----------------~situation.
10
Staff RecommenCiation
That the Board of Directors app,rove the
Senate Bill 610 Water Sup,p,ly Assessment
Report dated February 201,1 fo,r the Rabago
~Technology Park Project.
-
11
Questions?
LONE STAR ROAD
:E0:
W
LLI
18
0:zw
I
I~
0:C
LOT 13
LOT 9 LOT 12
C
LOT 18 LOT 17 ~w LOT 14w0:tn\
LOT 19 LOT 16 LOT 15
MESA ROAD
..JW4:
J:2:E
LOT 8
LOT 5
DAVID
STREET'B'
LOT 6
LOT 7
~
LOT 3 tii LOT 4w
0::tn\
LOT 2 LOT 1
OTAY
coq~~I..J~-0m
w~Iz~I
zz<>
12.-
Water Supply Assessment Report for the
Rabago Technology Park Project
58 610 Compl-ance
._--_-._----_...........--------_------_---_-_-.__-.
AGENDA ITEM 7i
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:April 6,2011
DIV.NO.50210-
20.309
FILE NO:
Regular Board
David Charles,~
Public Services
Manager
Rod Posada,Chief,Engineering ~~APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
Manny Magana,Asst.GM Engineering &operatio~~
Duke Sewer Annexation to the Otay Water District
Improvement District No.18 (APN:519-281-07-00)
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No.4171,the annexation of the property owned
by David L.and Suzanne M.Duke to the Otay Water District
Improvement District No.18.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the proposed annexation is to provide sewer
service to a parcel located at 3279 Cottonwood Springs Lane,
Jamul,California 91935.(APN 519-281-07-00)
ANALYSIS:
A written request and Petition signed by David L.and Suzanne M.
Duke,has been received for annexation of APN 519-281-07-00 into
Improvement District No.18 for sewer service.The total
acreage to be annexed is 1.08 acres.The property is within the
sphere of Otay Water District and will be part of Improvement
District 18 after the Board of Directors approves this request.
The property is located at 3279 Cottonwood Springs Lane,in
Jamul and County of San Diego.
FISCAL IMPACT:~
,//The property owners will be charged $10 per year for
availability fees.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Provide sewer service to meet increasing customer needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
No legal impact.
Gener
2
ATTACHMENT A
~T~'~~T/PROJECT:Duke Sewer Annexation to the Otay Water District
Improvement District No.18 (APN:519-281-07-00)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on March 23,2011 and the
following commentswere made:
•Staff is requesting that the board adopt Resolution No.
4171 to approve the annexation of the property identified
by APN No.519-281-07-00 into Otay's Improvement District
18 for sewer service.
•The property is owned by David L.and Suzanne M.Duke and
the total acreage to be annexed is 1.08 acres.Mr.and
Mrs.Duke will pay all necessary fees to hook to the
District's sewer system following approval of their
request.
•In response to a question from the Committee,the property
to be annexed is fronting the District sewer main and not
close to the County Urban Limit line (I-107)line which
requires County approval prior to connection to district
Sewer.
•Staff indicated that owners are opting for annexation as it
is more reliable and cost effective and in addition avoid
connection to a later date when their septic systems fail.
Following the discussion,the committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the board on the consent
calendar.
RESOLUTION NO.4171
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
OTAY WATER DISTRICT APPROVING THE ANNEXATION
TO OTAY WATER DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO.18 OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED AS "DUKE
SEWER ANNEXATION"(FILE NO.0210-20.309/DIV.
5)
WHEREAS,a letter has been submitted by David L.and Suzanne
M.Duke,the owners and party that has an interest in the land
described in Exhibit "A,"attached hereto,for annexation of said
land to Otay Water District Improvement District No.18 pursuant
to California Water Code Section 72670 et seq.;and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 72680.1 of said Water Code,the
Board of Directors may proceed and act thereon without notice and
hearing.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER
DISTRICT FINDS,RESOLVES,ORDERS AND DETERMINES as follows:
1.A depiction of the area proposed to be annexed,and the
boundaries of ID 18 following the annexation,is set forth on a
map in Exhibit "B"filed with the Secretary of the District,
which map shall govern for all details as to the area proposed to
be annexed.
2.The purpose of the proposed annexation is to make sewer
service available to the area to be annexed,which availability
constitutes a benefit to said area.
3.The Board finds and determines that the area proposed
to be annexed to ID 18 will be benefited by such annexation and
that the property currently within ID 18 will also be benefited
and not injured by such annexation because after the annexation a
Page 1 of3
larger tax base will be available to finance the sewer facilities
and improvements of ID 18.
4.The Board of Directors hereby declares that the annexa-
tion of said property is subject to the owners complying with the
following terms and conditions:
(a)The petitioners for said annexation shall pay to
Otay Water District the following:
(1)The processing fee at the time of
application;
(2)State Board of Equalization filing fees in
the amount of $350;
(3)The sewer annexation fee at the time of
connection to the Otay Water District sewer
system;
(4)Yearly assessment fees will be collected
through the County Tax Assessor's office in
the amount of $10 for APN 519-281-07-00;
(5)In the event that water service is to be
provided,Petitioners shall pay all
applicable water meter fees per EDU at the
time the meter is purchased;and
(6)Payment by the owners of APN 519-281-07-00 of
all other applicable local or state agency
fees or charges.
(b)The property to be annexed shall be subj ect to
taxation after annexation thereof for the purposes
of the improvement district,including the payment
of principal and interest on bonds and other
Page 2 0[3
obligations of the improvement district,author-
ized and outstanding at the time of annexation,
the same as if the annexed property had always
been a part of the improvement district.
5.The Board hereby declares the property described in
Exhibit "A"shall be considered annexed to 10 18 upon passage of
this resolution.
6.The Board of Directors further finds and determines
that there are no exchanges of property tax revenues to be made
pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 95 et
seq.,as a result of such annexation.
7.The annexation of APN 519-281-07-00 to the District's
Improvement District 18 is hereby designated as the "DUKE SEWER
ANNEXATION".
8.Pursuant to Section 57202 (a)of the Government Code,
the effective date of the DUKE SEWER ANNEXATION shall be the date
this Resolution is adopted by the Board of Directors of the Otay
Water District.
9.The General Manager of the District and the Secretary
of the District,or their respective designees,are hereby
ordered to take all actions required to complete this annexation.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District at a regular meeting held this 6th day of
April,2011.
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
Page 3 of3
Exhibit A
Land Description
State Board of Equalization Change in Jurisdictional Boundary
A tract of land situated in the of Town ofJamul,the County of San Diego,and the State of
California,lying in part of the North Half of Fractional Section 32,Township 16 South,Range 1
East,San Bernardino Meridian,being Lot 14 of Map No.9664,filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County,May 28,1980 and more particularly described as follows:
From the point of commencement which is the Northeast corner of said Fractional Section 32:
Course 1.South 88°33'54"West a distance of 1318.84 feet
Course 2.North 88°43'35"West a distance of 1894.86 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot
14,being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract herein described;
From the point of beginning:
Course 3.South 32°23'45"West a distance of 361.53 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot
14;
Course 4.Being the beginning of a non tangent curve,concave Southerly,having a radius of
328.00 feet,a radial line to said point bears North 3r 23'45"East;thence Westerly along said
curve 101.05 feet through a central angle of 1r 39'06"to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14;
Course 5.North 14°44'39"East a distance of 278.98 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 14.
Course 6.South 88°43'35"East a distance of 215.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot
14;
Contains 1.076 acres,more or less,according to the County of San Diego Assessor records.
211
EXHIBIT B
ANNEXATION PLAT
O'l#1!\1NI1H1@[g 1Rl1!\1NI«;lHIl~3)00
~IE«;"~~if',1fm~,Iill,~,~,
131B.84'
[j]SBB'33'S4"W
D,
NORTHEAST
CDR.FRAC.
SEC 32,
LEGEND
BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA TO BE
ANNEXED INTO THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT
00 INDICATES COURSE NUMBER
'"!ci!1t~it--------O-T-AY-\-VA-T-E-R-O-IS-T-RI-C-T--------.
~J_-----------------------------------1~ANNEXA~ON PLAT~t~C:CM!L:C~~ElliS!t!TJA TE::B:O:A:RD=OF~EQ:U_A_U_Z_A ~_O_N_CH_A_N_G_E _IN_JU_R_IS_D_IC1~O:N:A:L:B:O:U:ND~AQ!RE;Ymfmrr====1~REV.DATE DESCRIPTION CO S~1---+----1-----1 RECORDERS F!P MAP NO.':':REC.DATE .SCALE:",'......=-:::8"'"'0--------1a~~~~~~IMP.DIST.NO.DRAWN BY:
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Duke Sewer Annexation to the Otay Water District
Improvement District No.18 (APN:519-281-07-00)
Document Description:Staff Report for April 6,2011 Board Meeting
Project No.:0210-20.309
Author:
David Charles
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
Printed Name
~~
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
Date
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.
AGENDA ITEM 7j
STAFF REPORT
1DIV.
NO.
April 6,2011
R2091-
001103
MEETING DATE:
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:
Regular Board
Daniel Kay f{>'f-
Associate Civil Engineer
Ron RiPpergerJ~~~
Engineering ~a~r
Rod posad~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magafi~~
Assistant General ~anager,Engineering and Operations
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBMITTED BY:
TYPE MEETING:
SUBJECT:Award a Construction Contract to Sepulveda Construction,Inc.
for the 944-1R Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrades and System
Enhancements Project
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
awards a construction contract to Sepulveda Construction Inc.
(Sepulveda)in the amount of $1,162,423 for the 944-1R Recycled Water
Pump Station Upgrades and System Enhancements Project (see Exhibit A
for Project locations)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into
a construction contract with Sepulveda for the 944-1R Recycled Water
Pump Station Upgrades and System Enhancements Project in an amount
not to exceed $1,162,423.
ANALYSIS:
The 944-1 Recycled Water Pump Station is a key pumping facility for
the District's recycled water distribution system.Based on the
2002 Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP)the Pump Station was
originally designed to only provide service to the Central Service
Area.The supply to the Central Service Area comes from a 30-inch
recycled water transmission main from the City of San Diego's South
Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP).The water is pumped through
the 450 pump station and the 680-1 pump station before it reaches
the 944-1 Pump Station.
The 2002 WRMP also proposes the Otay Mesa Service Area to receive
recycled water from the same 30-inch transmission main.However,
after a study done by Harris &Associates in 2005,the Otay Mesa
Service Area was found to be better supplied by a pipeline
constructed in Wueste and Airway Roads.This alignment is better
known today as the "Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link."These
changes resulted in significant cost savings for the District's CIP.
Due to the new location of the Otay Mesa Service Area supply,the
944-1 Pump Station will serve both the Central and Otay Mesa Service
Areas.The additional service area and the updated demands in the
November 2010 WRMP require capacity upgrades to the 944-1 Pump
Station.In order to achieve the higher capacity,a third pump and
motor system must be installed.This added pump system will not
only provide the additional capacity to meet the higher demands,but
will provide redundancy in the event that a pump requires repairs
and must be taken out of service.
The new pump and motor will require a variety of electrical and
instrumentation upgrades to the Pump Station.HVAC improvements are
also planned with this Project to improve the air flow through the
facility and thereby lower the temperature while the pumps are
operating.A new air gap is also being installed with this Project
between the potable feed to the 680-1 Recycled Reservoir.
Part of the scope of this Project will also include providing a
solution to several areas within the 944 pressure zone that are now
experiencing higher than acceptable pressures.In order to resolve
the high pressure,three (3)Pressure Reducing Stations (PRS)will
be installed in Olympic Parkway,Eastlake Parkway,and Otay Lakes
Road.The PRSs will reduce the pressure in three (3)areas of the
944 system and create new lower pressure zones.This solution is
much more cost affective than replacing the existing pipelines in
the three (3)areas along with valves that are currently receiving
the higher pressure.
The Project was advertised for bid on January 14,2011 on the
District's website and several other publications including the
Union Tribune and San Diego Daily Transcript.
2
A non-mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting was held on February 8,2011.A
presentation was given by District staff to explain the Project and
discuss any questions or concerns from the contractors.There were
nineteen (19)contractors and suppliers that attended the meeting
and meeting minutes were published.
Subsequently,three (3)addenda were sent out to all bidders and
planhouses to address questions and clarifications to the contract
documents during the bidding period.Bids were publicly opened on
March 3,2011 with the following results:
TOTAL BID CORRECTEDCONTRACTORAMOUNTBIDAMOUNT
I.Sepulveda Construction Inc.$1,162,423
2.NEWest Construction Co.,Inc.$1,272,200
3.Falcon General Engineering Inc.$1,295,810 $1,308,810
4.HPS Mechanical Inc.$1,345,150
5.Spiess Construction Co.,Inc.$1,387,650
6.TC Construction Co.,Inc.$1,398,500
7.Ahrens Corporation $1,412,000 $1,411,700
8.CCL Contracting,Inc.$1,516,000
9.Eastern Valley General Engineering Inc.$1,548,900
10.Cass Construction Inc.$1,557,000
1I.Metro Builders &Engineers Group,Ltd.$1,647,000
The Engineer's Estimate is $1,375,000.
The evaluation process included reviewing all bids submitted for
conformance to the contract documents.The lowest bidder,
Sepulveda,submitted a responsible bid and holds a Class A
Contractor's license which expires on December 1,2011.Staff
checked the six (6)references Sepulveda provided and found that two
(2)references provided positive feedback.The other four (4)
references did not provide feedback because the projects were either
out of date or their project managers were no longer available for
comment.Staff requested Sepulveda to provide additional references
to verify their experience.Sepulveda provided two active projects
with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and their feedback
was positive,however the progress of the projects were in the early
stages of construction.Sepulveda also provided additional
information including an extensive resume of their assigned project
manager,a letter certifying that their project manager will be
assigned to the project and a letter of recommendation from the
University of California Los Angeles (Exhibit B).In summary,
3
Sepulveda,as a company,has limited feedback with positive results
and their project manager,as an individual,has extensive feedback
with positive results.Staff has determined that the references are
valid and that Sepulveda is a "good"rated company.
District staff also received a bid protest from the second low
bidder,NEWest Construction (Exhibit C)claiming that Sepulveda's
bid was unresponsive.Their bid protest claimed that Sepulveda did
not provide a proper certification letter by the electrical
subcontractor to provide a complete integration system,as required
by the contract documents,which could result in "bid shopping."
District staff and general counsel analyzed the protest along with
Sepulveda's bid package and determined that their bid was responsive
and the omission of the certification letter was inconsequential .
.See the District response to the bid protest in Exhibit D.
Staff has verified that the bid bond provided by First National
Insurance is valid.Once Sepulveda signs the contract,they will
furnish the performance bond.Staff will verify the performance
bond before the District exec tes the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total budget for CIP R2091,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $3,950,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,are $1,749,273.See Attachment B for budget detail.
This Project will cover Phase I of the 944-1R Recycled Water Pump
Station Improvements.Phase II,which consists of replacing another
pump,will be installed at a future date.Based on a review of the
financial budgets,the Project Manager has determined that the
budget is sufficient to support the Project.
Finance has determined that 100%of the funding is available from
the Expansion Fund for CIP R2091.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater service to the customers of
the Otay Water District in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner,/I as well as the General Manager's vision,"...prepared for the
future..."by guaranteeing the District will always be able to meet
future water supply obligations and plan,design,and construct new
facilities.
4
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
GexNe at ~ager
P:\WORKING\CIP R2091 -927-1 PS Recycled PS Upgrade\Staff Reports\BD 04-06-11,Staff Report,944-1R Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrades
and System Enhancements,(DK-RR).doc
DK/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment
Attachment
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
A -Committee Action
B -Budget Detail
Location Map
Reference Material Provided by Sepulveda
Bid Protest from Newest Construction
-District Response to Bid Protest
5
R2091-001103
ATTACHMENT A
S"liSJECT/PRoJEC"f:"Aw a rdaCon~t ~~ctio n Cont ract'to""Sep~i;eda"""'io~-the
Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrades and System
Enhancements ectcL.T , .
COMMITTEE ACTION:
...............................-•••.•...........\
944-1R
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on March 23,2011 and the following
comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board award a construction
contract to Sepulveda Construction Inc.(Sepulveda)for the
944-1R Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrades and System
Enhancements Project in an amount not-to-exceed $1,162,423.
•Staff stated that the Pump Station is a key pumping facility
for the District's recycled water distribution system that
was designed to provide service to the Central and Otay Mesa
service areas.
•Staff indicated that according to the District's updated
Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP)dated November 2010,the
Pump Station is unable to meet the service areas'current and
future recycled water supply demands.
•To fulfill the service areas'recycled water supply demands,
staff stated that the Pump Station requires the installment
of a third pump and motor system.The system will require a
variety of electrical and instrumentation upgrades to the
Pump Station,and HVAC improvements to improve the air flow
in anticipation of higher temperatures caused by the
additional pump and motor system.
•In addition to the Project's scope is the installation of
Pressure Reducing Stations (PRS)in Olympic Parkway,Eastlake
Parkway,and Otay Lakes Road to reduce higher than acceptable
pressures that are occurring at those locations.
•Staff indicated that the contractor selection process
followed the District's Policy 21 guidelines.A pre-bid
meeting was held on February 8,2011,which nineteen (19)
contractors and suppliers attended.Staff stated that bids
were publicly opened on March 3,2011 and indicated that
eleven (11)contractors submitted a proposal to the District.
The results are listed on page 3.
•Staff reviewed all bids and determined that Sepulveda
submitted the lowest responsible bid and holds a Class A
Contractor's license.Staff conducted a reference check and
found Sepulveda to be in good standing.In addition,at the
request of District staff,Sepulveda provided an extensive
resume of their assigned project manager and a letter
certifying that their project manager will be assigned to the
Project.Staff did indicate that the letter is not
enforceable and that a change in project managers for the
Project is possible.It was indicated that legal counsel is
looking into the possibility of revising contractor
agreements to include a condition that requires notification
from the contractor to the District prior to changing project
managers,and to include further control over personnel.
•Staff indicated that the District received a bid protest from
the second lowest bidder,NEWest Construction,claiming that
Sepulveda's bid was unresponsive (Exhibit C).Staff and
general counsel analyzed the protest and Sepulveda's bid and
determined that their bid was responsive.Exhibit D provides
a response to NEWest's protest.Additional information was
requested by NEWest that staff responded to,which resulted
in a withdraw of their protest.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
7
ATTACHMENT B
Otay Water District
R2091 -RecPS-944-1 Pump Station Upgrade
Date Updated:February 25,2011
Budget
Service Contracts
3,950,000
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
ProjectedFinal
Cost Vendor/Comments
Total Planning 42,017 42,017 i I 42,017
Total Design 310,039 i 310,039 I i 310,039
Grand Total 1,560,500 398,077 1,351,196 1,749,273
PROCTOR
,
r
I
II
r~
~~~q:~w~II ..()
-'~'I ~
?"L
VICINITY MAP \ I I
/l>o.qo!f...<f;.':J\,P'
en )-<
~p..-t !P 5 No.3 ¥-II:l
0 at
(
PRS No.1 ~\,
PRS No.2 ~
944-1R PUMP
S"rATION~..'.\
"0~~~~,§I-----"""T--------------;;;;;..~---....:.......---....
: •OTAY WATER DISTRICTi.,·\944-1 R RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION UPGRADE
~AND SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS~LOCATION MAP CIP R2091,;.::'-----_......_--------...=.;;;,.=..;...:.;.;.;;.;..;.....;.;.;.;.;.;..-----....;.;.;....-~";,,,;..;.,.,
EXHIBIT A
IEXHIBITBI
233 Jv.Ce"ilos Avenue
Anaheim,CA 92805
(714)683-0818
(714)683-1105fax
www.SepulvedaConsl.com
March 11,2011
Mr.Daniel Kay,P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.,
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2004
Subject:
Dear Daniel,
944-1R Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrade and System Enhancements
(eIP R2091)Bid
Upon your request,I am submitting a comprehensive experience matrix ofour staffat Sepulveda
Construction Inc to supplement and clarify the reference infonnation we submitted for the
subject bid.
Mr.Dean Chesnutis the Construction Manager at Sepulveda Construction.At such a role,he is
personally responsible for the management and delivery ofthe 944-1 R Recycled Water Pump
Station Upgrade and System Enhancements Project.He has more than 25 years ofexperience as
a contractor and/or superintendent including working for the Kiewit Companies,a major heavy
civil construction company in Southern California for fourteen years.He has worked many years
at various other c nstruction firms prior to joining Sepulveda Construction.As a contractor
and/or superintendent,he has managed many civil,mechanical,and structural construction
projects,large or small,and in similar natures to the 944--1R Recycled Water Pump Station
Upgrade and System Enhancements Project.A comprehensive project list and resume for Dean
is attached for your review.
Mr.Chesnut is supported by Mr.Mike Hofmann,the EstimatorlProject Manager at Sepulveda
Construction.Mr.Hofmann has worked with Mr.Chesnut in the past in similar projects.A few
ofsimilar project experience for Mr.Hofmann is attached for your review as well.
Serving public agencies as such Otay Water Districts is a special focus for Sepulveda
Construction.Currently,we are working on two projects for the Los Angeles Sanitation District
with similar piping,mechanical,and electrical work.I believe we have the requisite experience
and ability to complete the 944-1R Recycled Water Pump Station Upgrade and System
Enhancements Project based on the evidence we have provided to you.
Mr.Kay
March 11,2011
Page 2 of2
IEXHIBITB I
Ifyou would desire,Mr.Chesnut and I are happy to meet you to present our experience and
technical ability for the project in person and explain to you how we plan to build the project for
the District.
Ifyou need any additional information,please don't hesitate to contact me at (714)683-0471 or:liiZcom
eter Liu,P.E.
President
epulveda Construction
Encl:Chesnut and Hofmann project reference matrix
Chesnut Resume
Recommendation letter from UCLA
IEXHIBITBl
IISEPULVEDACONSTRUCTION
Dean Chesnut,GeneralContractor
233 W Cerritos Avenue
Anaheim,CA 92805
714·683-0818
714-683-1105 fax
dchesnut@5epulvedaConst.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2009 -Present
2007-2009
2005·2007
1991-2005
Sepulveda Construction,Inc.
Construet!on Dlylslon,Chief
•Manage the operations ofthe division
•Supervise office and field staff and personnel
•lead in investigation,evaluation,and biddingofprojects
•Chiefestimating
•Project Manager and ManagerofSuperintendents
APMFG
VIce-presidentof Construction
•Manage the construction of the Town ofYucca ValleySolar Carport
•The fabrication ofoverhead monorail forthe lRTEastside Extension.
•Roosevelt HS bleachers.Fabrication and Installation.
•SylmarHS Bleachers.Fabrication and Installation
•LACSD Marina 1 and 2 Force main replacement,new valve structure and
Junction structure.
•Estimating
Cora ConstructorInc.
Prolect Manaler
•Construction ofbooster pump station for San BernardinoWaterAuthority
and The CityofRialto.
•Estimating
KiewitCompanies
Syperintendent.Prolect Mananr
•The construction ofwater pumps station,wwtp,wtp,reservoirs,co-gen,rail
roads,pipelines and bridges.
IEXHIBITBI
IIld efeheConstruttonManapr,Dean C snut5 JobHistoryi R rence
D....-00..__nco lD0C0._DoIIarVall.le Owno<w_r..r Role
Ott1990 Slru<luroJ,PlpI..._hnlal,
_1991 UOAe-n Genorol!nl Plonlonthe UClA comoua Elec:tr1~1 $90.000.000 UClAFoclll__Ite..-nlos o..wJ........31G-I2S-3402
_1991 WIdCornrnerdllunh:.ndlkaineuc.ncerIn eoncree..SteelSluc1....and
Fobl!103 c.nlnICommon:ioI Votocruz_Be<.-S7.000JlDD ~-KIowIt""'--HlA
F.tl1993 Mf~
00<1993 TW3 14..Uru offillrefurbish Roll RoodWort $1C.lXXlooo .........-~"'A
-..CoIIfomIo
00<1993 ._Bridet_In·12N_f...bilRoodWortond__1
Morch1994 _RRIrIdn Cootte'-"""..-S 500.000.00 -KIowItCom_HlA
Juno1994 Fell
BIodt___offlow
8uIIda RfC,1Io InlDa!slInI-.andacida 5lrutluro1"P1plrw.MochnIcoI.-"'Nowdo
1995 Cor1lrOI -Electricol ,$5.ooolXXl.oo --_eo.-.-ProiOClMon_tIIA
Aprll1995 elyofAJbuql.lerque WltlrT....ttneN.,tint Structural.Plplrw._nICOl.
Jill1996 -Ciollnaoutllla.........._..........Elodricol $34.oooJllIl.llD CJ"'ofAll>..oo_....-"'""'"'""'.HlA
Moyl996 StrLlClUral.Pipi,.,MedWcll.$onDlqaWoler
"""1997 Mll'lmafRrtNmJir 3M1llonGol_.and _a.P""",EIacttlcoI $11.000,000.00 Aucharttv llowltea...--,MIA
5opl997 5lructuraI,PIp''''Mothnlcol.
Jon1M l'oIntLamaWulaWolerT_Plonl BulId2dl......!\ora~~-$23.OOO.llllO.oo CIIlIofSo.DIo8>IClowItc:on-nlos _....--_1999 Concr...fwollay,3doaj>___by 5lNcluro~P;pi...-...col.
Sop1999 StormW_........_451:GP..1.....2ltW4r_~.__I
S6.CllIl.ooo Paltof...._-~erw_72A.564.2704
Jon 2llOO 00<jGooOTollIM,2l1icUn1rw-,2 _T......2 S-.I.P1plrw._
2llOO Wast.waterTratmentPfantU~QarIfIon.ndco-nsot.-sa of_~e:a....-NlA
JonlllOI J...SMG0liU.Inc.rI1IOrIrptint.MedwtaIend -._-.2OQ2 -Tonk EIactricoI Elacuicol Su.ooo.ooo UCIAF_-~TomLubs310,206.lM4
Jun2OO2 _PI_-
Jon2lI03 -_-.-I2MGAosoMIir_0 FlowaiIrtroIlluIIdIno -SI.OOO.CllIl T_-_lIowIt~"'A,......a.IId'i4-.of......2ClItandeo-Tunna!..IIolIRoodWort<.5tructuroJandeM!-Gold LlneFromUnIonStltfon1:0Morvvvil Md9TrllnStIUonI work S30D.OOO.OOO MfA llowitComaonia QaltwCanlnll_.HlA
JuI_LateSkl_rWMerTrMtmentPlant _rol.P1p1..._Ica~hI1GnI.ownw'lconatI"1CtIon
r.II_~I~withozan.CantKtDr BulIdCarifWr.Sed8Ilslna.ozone ContllCtor E_1co1 $175,000.000 MWD ShImrnldcConstruction Structl,ll"llSuD.rlnte_nr lmanuw_c:ontKtnotavalt.bIe.
.....-s.t6Can.ndpumps.CoNtructBuild1rcand Structural.P1p1..."achnlc.~WestV"1eyW.ter
_257 6-2Boa....P.......51011..E_lcal EIaclricoI $1.200.CllIl D~trict CO<oConstt........EslImotar....s..-ri_entI.....(010lIll9.nUlU··
r.II_Build•C.I'portwlthSolarPowerRooftosell TheTown ofYu=a AlIP_--YuccaVokw5aIar""""""........_toIllaGrid3OlWH 5lrUClllrolondE_$4OD.O!!1 1-_..._....P..__JiO._71"
,..-Doslpl.F_andin.llaII5alar~on"""OtydRodanda
AII_--___r__ll&hllna -l1UclJnIandae_$175.000.00 :--.p.._-lobIoM'IIt.IlD i1I31I.M61••
foil.,Dmlo.ManufKUnandInstd16005Ht '""_Doc_lAIJSD ___..ItHS bloochon _2ADA ......SlruclLnI.....-and.....$640.llllll.00 LAUSD -...._CloaIlooIan :w.5IO.8I5"
foII_Demo.UflI'"de.-..blue'-'"IoDA
AlI_
ClaII<_IIL394.24Una~--lAUSD_HS _.ConctataADA.....and HI!
__and.....
$450.000.00 lAU50 EIlIrnolDr.,_....
,..-.p/o<»12OOKofU01_....1_-roJ._-.Ia~C<Kroty ...-foil2010 _Inaland2fa<camoin__struetura and newvu..strUdUre EIoctl1col $475.000.00 --~,""__n1 ioo-_~··
..........eonstnlCtlon
_noIParlt l~dundartt'l AlllltPMROVllrnl.
Sop20JII ""'IlIT...RoadSll1ppl...Plno__IllT...Rood SIrt........nd50felY _.USDaptd ,.-_nr-CoordlnoleCOl1Jll'uctlan loao-t...."""T...N.tIonaIPo.k
_2011 Road Rau..U ..J......T...NotlonolPork11_....""ClwII.Raodwork $5a.a19.00 Interior _tIaI.nd_7&IlA01.343fi
IEXHIBIT"B]
Feo2011
__,.......PIont_
PII~c:ancm:eendoMnSOGendWalls..Set -.......McdII1lul,"---~.........-.
..-01__endEndoMnt Gu1o_ond~__EIo<tricoI S 15,000.00 IllmIct01LA eo.....Inc._PM,Irwno"'"""310.63&.1161..._~oIT~;;;d·';dlonnol.
Feb2011
__londftIDnI.,.
JundionSll'llClUnIendHDP£and ~undo<'---SopuMdo~
..-2011 ........."'-c:oncr...S 265,000.00 DiJlrla0/LA Courr;Inc._....PM,K..,c;.-562.9CIIA3IUIfllI7
...,.-.~
~0413kw""rponoll_tIon (CAlnlrKmd undo<It's AuistPM Pe1lIrLiuin_2009 _oIchorootslob01cho -1Crtu£0_-"'--e:-dIw1lI_......r-E_FadlltvSGllrP""'"F-"WIdlIW 1_-S U5Q.OOO.OO "---.s.nd_lony_11&.llI7.44SI
EstImator/Pr~Manacer,Mike Hofmann'sJob HIstOlY and Reference---..Build boosterPu..,SlOti..with"""'pi,pipe,slrU<lln~P1pi...._-.-1__P.....Stotlon electrIcol,b_andtlo<ds<allO -$IJlllOJlQO.oo CItYofOrorwo Coro~EslI..-r -TUICaofIE7JA..Za..2A15••
Aj1r112l105Fo11 1u1k14MIG.3MIG end Moda'JJNGr...rvo!r._01,Plpl....Mechnicol,PKlflc:rinkfor Wut:-__""'"CreollSlo...._....r -.and"""'"""EJectricol S 2.000.0סס.oo VolJovW_PI_Cor.""""""",Eadrnltor:PM SU~nMnt INIrnf CIJntlaZl1.UII··
Sop-ApdI PW11PSlolIon,Pumps,.ndpIpi...OIomlclllllldl structural,Pipl,.,Mechnkal,MonteVisawatar-WoII31 end.........Ioctrlco~_pe Eleetrl<1ll Is 1.300,000.00 DiJlrla CoreConotr.-.1 Eltim-tor,.PM..~lrUndent ................1110··
••-fteantJimlll,projlCUforDelnand
Mila
(EXHIBITB I
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,LOS ANGELES UCLA
BDKEUY 0 DAVIS 0 "VINE 0 LOSAHGEUS 0 MaCED 0 IUVDSIDI 0 SAND/EOO 0 SANfRANClICO 0 SANTAIlAU.UA 0 SANTACIlUZ
PACIUTIIlS MANAOEMEHT •D£SlGN '"PROIECTMAHAGEMEm
731 alARLESB.YOUNO DlUYBSOU11I,3M1FLOQR
POST 0f1'ICI!BOX 9j1526
LOSANQ£LiS,CALIfORNIA9009501526
March 1,2011
Letter of Recommendation
946160Thennal Energy Storage Tank Project
UCLA Energy ServIces
To Whom It May Conce ,
This letter is my personal recommendation for Dean Chesnull had theopportunity to work with Dean
when I managed the design and construction ofthe UCLA Thermal Enltfgi Storage Tank Project.Dean
was the designated COnstruction Manager for this $14 mllUon dollar project which Installed a 5 million
gallOR underground concrete tank and associated mechanical infrastructure.The successful completion
ofthis project added more then 30,000 ton hours of chilledwater capacity to the University district energysystem.00
Jhave always found Dean to be an excellent and etrIcIent Construction Manager who always came to work
with a can do atlltud .The depth of his engineering and construction knowledge was a key element In the
completion ofthe project.Dean demonstrated excenent Interpersonal skiNs when dealing with the various
architects,engineers and sub contractors associated with the projeclln design and construction
meetings,Dean aJways presented innovativeideas and strategies.Throughout years ofthe project Dean
implemented a number ofinnovative and successful construction strategies that kept the project budget
and schedule manageable for amajor Capital Project.
I highly recommend Dean Chesnut for your consideration.Dean would make a great asset for any project
team.
Sincerely,
gI "41#1"""~--
Tom Lukas
Principal Project Manager
Design.Landscape &ProjectManagement
Facilities Management Building.Third Floor
731 Young Drive South
Los Angeles CA 90095-1526
03/04/2011 10:ao 8585379653
LloJf847'"
7847Danh..Roed
SWtcC
San O!qo,CA92126
Ph.U1-j31.Q774
Fall 8S8·S37-!l65~
M3l'd14,201 J
Mr.Mark Watton,General Manager
OtayWater District
2554 SweetwaterSprings Blvd
SprlIliValley.CA 91978
Pax #619-670-8920
NEWEST CiJI'STRUTICH
IEXHIBITC I
PAGE allal
Re.:Bid for 944-1R Recycled Water Pump Station
Upgrade and System Enhancements
ClPR2091
DearMr.Walton.
On Much 3,2011 bids were received for the above referencedproject.The apparent lowbid is
listed 88 Sepulveda Construction.SepulVeda Construction's bid package contained multiple l&C
systemintegrator certifications.Tbi$is inviolation ofspecification section 17000,paragraph
1.03.D.,which states,'7hecomplete control system shall be furnished by a single integration
firm who shall assume total m1ponsibility for satisfactory perfonnance ofthe complete system."
By listingm.ultiple companies the apparent lowbidder's bidshould be deemed non-responsive.
The District has no assurance to which integrator the apparent low bidder will use orintended to
use,which could result inbid shopping.Bid shopping is not allowed inaccordance with Public
Contract Code 4100-4114.
We request that no awardbemade on this project until wehave ample time to review the
rejection from.the District and respond accordingly.We believe that ourbid meets the contract
requirements and we are the low responsive bidderfor this project.An awatd oftbe contract to
any bidder besides NEWest Construction would violate California Gove:mment Code,standards
andpractices applicable to competitive bidding OD public '!YOrks projects..
Ifyou have any questions please feel1iee to contact me at 858-537-0774.
Sincerely,
IEXHIBITD I
March 16,2011
.JDediCated to COllllllunltg geltvlCe
2554SWEETWATER SPRINGSBOULEVARD,SPRING VALLEY,CAliFORNIA91978-2004
TELEPHONE:67(1.2222,AREA CODe 619 www.otaywater.gov
Project No.:R2091-001103
Mark Jennette
NEWest Construction Company,Inc.
7847 Dunbrook Rd.,Ste C
San Diego,CA 92126
SUBJECT:Response to Bid Protest for the 944-1 R Recycled Water
Pump Station Upgrade and System Enhancements
Dear Mr.Jennette:
The District received your formal bid protest,dated March 4,2011,for the above subject project.
District staff and legal counsel have reviewed and analyzed the protest and have determined that
Sepulveda Construction's (Sepulveda)bid package is responsive.
The protest appears to be based on a claim that Sepulveda could engage in bid shopping by
providing certifications from several potential systems integration subcontractors.A reasonable
interpretation of section 1.04(A)of Section 17000 actually seems to require certifications for each
prospective systems integrator;thus,not only would the multiple certifications not be in violation
of the bid requirements,they would actually be in compliance with it.Further,Sepulveda's bid
package appears to be responsive notwithstanding the omission of a certification for the listed
subcontractor,Southern Construction Company (Southern),as that discrepancy would seem to
be inconsequential.Sepulveda listed only one electrical subcontractor,Southern,and thus would
appear to comply with the requirement of a single systems integration firm.
The District is moving forward with a recommendation to award the contract to Sepulveda at the
April 6th Board Meeting.Should you have any questions or comments,please contact me at
(619)670-2247,or by email at daniel.kay@otaywater.gov
Sincerely,
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
~V
Daniel Kay,P£.
Associate Engineer
DK:jf
cc:Rod Posada
Ron Ripperger
Richard Romero,Stutz Artiano Shinoff &Holtz
P'\WOAKINGICIPR2091 .927·1 PS Recycle<!PSUpgrade\Designlfljd Pl1aseIResponseto BidProtestfromNe....l.doc
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Award a Construction Contract to Sepulveda
for the 944-1 R Recycled Water Pump Station
Upgrades and System Enhancements Project
Project No.:R2091-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for the April 6,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
Signa~V
Daniel Kay
Printed Name
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
~~~
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
3./I1-l/(
Date
Date
Date
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.
AGENDA ITEM 7k
STAFF REPORT
DIV.
NO.
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.8M):
Regular Board MEETING DATE:April 6,2011
James Peasley ~~~~ROJECD .P12l0~
Engineering Ma~er ()SUBPROJECTS.017000
Rod posada~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~
Assistant General~anager,Engineering and Operations
nla
SUBJECT:Revision to the Cooperative Agreement for the United
States Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI Funding for the
Otay Water District Recycled Water Infrastructure Program
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
authorizes the General Manager to execute a revision to the
Cooperative Agreement for the United States Bureau of Reclamation
Title XVI Funding for the Otay Water District Recycled Water
Infrastructure Program.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute a
revision to the Cooperative Agreement between the United States Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR)and the City of San Diego (City)for the USBR
Title XVI funding for the Otay Water District Recycled Water
Infrastructure Program.The single purpose of the Cooperative
Agreement revision is to replace the City of San Diego,Public
Utilities Department,with the Otay Water District,as the recipient
of federal funds per terms of the Cooperative Agreement.
ANALYSIS:
The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of
1992,Public Law 102-575,Title XVI,Section 1612 authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to participate in the construction of water
reclamation projects in the San Diego area,with Federal financial
participation limited up to 25 percent of eligible project costs.It
had been determined by the previous USBR's legal counsel that the City
of San Diego is the agency authorized to receive Federal funding under
this authority.Therefore,the existing Cooperative Agreement between
the City and USBR executed on August 4,2006 and the existing
Cooperative Sub-Agreement between the City and the District provided
the vehicle for the flow of Federal funding to Otay through the City
for the District's Recycled Water Infrastructure Program.The Board
authorized the General Manager to execute the Cooperative Sub-
Agreement on March 13,2006.
The purpose of the Cooperative Agreement and the Cooperative Sub-
Agreement provides Federal funding to plan,design,and construct the
District's Recycled Water Infrastructure Program that will distribute
recycled water for beneficial use.The Cooperative Agreement covers
the cost of activities necessary for the construction of the
District's Recycled Water Infrastructure Program.The total estimated
cost of these projects within the Cooperative Agreement is
$80,645,000.
Also,under the terms of the Cooperative Agreement the District is
entitled to incur costs,in a total amount not to exceed $10,000,000,
for allowable costs incurred on or after January 1,2001,which
incurred after execution of the Cooperative Agreement.In accordance
with the Cooperative Agreement,the District is eligible to receive
reimbursement for a portion of total allowable costs in an amount up
to and not to exceed $2,500,000 (i.e.,25%of $10,000(000).
It is the District's promise to perform the contractual obligations
under the terms of the Cooperative Agreement;otherwise the City would
not have entered into the Cooperative Agreement and the Cooperative
Sub-Agreement.The City'S role under the current Cooperative
Agreement and the Cooperative Sub-Agreement is merely to act as a
"pass-through"agency in order for District to obtain Title XVI
funding.As such,the City's sole obligation under the Cooperative
Agreement is related to submitting funding requests and accepting
funding.
The single purpose of the Cooperative Agreement revision is to replace
the City of San Diego,Public Utilities Department,with the Otay
Water District,as the recipient of federal funds per terms of the
2
Cooperative Agreement.In other words,the District will receive the
Federal funds directly from USBR.
See Attachment B for a copy of the revision to the Cooperative
Agreement.The City has executed the revision to the Cooperative
Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT,~
Within the Cooperative Agreement there is an estimate of $80,645,000
for the Otay Water District Recycled Water Infrastructure Program and
$10,000,000,for allowable costs incurred on or after January 1,2001,
in which costs incurred after execution of the Cooperative Agreement.
USBR staff states that Federal money for Title XVI funding will be
paid eventually at the total of 25 percent even though less is
expected to be appropriated in the near term.This is the intention
and has been their policy in the past.As additional funds become
available,USBR will continue to obligate funds to agreements until
they are fully funded.The intent is that the full 25 percent will be
provided over time,as long as funds continue to be appropriated by
Congress.
The total estimated amount of USBR Title XVI funding available to Otay
Water District over time could be as much as 25 percent of $90,645,000
or about $22,600,000.
The District has expended nearly $47,511,000 for our Recycled Water
Infrastructure Program since January 1,2001 through December 31,
2010.To date USBR has paid and the District has received $9,510,000.
As of December 31,2010,the USBR owes the District almost $2,368,000
and the District should get paid over time when Congress appropriates
the funds.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The USBR Title XVI grant funding supports the District's Mission
statement,"To provide the best quality of water and wastewater
services to the customers of the Otay Water District,in a
professional,effective,and efficient manner.H The Project fulfills
the District's strategic goal,in planning for infrastructure and
supply to meet current and future potable water demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
3
Gen ral Manager
P:\jpeasley\BD 04-06-11,Staff Report,USSR Title XVI Cooperative Agreement Grant Recipient Revision,(JP-RP).doc
JFP/RP:j f
Attachment:Attachment A
Attachment B
Committee Action
Assistance Agreement
4
ATTACHMENT A
rSUBJECT/PROJECT:'i Revision toth~co-op~~;;;:ti;~'Ag~~e-me~tfo~theunit~'d"St~te~~"
P1210-017000 i Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI Funding for the Otay Water
.........LDi s tE~~:t=:..~~~Z~~~9 Yv.~:t=:~E,~~~r as t ruc tll:E~~E<?sr:t:'~!rl ..
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on March 23,2011 and the following
comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board (Board)authorize the General
Manager to execute a revision to the Cooperative Agreement for
the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)Title XVI Funding
for the District's Recycled Water Ingrastructure Program.
•Staff stated that the existing Cooperative Agreement between the
City and USBR was executed on August 4,2006,and prior to that
the District's Board approved and executed a Cooperative Sub-
Agreement between the City and the District on March 13,2006 to
provide a vehicle for the flow of Federal funding to Otay through
the City for the District's Recycled Water Infrastructure
Program.Staff indicated that the City's role under the
Cooperative Agreement and Sub-Agreement is merely to act as a
"pass-through"agency so that the District could obtain the Title
XVI Funding.
•Staff indicated that the purpose of the Cooperative Agreement
revision is to allow the District to receive the Federal funds
directly from USBR by replacing the City of San Diego,Public
Utilities Department,with the Otay Water District as the
recipient of Federal funds per terms of the Cooperative
Agreement.
•It was noted that the total estimated amount of USBR Title XVI
Funding available to the District over time could be as much as
25%of $90.6 million cap in the agreement or about $22.6 million.
•Staff indicated that the District has expended nearly $47.5
million for its Recycled Water Infrastructure Program since
January 1,2001 through December 31,2010,which USBR has paid
the District $9,510,000 to date.Staff noted that as of December
31,2010,USBR owes the District almost $2,368,000 which the
District should get paid over time when Congress appropriates the
funds.
•Staff stated that Congress is reluctant to appropriate money to
the USBR Title XVI funding program,which may affect the District
in the future.It was noted that Congressman Bob Filner supports
the program and is making an effort to ensure that it continues
to receive funds from the Federal budget.
•The Committee indicated that it supports staff's recommendation
and stated that the revision to the Cooperative Agreement is a
great opportunity to streamline the USBR Title XVI Funding to the
District.Staff agreed because in some occasions,while the City
was dormant,there was a delay in payment to the District for
several of its Recycled Water Infrastructure Program projects.
Staff believes that the revision to the Cooperative Agreement
will expedite payments from USBR to the District.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
6
ATTACHMENT B
7-2279(05-22-09)
BureauofReclamatiun
UNITED STATES DEPAR~NTOF THE lNTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
P age 10f2
IA.AGREEMBNTNUMBI!R IlB.MOD NUMDIlR I2.TY.l'BOI'AGRBBMENT 13.CLASS OFRECIPIBNT
R06AC35 182 016 [I GRANT SpecialDistrictix-1 COOPl!~TlVB AGRI!JJMBNT
4.ISSUINOOPPICE (NAM!l,ADD.",..,·S;RECIPIENT(HAM&.ADDM'S.·ULliPlIONa')
SCAO-2000 OtayWlller District
Southern CaliforniaArea Office 2554 Sweetwater SpringsBlvd.
Bureau ofReclamation SpringValley CA 91978-2096
27'708 Jefferson Avenue,Suite 202
Temecula,CA 92590
EINN:I 95-2049267 I CounLy:_I ~nDiego
DlINSN:I 078726031 I Con~u.Dist:I CA-Sl
6.ADMlNISTRA1lVBPOrNfOFCONTACr{WAMI!'.A.00R£8!1,.Tfl1.tU'HONE;EoMAJJ..)1.RECIPIENT'PR01ECTMANAGER(NAMK.ADDJU!S&.Te.LI:!.PHONe,&MAJL)
DelUlis D.Wolfe,SCAO-2000 JimPeasley
Bureau ofReclarnation Olay Water District
27708 Jefferson Avenue,Suite 202 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Temecula,CA 92590 Spring Valley CA 91978-2096
Phone:951-695-5310,E-mail:dwolfe@usbr.gov Phone:619-670-2242,~rnail:JPeasley@otaywater.gov
8.ORANTSOI'P[CERTECHNICALREPRBSENTATIVB (N'AM8,ADDRESS,1'I:!.1.EiOON'£,'80 9A.INITIALAGREEMENT 9B.MODIFICATION DFPECTIV8DI\TE:
.WLJ EFFECTIVEDATE:DennisD.Wolfe,SCAO-200D Dalesigned byGranls OfficerBureauofReclamationAugust4,2006
27708 Jefferson Avenue,Suite 202 10.COMPLllTlON DATE
Temecula,CA 92590 June 30,2021Phone:951-695-5310,F~mail:dwolfe@usbr.gov
11 PROORAM STATUTORY AUTHORITY ICFDA 15'504Seelion1612TItleXVIofPub.L.102-575.as amended
12.FUNDINO REClPlENT/OJ'tWR REel AMATION 13.REQUISITlONNUMBIl!<
INFORMATJON
Total EstimatedAmount $60,483,750 $20,161,250 .4A.ACCOUNTING ANDAPPROPRIATIONDATA
ofAwccmcnt CootAuthority.AIO-1712-600Q-19So20-o-oThisOblillation00CoS!Cenler:350I000
Previous.Obligation $71,135,000 $9,510,000 Obi«1 Code:4UC
Total Obligation $71,135,000 $9,510,000 14B.TRBASURY ACCOUNT FUNDING SYMBOL
Cosi-Shoro %75%25%14X0680
IS.PROJECTTITLBAND BRIEFSUMMARYOF PURPOSBANDOBJECT£VES OPPRomer
The cooperativc asreement titled Otny Water District,Recycled Woter InfmstruclUre Program,San Diego Waler RecIam4tion Piojc<;t is modified as follows:
1.The recipient is changed from the City ofSan Diego 10 Ihc Otay WaterDistrict.
2.The agreement number is changed f'rom06FC350182 to R06AC35182.
16a.Acceptance of this Assistance Agn;emcntin accoTdance with Ihe terms-and 173.Award ofthi.8-Ass.i~to.nceAgreement in accordance WiU1 the terms lind
conditions conlDincd herein IS herebymadeon bchqlfof'heabove..uBmed conditions contained-herein isherebyrondeonbehalfof(he lJhlteet Slalc..<of
Recipient America.ButeauofReclamQtion
SEE SIGNATURE PAGE
BV'SEE SIGNATURE PAGE
BY:
DATfi:
DATB:
16b.NAMEJ,TITLE,ANDTELEPHONENUMBEROFSIGNBR ITh.NAME OF ORANTSOFPICER
0 Addltional signatuf'e$are attached
Cooperative Agreement No.R06AC35182
Modification No.016
Otay Water District,Recycled WaterInfrastructure Program,San Diego WaterReclamation Project
SIGNATURE PAGE:
The City ofSanDiego,Public Utilities Department,is herebyreplaced as therecipient ofthis cooperative
agreement by the Otay Water District.The transfer will be effective upon execution of this modification by the
two agencies and the Grants Officer,which will mean:
By:
iego,Public Utilities Department,is relieved ofall responsibilities related to cooperative
C35182,previously known as 6FC350182.
_-/-_l_~_---=~=--\_\A--t-Date:3/)-JI)
Ro r S.Bailey
Director ofPUblic Utilities
City ofSan Diego
The Otay Water District assumes all responsibilities related to this agreement.
By:___________________Date:
Mark Watton
General Manager
Otay Water District
The transfer ofresponsibilities from the City ofSan Diego to the Otay Water District is hereby approved.
By:Date:
William J.Steele
Grants Officer
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Revision to the Cooperative Agreement for the United
States Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI Funding for
the Otay Water District Recycled Water Infrastructure
Program
Document Description:Staff Report for April 6,2011 Board Meeting
Project No.:P1210-017000
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
James Peasley
Printed Name
B=:i ~~
Signature
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
~\_'-'-----Date
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.
AGENDA ITEM 71
STAFF REPORT
2DIV.
&NO.
P2440-
001000
P2440-
005000
April 6,2011MEETINGDATE:
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECTS:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magafi-er ~WLI.A -_
Assistant General~anager,Engineering and Operations
Amendments to Utility Agreements with Caltrans related to
Construction of the SR-905 Utility Relocations
Regular Board
Gary Silverman (jbSr
Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board authorizes the
General Manager to sign Amendments to two Utility Agreements
(Nos.31755 and 31926)with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)(see Exhibit A for project location)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to sign
Amendments to two Utility Agreements with Caltrans (Nos.31755
and 31926;see Exhibits B-1 and B-2).
ANALYSIS:
In 2003,Caltrans notified the District of its intent to
construct SR-905 from Heritage Road to SR-125 within Otay Mesa.
Subsequently,the District entered into several Utility
Agreements with Caltrans to establish prior rights and cost
sharing for relocation of existing and proposed District
utilities that were in conflict with Caltrans'design.This
current action addresses Amendments to two of the existing
Utility Agreements.
The cost estimates that determined the original value of the
subject two Utility Agreements were based on known conditions
and understandings at the time each Agreement was executed.Due
to changes in field conditions,conflicts with other utilities,
other agencies planned utilities,and Caltrans'requested design
changes,the project costs exceeded the estimated costs.
The work associated with both Utility Agreements is complete.
The amount of each Amendment was determined based on the actual
final costs.The District has already invoiced Caltrans for the
amounts of the previous Agreements.Upon execution of these
Amendments,the District will invoice Cal trans for the
additional costs,as shown in the table below.Caltrans has
assured Staff that the amounts to be reimbursed to the District
in the Amendments have been set aside in the authorized funding
for the SR-905 construction.
$176,140
·/2~7
Agreement
Number
31755
31926
Total
FISCAL IMPACT:
Previous
Agreement
$141,140
$35,000
New
Agreement
$292,000
$79,000
$371,000
Reimbursement
to District
$150,860
$44,000
$194,860
Approval of these amendments will allow the District to lnVOlce
Caltrans an additional $194,860.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To
provide the best quality of water and wastewater service to the
customers of the Otay Water District,in a professional,
effective,and efficient manner."As well as the General
Manager's vision,"...prepared for the future..."by guaranteeing
that the District will always be able to meet future water
supply obligations and plan,design,and construct new
facilities.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Legal counsel reviewed these Utility Agreements for consistency
and content.
2
Gene Manager
P:\vlORKING\CIP P2440 -SR-905 Utility Relocations\Staff Reports\BD 04 06-11,Staff Report,Amendments to Utility Agreements with
Caltrans for SR-90S Utility Relocations (GPS-RR).doc
GPS/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Exhibit A -Location Map
Exhibit B-1 Utility Agreement for No.
Exhibit B-2 Utility Agreement for No.
3
31755
31926
..1
ATTACHMENT A
.........................._........__·······T······~.._................~.
i SUBJECT/PROJECT:!Amendments to Utility Agreements with Caltrans related to
!P2440-001000 &I Construction of the SR-905 Utility Relocations
IE'?440-gQ?Qg.9...........
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed this
item at a meeting held on March 23,2011 and the following comments were
made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board authorize the General Manager
to sign Amendments to two Utility Agreements (Nos.31755 and
31926)with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).
•Staff stated that between 2005 and 2008,the District entered
into ten (10)utility agreements with Caltrans to facilitate cost
reimbursement for utility relocations associated with the
construction of SR-905.The amounts of those utility agreements
were estimated based on information available at the time.As
construction took place and costs were incurred,it became
necessary to amend some of the Utility Agreements because actual
costs exceeded 125%of the estimated amount.
•Staff stated that to date,Caltrans has reimbursed the District
over $1.75 million in expenses associated with SR-905 utility
relocations,including nearly $400,000 received on March 21,
2011.
•It was indicated that all of the work associated with SR-905
utility relocations is complete and staff is processing the final
paperwork to receive payment for the remaining outstanding
expenses.Staff stated that an amendment to the Utility
Agreements is required because the actual costs of the utility
relocations exceeded the cost limits by more than 25%.
•Staff indicated that Caltrans already prepared and signed the
amendments to the Utility Agreements and submitted them to the
District to be signed and executed.Once the General Manager
signs the agreements,the District will be able to process the
two (2)invoices for the project,which amounts to approximately
$200,000.In addition,Caltrans has indicated that an additional
$35,000 in net betterment costs is due to the District.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'recommendation
and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
*The District's Subarea Master Plan showsproposed recycled.Recycled will be placed after Route 905.
0 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION POTABLE RECYCLEDAGREEMENTSTATUS
1 Future Future TBD TBD
2 31758 100%12"N/A
3 31759 100%10"to 12"to 10"N/A
4 31756,31817 100%20"12"
5 31757,31921 100%None None
6 31728,31779 100%Keep existing 16"*
7 31755 100%See Plan *
8 31926 100%Keep eXisting 16"N/A
RBF HDR
I 8 !I
-~-
--~-JJ -...co''"""'-•
®Crossing Number,Work Area
I I Potable -New
..----.Potable Cap -Existing
..----...Potable -Existing to remain
~Potable Abandoned -Existing
1--.-I Recycled -New
..----.Recycled Cap -Existing
Sewer-New
~I
'''=2000'
--
•
H.~
,
Dl
OTAY WA TER DISTRICT
ROUTE 905 UTILITY RELOCATIONS
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B-1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA·DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT
DATE:January 26,2011
13-EX-24 (REV 412002)
Page 1 of2
Co
SD
Federal Aid No:
Owner's File:CUI2242
Rte
905
A905 (015 )
KP (P.M.)
RI3.9/RI8.6
EA
091821
1100000070
FEDERAL PART1CIPATION:On the Project
On the Utilities
I?5J Yes
o Yes
DNa
DNa
SECOND AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT NO.31755
WHEREAS,the State of California,acting by andthrough its Department ofTranspOltation,hereinafter called STATE
and OTAY WATER DISTRICT,hereinafter called OWNER have entered into that certain Utility Agreement No.31755 dated
July 14,2006 and First Amendment dated November 21,2008 which Agreements sets forth the terms and conditions pursuant to
which OWNER has relocated its water facilities in Airway Road and Harvest Road,to accommodate STATE's construction on
Route 905,Project No.091821;and,
WHEREAS,in the perfonnance of said work,increased costs over and above those estimated at the tune of the
execution ofsaid Agreement were incurred primarily due to the increase ofadditional services required due to additional design,
plan check,construction management,inspection,and operations services.
WHEREAS,it has been dete1U1ined that,since fmal costs have ovemm the amount shown in said Agreement by 107%
when the increased cost exceeds by 25%the estimated amount set forth in said Agreement,said Agreement shall be amended to
show the increased cost ofthe work to the STATE;and,
WHEREAS,the estimated cost to the STATE ofthe workto be performed under said Agreement was $141,140.00,and
by reason ofthe increased costs referred to above,the amended estimated cost to the STATE is $292,000.00.
NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties as follows:
l.The estimated cost to the STATE of$14J,J 40.00 as set forth in said Agreement is hereby amended to read Phflse 9
funds increase to $292.000.00.
2.All other tenns and conditions ofsaid Agreement remain unchanged.
*****************
AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT EA 091821
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO,31755
13-EX-24 (REV 4/2002)
Page 2 of2
THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTTO STATE FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $292.00000.
FVNDTY?E EA AMOUNT
Design FundS $
Construction Funds $
RW Funds 091829 $150,860.00
1100000070
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
r hereby certify UpOll my own personal knowledge that bUdgeted funds nre
available for the period and purpose ofthe expenditure shown here.
-----fl~:A n1r/
'l.lo Accp~ntfink:Officer Date
ITEM CHAP STAT FY M10UNT
dI/i<>~6"iyr0 f(//)1{:)-'lId-,320/0 Jo/t(/$JJ a~.rm
Already encumbered
Total
$141.140.00
$292,000.00
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this SECOND AMENDMENT to
Utility Agreement No.31755 this day of ,20 II,
STATE:DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OWNER:GTAY WATER DISTRICT
By
NameJTitle Date
By ~<';.W,.l\Ju \I~lp\\\CllmI Yu ""-''''''''-=-=:.------J.-=---.:....::..Da-'ceL...:....'--
Utility Coordinator
By
DO NOT WRITE BELOW -FOR ACCOUNT1NG PURPOSES ONLY
SUB
JOB
SPEGAL
DESIGNATION FFY
i}
UTILITY COMPLETES:
OBJ DOLLAR
FA CODE AMOUNT
(.,054 l'Jt _j w Cr[;
054
EA FUNDING VERIFIED:REVIEW/REQUEST FUNDING:
Sign>
Print>
(\I,.,
\Jovce Wiggs
RJW'Planning and Management Date
Sign>
Print>Carol Vu
Utility Coordinator
Distribution:4 originals to R/W Accounting
4 originals returned to PJW Planning and Management
EXHIBIT B-2
~TA TE OF CALIFORNIA.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT
DATE:January 25,20 II
13-EX-24 (REV 4/2002)
Page 1 of2
Dist
II
Co
SD
Rte
905
KPCP.M.)
R13.9fRI8.6
EA
091821
1100000070
Federal Aid No:
Owner's File:
A905 (015 )E
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION:On the Project
On the Utilities
!2J Yes
IZI Yes
DNa
DNo
FIRST AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT NO.31926
WHEREAS,the State ofCalifomia,acting by and through its Department ofTransportation,hereinafter called STATE
and OTAY WATER DISTRICT,hereinafter called OWNER,have entered into that certain Utility Agreement No.31926 dated
November 21,2008 which Agreement sels forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which OWNER has relocated its water
facilities in Airway Road,,0 ~ccommodate STATE's construction on Route 905,Project No.0918~1;and,
WHERFAS,in the performance of said work,increased costs over and a~ove those estimated at the time of the
execution ofsaid Agreement were incurred primarily due to the increase ofadditional services required by the desii,'D consultant,
plan check,consmlction management,field inspection,and operations services.
WHEREAS,it hos been detennined that,since fmal costs have overrun the amount shown in said Agreement by 126%
when the increased cost exceeds by 25%the estimated amount set forth in said Agreement,said Agreement shall be amended to
show the increased cost ofthe work to the STATE;and,
WHEREAS.the estimated cost to the STATE of the work to be perfonned under said Agr~ement was $35,000.00,and
by reason ofthe increased costs referred to above,the amended estimated cost to the STATE is $79,000.00.
NOW,THEREFORE,it is agreed between the parties as follows:
I.The estimated cost to the STATE of$35.000.00 as set forth in said Agreement is hereby amended to read Phase 9
funds increase to $79.000.0Q.
2.All other tenus and conditions ofsaid Agreement remain unchanged.
*****************
AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT EA 091821
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO.31926
13-EX-24 (REV 4/2002)
Page 2 of2
THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST TO STATE FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $79,000.00.
FUNDTYFE EA AMOUNT
Design Funds $
Construction Funds $
RW Funds 091829 $44,000.00
1100000070
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are
available for the period and purpose ofthe expenditure shown here.
/f~~-,;;;ll-J/tj
HQ AccoUJJtilJiOffic'ef Date
ITEM CHAP STAT FY AMOUNT
f!.1.ft(;O .-tf3CiO}C()tt:;).,/IZ 2610 toJ 1/4 <1,117]-;},v8
~I iTO
Already encumbered
Total
$35.000.00
$79,000.00
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this FIRST AMENDMENT to
Utility Agreement No.31926 this day of ,2011.
STATE:DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OWNER:OTAY WATER DISTRICT
B
By
Carol Vu
Utility Coordinator
{/~J/:'I(V/j10 .
I Date
Date
By
NamelTitle
By
Date
DO NOT WRlTE BELOW -FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY
SUB
JOB
q6r
EA FUNDING VERIFIED:REVIEWIREQUEST FUNDING:
Utility Coordinator
Sign>(IrQJ'..{}-jJ7(Ii
Print>Jo~Wiggs
R/W Planning and Management Date
Sign>
Print>Carol Vu
Distribution:4 originals to RlW Accounting
4 originals returned to RlW Planning and Management
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Amendments to Utility Agreements with
Caltrans related to Construction of the SR-905
Utility Relocations
Project No.:P2440-001000
P2440-005000
Document Description:Staff Report for April 6,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
~~/1 tf /If
Date
Gary Silverman
Printed Name ltu~~'b 14 1II
Date
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
~~~~0\IS)II
Signature Date
Rod Posada
Printed Name
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.
AGENDA ITEM 7m
STAFF REPORT
2DIV.
NO.
April 6,2011
P2434-001102
MEETING DATE:
PROJECTI
SUBPROJECT:
Regular Board ~
Gary Silverma~
Senior Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger [I\~~)
Engineering Manager
Rod posad~~~,
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana~~
Assistant General ~nager,Engineering and Operations
Award of a Professional Engineering Services Contract for
Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey Well Project to Tetra Tech,
Inc.
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
TYPE MEETING:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
awards a professional services contract to Tetra Tech,Inc.(Tetra
Tech)and authorizes the General Manager to execute an agreement with
Tetra Tech,Inc.for design of Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey Well
Project in an amount not to exceed $724,493.50 (see Exhibit A for
Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
professional engineering services contract with Tetra Tech for design
of Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey Well Project in an amount not to
exceed $724,493.50.
ANALYSIS:
Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey Well Project (Project)consists of
equipping a well previously drilled and developed in Phase 1,and
constructing a wellhead treatment facility to remove salinity and
other constituents from the water.The product water from this
facility will be pumped into the distribution system,thereby,
augmenting the District's potable water supply by approximately 500
acre-feet per year (AFY).
The District requires a consulting firm to provide a range of
professional services for the Project,including design engineering,
permitting assistance,construction support services,and operations.
The operations portion of the Project consists of the consultant
providing a part-time certified operator to train District staff and
serve as the Chief Operator,as defined by California Department of
Public Health Title 22 Regulations.It is initially scoped for this
resource to be utilized for 18 months;however,this may be modified
when the District's needs can be better quantified.
The District initiated the consultant selection process on January 6,
2011,by placing advertisements in the San Diego Union Tribune and
the San Diego Daily Transcript,and posting the Project on the
District's website for Professional Engineering Services.The
advertisements attracted Letters of Interest and Statements of
Qualifications from 20 consulting firms.A Pre-Proposal Meeting was
held on January 25,2011.Twenty-seven (27)people representing 20
consulting firms attended the meeting.
On February 10,2011,proposals were received from the following
seven (7)consulting firms:
1.Black &Veatch
2.COM
3.Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
4.MWH Americas,Inc.
5.Proteus Consulting
6.Separation Processes,Inc.
7.Tetra Tech,Inc.
After the proposals were evaluated and ranked by a five-member review
panel consisting of District Engineering and Operations staff,it was
determined that five proposals ranked sufficiently close to warrant
being invited to make an oral presentation and respond to questions
from the panel.After conducting the interviews on March 1,2011,
the panel completed the consultant ranking process and concluded that
Tetra Tech had the best approach to the Project and provided the best
2
overall value to the District.A summary of the complete evaluation
is shown in Exhibit B.
Fee negotiations with Tetra Tech concluded on March 4,2011,and
resulted in a net reduction of $3,423 to their original proposed fee
of $727,916.50,despite the addition of a new scope item.Their
revised proposed fee,with reduction,is $724,493.50.
FISCAL IMPACT:~.~
/(
The total budget for ClP P2434,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,is
$4,250,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $3,340,010.See Attachment B for budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budgets,the Project Manager has
determined that the budget is sufficient to support the award of this
contract,which is the design phase of the Project.However,based
on the $3.5 million Phase 2 capital expenditure estimate in the
feasibility study completed in December 2010,the existing ClP budget
will be insufficient to support construction.An anticipated
supplemental funding of approximately $2.0 million will be requested
as part of the FY 2012 ClP budget to address the remaining work that
will be required to complete this Project.
With the shifting of certain ClP's into later years,Finance has
determined that 40%of the funding is available from the Expansion
Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the Betterment Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of
Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner."This Project fulfills the District's Strategic Goals No.1
-Community and Governance,and No.5 -Potable Water,by maintaining
proactive and productive relationships with the Project stakeholders
and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for current and
future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
3
Manager
P:\NORKING\CIP P2434 -RDR vlell\Staff Reports\040611 Board\BO-04-06-11,Al....ard Engineering Contract to Tetra Tech.doc
GS/RR:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A Location Map
Exhibit B -Evaluation Summary
4
P2434-001102
~IIR I IECT:
ATTACHMENT A
Award of a Professional Engineering Services Contract for
Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey Well Project to Tetra Tech,
Inc.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on March 23,2011 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board award,and authorize the
General Manager to execute,a professional services contract to
Tetra Tech,Inc.for the design of Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey
Well Project (Project)in an amount not-to-exceed $724,493.50.
•Staff indicated that the Project consists of equipping a well
that was previously drilled and developed in September 2010,and
construct a wellhead treatment facility to remove salt and other
constituents from the water.
•Staff stated that the Project will provide approximately 500 to
600 AF of potable water supply annually.
•It was indicated that the District requires a consultant to
provide a variety of services that includes design engineering,
permitting,construction support,and operations.
•On January 6,2011,the District placed an ad on its website and
local newspapers to solicit for a consultant for the Project.
Twenty (20)firms submitted a letter of interest and statement
of qualifications and attended the District's pre-proposal
meeting on January 25,2011.On February 10,2011,the District
received seven proposals in which five (5)of them ranked
sufficiently close and were invited to an interview on March 1,
2011.The five firms were:1)CDM,2)Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants,3)Proteus Consulting,4)Separation Processes,
Inc.,and 5)Tetra Tech,Inc.
•In accordance of Policy 21,the District's panel conducted
interviews and afterwards the consultant ranking process was
completed which staff indicated that Tetra Tech,Inc.had the
highest score and represented the best value to the District.
•Staff stated that the District has worked with Tetra Tech,Inc.
in the past,which was a positive experience,and is confident
that Tetra Tech,Inc.can deliver a quality design for the
Project due to their extensive experience of designing similar
projects for others.
•It was noted that a construction schedule will be added into the
Project's outreach plan.The outreach plan will be similar to
the 36-Inch Pipeline Project's outreach process where there was
a high level of communication with the community.Staff
indicated that the District's Communications Officer will be
involved with the outreach process for the Rancho del Rey Well
Project.
•The Committee noted in the Summary Proposal Rankings spreadsheet
that the box for "Consultants Commitment to DBE"(Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise)was marked "No"for Tetra Tech,Inc.and
inquired if this indicated that Tetra Tech does not commit to
DBE programs or other similar programs that support small
businesses.Staff indicated that it only implies that their
proposal did not respond to the District's inquiry about DBE
commitment,but they actually do support those types of
programs.The Committee directed staff to provide documentation
to the Board that indicates Tetra Tech is committed to DBE
programs (see attached Exhibit 1).
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
IEXhibit 1 I
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
Tetra Tech is an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)employer and does not discriminate in
employment opportunities or practices on the basis of race,color,religion.ethnicity,gender,national
origin,age,disability,sexual orientation,marital status or any other characteristics protected by the
state and federal law or local ordinance.Tetra Tech practices EEO hiring policies to provide
opportunities to all qualified individuals.Tetra Tech is in compliance with the City's
nondiscrimination in contracting ordinance requirements.
Subconsultant Opportunities
Tetra Tech has a long commitment in providing opportunities for local small businesses and
disadvantaged business enterprises on many projects completed in San Diego County and in the City
of San Diego.We continue to established relationships with these businesses.Our commitment to the
utilization of DBE,SBE and MBE business participation is demonstrated by our past performance on
recent local projects as shown in the table below.DBE,SBE and MBE participation have averaged
24%of total project budget,which exceeded minimum voluntary requirements of 15%at that time.
The table below shows a breakdown of the small and minority business participation on six recent
water and wastewater projects completed by TetraTech.
Minority Participation on Recent City ofSan Diego Projects
CityofSan DIego
Project Fee I I I I
IProjectNameTetraTechMBEWBEIDBE Others,(Approxlmatel I I
Water &Sewer Group I $420,172 I 73%9%15%I 0
I
3%
Jobs 529 &530
City of San Diego I
$167,000 80%20%0 0 0SewerPumpStation39II
City of San Diego I I
Sewer Pump Station 18 I S337,OOO 60010 H%24%I 0 5%
City of San Diego $323,000 62%H%22%0 I 5%Sewer Pump Station 19
City of San Diego $1,000.000 85%4%2%7%2%Miramar Road Pipeline
City of San Diego
SewerMain Replacement S125,750 85%6%0 0
Group 609
•Minority&Small Business
Participation
•Tetra Tech Average
PAST PROJECTS
As a Government
contractor that exceeds
50 employees or $50,000 in federal contracts,Tetra Tech is required to have a written Affirmative
Action Plan through which management assures that all persons have equal opportunities in
recruitment,selection,appointment,promotion,training,discipline and related employment areas.The
plan is tailored to the employer's work force and the skills available in the labor force.It prescribes
specific actions,goals,timetables,responsibilities and describes resources to meet identified needs.
Tetra Tech Employees
Tetra Tech is commited
to not only providing
equal opportunities for its
project partners and
subconsultants,but also
for its highly valued
internal employees.
TetraTech does not have any discrimination complaints on file in the past ten (10)years.
Small Emerging Local Business Proaram
Tetra Tech shares the District's commitment to equal opportunity,which is demonstrated by our past
performance on San Diego City and County projects,where approximately 24%of this work was
completed by highly qualified small local businesses,disadvantaged businesses,women and minority
owned businesses.We have consistently exceeded minimum voluntary requirements on these
contracts.
ATTACHMENT B
P2434-001102
i Award
Phase
Inc.
of a
2 of
Professional Engineering Services
the Rancho del Rey Well Project to
Contract for
Tetra Tech,
Olay WaterDistrict
P2434 -Rancho Del Ray Well Development
Date Updated:March 01,2011
Outs/ana/ng ProjectedFinalBudgetCommittedExpendituresCommitment&Vendor/Comments
4,250.000 CostForecast
Planning
Labor 335,038 335,038 335.038
Land 326,092 326.092 326.092
Permits 125 125 -125 CITY OF CHULA VISTA-DEPT.OF
Materials 1,348 1.348 -1.348 VARIOUS
Rental 159 159 -159 PENHALL COMPANY
Construction Costs 26.154 26.154 -26,154 CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,INC.
Professlonat Legal Fees 5.619 5,619 -5,619 GARCIACALDERON &RUIZ LLP
ConsultantContracts 19,481 19,481 -19,481 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
10.325 10,325 -10.325 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
1,100 1.100 -1.100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
3.065 3,065 -3.065 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
15.000 14.993 7 15,000 SEPARATION PROCESSES INC
1,738,430 1,292.225 448,206 1,738,430 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC
Service Contracts 5.100 5.100 -5,100 S R BRADLEY &ASSOCIATES INC
71 71 -71 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT
624 624 -624 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
399 399 -399 REPROHAUS CORP
----URBINA'S MASTER SWEEPING INC
6 6 -6 COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO
134 134 -134 COURIER EXPRESS.INC.
205 205 -205 USASIGN CO.
3,226 3.226 -3.226 QUALITY ASSURANCE LABORATORY
7,108 7.108 -7.108 MULTI WATER SYSTEMS
1,955 1,955 -1,955 BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP
5,665 5,665 -5.665 EARTH TECH
3,344 3,344 -3.344 CITY OF CHULAVISTA
16,714 16,714 -16,714 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
112 112 -112 MONTGOMERY WATSON LABORATORIES
2,500 2,500 -2.500 ANDREW A.SMITH COMPANY
2,000 2,000 -2.000 ENARTEC ENGINEERING PLANNING
35,200 35,200 -35.200 ALCEM FENCE COMPANY INC.
Total Planning 2.566,298 2,120.086 446.212 2,568,298
Design
Labor 5,991 5,991 5.991
Consultant Contracts 6.930 6,930 -6.930 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
2,829 2,829 -2,829 PBS&J
3,500 3.500 -3.500 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
Total Design 19.250 19.250 -19,250
Construction
Labor 14.666 14,666 14,666
RegulatoryAgency Fees 50 50 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Service Contracts 115 115 -115 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT
440 440 -440 URBINA'S MASTER SWEEPING INC
Total Construction 15,271 15,271 -15,271
Design -RDR Well Treatment
Labor 14,224 14,224 14.224
Service Contracts 343 343 -343 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE LLC
130 130 -130 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
ConSUltant Contracts 724,494 -724,494 724,494 TETRATECH INC
Total Design 739,191 14,697 -14,697
Grand Total 3.340.010 2.169.304 1.170.706 3,340.010
I
NOT TO SCALE
o DEL REV YlELL
o
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,
INC
LOT '08
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO,89-5
MAP NO.'2720
(96."')
(N8T37'44"E)
ii!c
j
:::"~e~.!!~1t~~t------r------------------------'"~•OTA WATER DISTRICT~••RANCHO DEL WAY PARKWAY,CHULA VISTA,CA
2 RANCHO DEL REY GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENTJCIPP2434
li:.......&.~~-~......------------~
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
P2434 Rancho Del Rey Well,Phase 2
WRITTEN ORAL
Qualificatlonzof
Team
ResponSJ\leness,
Project
Understanding
Technical and
Management
Approach
INDIVIDUAL
SUBTOTAL-
WRITTEN
AVERAGE
SUBTOTAL·
WRITTEN
ProposedFee"
Consultant's
Commitmentto
DBE
AVERAGETOTAL.AddibonalCrr.ativf StrengthofProject
WRITTEN andInsight Manager
Presentation,
Communication
Skills
QuaHyof
Responseto
Questions
INDIVIDUAL AVERAGETOTAL
TOTAL·ORAL ORAL
TOTALSCORE REFERENCES
MAXIMUMPOINTS 30 25 30 85 85 15 YIN 100 15 15 10 10 50 50 150 Poor/Goodl
Excellent
~~Konnody_+_--'2,,7__+-_---=2''---_+_--'2:.:6__+-_---'-74'---_-!
RonRipporgor 20 19 19 58
Black&Veatch I-,---R:::Od:.:P...:~::::"=d=-"_+_'---20::2__+-_---=20'----_+_'---20::5__+-_---=67'---_-1
DavidCharles 22 19 21 62
GaryStalkor 18 18 23 59
Bob Kennedy 29 23 28 80
Ron Ripperger 23 20 24 67
64 14 y 78
12
12
NOTINTERVIEWED
12
11
39
37
78
COM RodPosada 29 24 30 83
DavidCharlos 28 23 28 79
GaryStalkor 25 22 25 72
BobKennedy 27 22 26 75
76 12 y 88 12
12
12
13
12
10
12
13
42
37
37
42
38 126
Ron Ripperger 23 19 21 63
Kennedy/Jenks I-_R_od_PO_'_"d_"_-t-__2,,5__+_....;;2;;.2__1-__2,,5__+_--'72;;....._-/
DavidChar/os 23 20 22 65
68 12 y 80
11
12
12
12
13
12
37
41
38
40 120
MWH
Proteus
SPI
Tetra Tech
GaryStalker
BobKennedy
Ron Rlppergar
RodPosada
DavidChtlr/os
GaryStalkor
BobKO/l/lody
RonRippergor
RodPosada
DavidCharles
GaryStl/Tker
BobKonnedy
RonRipporger
RodPosada
DavidChar/os
Gary Stalker
Bob Konnedy
RonRipporgor
RodPosada
DavidChar/os
Gary Stalker
~22 V n
23 ~23 ~
~21 25 71
23 19 21 63
26 20 25 71
21 19 20 60
22 20 ~~
25 20 ~ro
19 20 22 61
~~25 ro
~21 3 75
21 n W 63
21 ~n ~
25 22 19 66
67
66
69
74
15
14
13
y
y
y
N
68
81
83
87
13
11
12
13
12
12
12
11
13
11
10
14
13
13
13
12
12
NOTINTERVIEWED
12
11
11
10
11
13
11
13
11
13
14
12
13
13
13
43
36
38
40
37
39
39
35
40
36
39
46
40
44
41
41
38
38
42
68
119
121
129 Good
ReViewPaneldoesnotseeorconSiderfeewhenscoring othercategones.FeeIS scored by the PM who1Snoton ReVlewPanel
FEE SCORINGCHART
Consultant
Proteus
Black&Veatch
SPI
TT
KJ
CDM
MWH
ProposedFee
$473641
$509,200
$543,741
$572.557
$619619
$628.6n
$1,170,691
Position
lowest
highest
Score
15
14
14
13
'2
12
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Award of a Professional Engineering Services
Contract for Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey
Well Project to Tetra Tech,Inc.
Project No.:P2434-001102
Document Description:Staff Report for April 6,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
ikJ-~'~}~/
Gary Silverman
Printed Name'D~~
Signature
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
Date
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.
AGENDA ITEM 7n
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:April 6,2011
SUBMITTED BY:Kevin Cameron ~
Assistant Civir~gineer I
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:
P2473-001103 DIV.NO.1
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod Posada ~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magafi.~.if ..A:
Assistant General~Manager,Engineering and Operations
Procurement of Pumps and Motors for the 711-1 Pump Station
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
authorizes the General Manager to execute a purchase order with
Sloan Electromechanical Service &Sales (Sloan)for the procurement
of five (5)pumps,motors,and discharge heads for the 711-1 Pump
Station Improvements Project in an amount not to exceed $204,934.45
(see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute a
purchase order with Sloan for the procurement of five (5)pumps,
motors,and discharge heads for the 711-1 Pump Station Improvements
Project in an amount not to exceed $204,934.45.
ANALYSIS:
The 711-1 Pump Station (PS),located in Chula Vista,takes suction
primarily from the 624-3 Reservoir and discharges to the 711-1,711-
2,and 711-3 Reservoirs,which serves the 711 pressure zone.
From the Project's beginning in 1989,the 711-1 Pump Station was
designed to run at 16,000 gpm @ 161'Total Dynamic Head (TDH)(i.e.,
four pumps operating,each at 4,000 gpm @ 161'TDH)in order to meet
the existing and projected demands.Over time,the Pump Station has
experienced vibration,noise,and cavitation problems due to running
constantly at the higher capacity.In the 1990's and early 2000's,
the 711-1 Pump Station served as the key component for the Central
Area and needed to remain in service.Therefore,as individual
pumps failed due to cavitation,they were quickly rebuilt,or in
some cases,replaced with varying brands and sizes in an attempt to
solve the problems.In 2007,the 980-2 Pump Station (22,800 gpm)
was put into service.This relieved the 711-1 Pump Station,and has
allowed staff to redesign the pumps and motors based on a lower
overall pump station projected capacity.
Staff reviewed the 711-1 Pump Station's existing conditions.
Currently,there are three different types of pumps installed in the
Pump Station:
•two (2)Fairbanks-Morse 14"3-stage/200 hp each,
4,200 gpm @ 110'TDH
•two (2)Peerless 16"2-stage/200 hp each,4,000 gpm @ 161'TDH
•one (1)Peerless 18"2-stage/250 hp,4,500 gpm @ 163'TDH
At the present time,one of the 16"Peerless pumps is inoperable and
in need of replacement.During the request for proposal period on
this Project,another Peerless pump has experienced problems and
will be out of commission for a short period of time.This will be
remedied with a new mechanical seal,but will only temporarily fix
the problems.
Operations staff currently operates a minimum of two (2)pumps at
the 711-1 Pump Station,which is the ideal operational mode for the
future.Field tests on the Pump Station revealed the lower
discharge head (110'TDH vs.161'TDH)on Pump No.1 (14"3-stage)
and Pump No.4 (14"3-stage)are the "best"operating pumps at the
Pump Station.
Staff has determined that the combination of slower than expected
growth,coupled with an increased conservation effort,has reduced
the demand in the 711 zone,which is not expected to exceed 10,000
gpm until 2020.With this data,along with field tests that were
performed on the Pump Station in May of 2010,Staff concluded that
the best way to resolve the 711-1 Pump Station cavitation problems
was to replace the existing pumps with smaller pumps and motors,and
run the Pump Station at 10,000 gpm @ 120'TDH.This would lower the
inlet suction velocities to approximately 3.0 feet per second (fps)
2
during the two pump operation scenario.The station currently runs
in excess of 4.9 fps,but the Hydraulic Institute's standard
recommends less than 4.0 fps.
In summary,based on the compiled field data and the Hydraulic
Institute Standards it has been determined that the best way to
resolve the 711-1 Pump Station cavitation problems is to replace the
existing pumps with smaller pumps and motors,and run the Pump
Station at 10,000 gpm @ 120'TDH.This will meet the standard
requirements,and still have the ability to meet the demands of the
system.The pumps have a useful life of seven to ten years.As the
pumps approach the end of their useful life,the Pump Station could
be re-evaluated to examine whether the demands have surpassed the
Pump Stations capabilities.By reducing the capacity of the 1989
design from 16,000 gpm to 10,000 gpm,the Pump Station will run in
a two pump operational mode of 5,900 gpm @ 100'TDH (3.0 ft/s on
suction side),and therefore,eliminate the cavitation problems.
Bids were solicited on February 23,2011 from four (4)vendors to
provide five (5)complete pumps with motors and deliver them to the
site based on the design package prepared by Staff.It is the
intent that District staff will install the equipment with their own
labor.A pre-bid meeting was held on March 1,2011 at the 711-1
Pump Station site for the vendors to ask any questions,and become
familiar with the existing site conditions.
The procedure for material purchases outlined in the District's
Purchasing Manual states that a minimum three (3)bids must be
obtained.Should three quotations not be obtainable,documentation
in the form of a "notation of memorandum"must be provided and
attached to the purchase requisition.On March 8,2011,Staff
received two (2)bids.The results are below.
CONTRACTOR TOTAL CORRECTED
AMOUNT AMOUNT
1 Sloan Electromechanical $204,934.45 -
Service &Sales
2 Fairbanks Morse $264,165.00 -
Days after the pre-proposal meeting,Electronic Motor Specialists
(EMS)sent an e-mail stating they would not be bidding on the
Project.Propulsion Controls Engineering (PCE)also did not submit
a bid.
It is recommended that the bid be awarded to Sloan by virtue of
their lower price and their demonstrated ability to provide the
equipment that meets District requirements.
3
FISCAL IMPACT:m
1/1 /
Funding for the overall Project comes from CIP P2473,the 711-1 Pump
Station Improvements Project.
The total budget for CIP P2473,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $500,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $325,451.See Attachment B for budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budgets,the Project Manager has
determined that the budget is sufficient to support the Project.
Finance has determined that 100%of the funding is available from
the Replacement Fund for CIP P2473.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the Operations Department Mission statement,
"To provide prompt,professional response to all matters related to
the distribution of water to our clients."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
G Manager
P:\NORKING\CIP P2473 -711-1 Pump Station Improvement\Staff Reports\BD 04-06-11,Staff Report,711-1 Pump Station Improvements-v2,(Ke-
RR).doc
KC/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A -Location Map
4
................................................................._.
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2473-001103
l_.
ATTACHMENT A
Procurement of Pumps and Motors for the 711-1 Pump Station
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on March 23,2011 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board authorize the General
Manager to execute a purchase order with Sloan
Electromechanical Service &Sales (Sloan)for the procurement
of five (5)pumps,motors,and discharge heads for the 711-1
Pump Station Improvements Project in an amount-not-to exceed
$204,934.45.
•Staff stated that the 711-1 Pump Station was constructed in
1991 and serves as a key component for the potable water system
in Chula Vista.Staff indicated that in 2007,the District's
980-2 Pump Station was put in to help reduce demand on the 711-
1 Pump Station.
•Staff indicated that one of the five pumps is inoperatble and
another pump is experiencing a problem with the mechanical
seal,therefore staff has taken the opportunity to analyze the
other existing pumps,motors,and overall pump station output.
It was concluded that installing smaller pumps and motors will
allow the 711-1 Pump Station to run more energy efficient.
•Staff indicated that bids were solicited on February 23,2011,
from four (4)vendors,and that a pre-bid meeting was held on
March 1,2011 attended by three (3)of those vendors.By March
8,2011,two (2)bids were received,one from Sloan
Electromechanical Service &Sales and the other from Fairbanks
Morse.
•Staff from the District's Operations and Engineering
departments reviewed and evaluated the bids and concluded that
Sloan submitted the lowest responsive bid.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
6
ATTACHMENT B
I
..............._._~~._.____.__ ___...1
Procurement of Pumps and Motors for the 711-1 Pump Station
Otay Water District
P2473 -PS-711-1 Pump Station Improvement
Date Updated:February 25.2011
Outstanding ProjectedFinalBUdgetCommittedExpendituresCommitment&Vendor/Comments
500,000 CostForecast
Planning
Labor 7.632 7,632 7,632
Consultant Contracts 390 390 -390 JC HEDEN AND ASSOCIATES INC
Total Planning 8,022 8,022 -8,022
Design
Labor 13,020 13,020 13,020
Consultant Contracts 29.750 29,750 ·29,750 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
Total Design 42.770 42,770 ·42,770
Construction
Labor 16,492 16,492 45,000 61,492
Infrastructure Equipment &Mall:204.935 .204.935 204.935 Sloan Electromechanical Service &Sales
1,799 1.799 -1,799 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
265 265 ·265 PENHALL COMPANY
5.672 5,672 -5,672 MESALABORATORIES INC
496 496 -496 Use Tax
Total Construction 229,659 24.724 249.935 274.659
Grand Total 280,451 75,516 249,935 325,451
•
EXHIBIT A
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
711-1 PUMP STAll0N SITE I.COO..
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Procurement of Pumps and Motors for the 711-1
Pump Station
Project No.:P2473-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for the April 6,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
Kevin Cameron
Printed Name
QA Reviewer:
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Manager:~rl4tr-----:::>-----
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
Date
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.