Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-11 Board PacketOTAYWATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DISTRICT BOARDROOM 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY March 2,2011 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1.ROLL CALL 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4.APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4,2010 5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA 6.SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY PRESENTATION REGARDING THEIR WATER RATES AND THEIR LAWSUIT WITH METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (MWD)CHALLENGING MWD RATES (DENNIS CUSHMAN,ASSIS- TANT GENERAL MANAGER,SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY) 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 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $305,511.87 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1)NEW CLASS 8 HYDRO-EXCAVATOR b)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4169 AMENDING BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY 29,CLAIMS HANDLING PROCEDURE ACTION ITEM 8.ADMINISTRATION,FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1 a)AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH:1)SAGE DESIGN,INC.IN THE AMOUNT OF $243,792,PLUS APPLICABLE TAXES AND SHIPPING CHARGES, FOR FIRETIDE RADIOS AND RELATED HARDWARE;2)PRIME ELEC- TRIC IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $63,838 FOR THE INSTALLA- TION OF ELECTRICAL AND WIRELESS HARDWARE AT MULTIPLE SITES THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL AND SOUTH DISTRICT;AND 3) HENRY BROTHERS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $183,873 FOR CAMERA HARDWARE AND INSTALLATION AT ALL NORTH DISTRICT SITES CONNECTED TO THE DISTRICTS WIRELESS NETWORK (STEVENS) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9.THIS ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOS- ES ONLY.NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS: a)FISCAL YEAR 2011 SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE REPORT (KAY) b)REPORT ON DIRECTORS'EXPENSES FOR THE 2ND QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 c)OCEAN DESALINATION OPINION SURVEY REPORT (REA &PARKER RESEARCH,INC.) 10.BOARD a)DISCUSSION OF 2011 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR REPORTS 11.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT a)SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 12.DIRECTORS'REPORTS/REQUESTS 13.PRESIDENTS REPORT RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 14.CLOSED SESSION a.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)] 2 (I)INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORP.v.OTAYWATER DISTRICT,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,SUPERIOR COURT,CASE NO.37-2008-00093876-CU-BC-CTL (II)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 15.REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION 16.ADJOURNMENT All items appearing on this agenda,whether or not expressly listed for action,may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda,and any attachments containing written information,are available at the District's website at www.otaywater.gov.Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting,or to any attachments,will be posted on the District's website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting her at (619)670-2280. If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to participate in this meeting,please call the District Secretary at (619)670-2280 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on February 25,2011,I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District,said time be- ing at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Gov- ernment Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley,California on February 25,2011. 3 AGENDA ITEM 4 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT August 4,2010 1.The meeting was called to order by President Bonilla at 3:30 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Directors Present:Bonilla,Croucher,Gonzalez,Lopez and Robak Director Absent:None Staff Present:General Manager Mark Watton,Asst.General Manager of Administration and Finance German Alvarez,Asst.General Manager of Engineering and Water Operations Manny Magana,General Counsel 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,Croucher,Gonzalez,Lopez and Robak None None None to approve the agenda. 5.PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THE BEADS OF COURAGE 2ND ANNUAL CHARITY EVENT FOR CANCER Assistant General Manager Manny Magana indicated that the District held its 2nd Annual Beads of Courage Charity Tournament to raise funds to support the fight against cancer.He stated that it was a very successful event and he wished to thank the key sponsors and staff who helped with the event.The tournament raised over $17,000 and the funds will be used to open the first Beads ofCourage program in San Diego at the Kaiser Permanente Hospital on Zion Avenue.He presented,on behalf of the founder of Beads of Courage,Ms.Jean Baruch,a Platinum Award to 1 the Board of Directors of Otay Water District to recognize them for giving back to the community and assisting children with their cancer treatments. 6.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2010 A motion was made by Director Croucher,seconded by Director Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Directors Bonilla,Croucher,Gonzalez,Lopez and Robak None None None to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 3,2010. 7.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA Mr.Mario Luzano of Spring Valley indicated that he was building a new home in Spring Valley and was working on saving money for a water meter for the home. He stated when he had saved enough money,the price of the meter increased by $3000.He stated his original District quote was from April 2010 and the new quote with the $3000 increase was provided in July 2010.He asked that the board waive the $3000 increase in the water meter fee. President Bonilla referred the issue to General Manager Watton and asked that he investigate the situation.General Manager Watton noted to Mr.Luzano that due to the statutes governing public agency meetings,the board could not comment/discuss his request as it must be agendized for discussion.He indicated that staff would prepare a report for presentation at the District's September board meeting.President Bonilla thanked Mr.Luzano for attending today's meeting. 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 Croucher,seconded by Director Lopez and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Directors Bonilla,Gonzalez,Croucher,Lopez and Robak None None None 2 to approve the following consent calendar item. a)APPROVE AMENDMENT TO GENERAL MANAGER'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 9.BOARD a)DISCUSSION OF 2010 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR It was discussed that District Secretary Susan Cruz would be contacting members of the board to schedule a Special Board Meeting/Board Workshop which will include an Ethics Training workshop. There were no changes to the meeting calendar. REPORTS 10.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT General Manager Watton indicated that many of the Directors had attended the employee recognition luncheon held on July 15 which was well received.He stated that,most importantly,it was a good time to recognize employees for the things they do throughout the year. He also shared that the Employee Picnic was held on July 31 at Santee Lakes.It was a nice venue and there was a very good turnout.It seemed that everyone had a good time and it was great event for kids. He stated that many may have heard of the governor's plan,20%by 2020,which calls for a 20%reduction in water use by 2020.He stated that the District's per capita use is exceeding this goal already and is in good shape to meet the 2020 target.He stated that conservation and the increase in rates has been driving down consumption. He shared with regard to asset management,staff is working on the valve excising pilot and gathering the information for the business process program. He noted that the District has had success with the electronic bill pay program.He stated that the more customers the District can move to electronic bill pay,the fewer bills the District mails and processes which lowers the District's cost.He stated that Customer Surveys also indicate that the District's customers like the autopay option as opposed to mailing a check or speaking with a customer service representative to pay their bills. He indicated that the District will be closing out the fiscal year very soon and the District's current financial status shows that the District's expenses are exceeding revenues by $1.1 million.He stated that water sales are down approximately 12%. Staff had anticipated that sales would be lower when the 2011 budget was 3 developed and had incorporated the lower sales in the rates for 2011.He indicated that July actual water sales/use, however,is a little over budget.As we move through the year,we will see how the budget closes.Staff is tracking this closely and has a better understanding of the impact to customer consumption with the conservation messages and higher water rates when developing the 2012 budget. General Manager Watton stated with regard to the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project,as mentioned in the past,the design is complete,but staff has placed the project on hold until the District can get a better understanding of what the City of San Diego will be doing with the timing of their water supply and pricing. Staff is working with the City to be certain that they plan to provide recycled water supplies at a reasonable cost,prior to the District building the pipeline. He indicated that the Rancho del Rey Well Project is going well and the drilling has started on the production well.Pump testing has been completed on the test well and results are all positive;good or better than expected.Staff expects to produce approximately 400 to 500 AF per year from the well.This amount may not seem very significant,but every little bit counts in today's water supply shortage.The cost of producing water form the well is still on target and comparable to CWA's costiAF. He noted that water purchases from CWA are 12.3%less than budgeted and 22% less than the District's allocation from CWA.He stated that the board was correct in staying at a Level I water shortage alert as the District's water consumption is comfortably below its allocation. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE Director Croucher indicated that he serves on CWA's Imported Water Committee and the committee is continuing to work at the State level on the Bay Delta issue. He also noted that CWA's lawsuit against MWD is continuing with regard to the pricing of the water sold from MWD to CWA.He stated that the Carlsbad desalination project has become a big focus as it is becoming clear that desalination is very much needed,however,the environmentalist are concerned how the plant will impact the coast.CWA is also moving forward with employee negotiations and Otay's request to approve the annexation of Peaceful Valley Ranch was approved by CWA's board.He lastly shared that CWA is also preparing for the new year and has been discussing new officers and committee assignments for the upcoming year. 11.DIRECTORS'REPORTS/REQUESTS Director Robak inquired with regard to per capita water use,if CWA has published a chart showing the per capita use for each of the member agencies.General Manager Watton indicated that they do have preliminary information on the per capita water use and some agencies are at the target or below,and others are above the target.Otay is approximately on the lower 1/3 among the agencies on per capita water use. 4 Director Robak indicated that the Water Conservation Garden has submitted a $3 million grant to build green buildings at the Garden for office space and classrooms. He also shared that he attended the employee picnic held at Santee Lakes last month and while he was there he had an opportunity to tour Padre Dam MWD's new Mediterranean Garden. Director Lopez indicated that he also attended the employee picnic and that his family had a very nice time.He inquired with regard to the Rosarito Desalination Focus Group interviews if staff will be presenting the outcome of the interviews to the board sometime soon.General Manager Watton indicated that staff learned some valuable information from the focus group interviews and will be incorporating the feedback into the public outreach plan.He stated that there will be some follow- up as we get further along with the project and that it will be an ongoing process to further refine the message points in the plan. Director Croucher indicated that at many board meetings they discuss Information Technology,Engineering,Finance,etc.,but he wished to also highlight the employees'community activities,customer service center and Operations employees.He commended the work ethic of the District's staff and indicated that when he drives around the community,he sees the District's staff always hard at work and it is apparent that they really care about their jobs.He stated that he wanted to thank General Manager Watton for the tremendous work that he has done at the District and for his work at CWA.He stated that the District is extremely fortunate as an organization to have his leadership.General Manager Watton thanked Director Croucher for his kind words. Director Gonzalez apologized for not being able to attend the employee picnic as his son's birthday was celebrated on the same day.He stated that he hoped to be able to attend next year.He congratulated General Manager Watton on the approval of his contract. 12.PRESIDENTS REPORT President Bonilla congratulated Director Gonzalez on his appointment to the District's Board of Directors.He reported on meetings he attended during the month of July 2010 and indicated that on July 1 he attended a meeting of the Ad Hoc GM Review Committee.He stated that Director Robak and he discussed the General Manager's performance evaluation and they agreed that the District has an excellent General Manager.He indicated that on July 6 the Ad Hoc Division 1 Application Preliminary Review Committee met and reviewed the applications the District received for the District's Division 1 seat.The committee interviewed all applicants (7)and made recommendation for two (2)top candidates to be interviewed by the full board.He stated that on July 14,General Manager Watton and General Counsel Calderon met to discuss issues related to the desalination project.He shared that he attended the employee recognition luncheon on July 15 and,as always,it was a very nice event.On July 30 he met with General Manager Watton,General Counsel Calderon,Attorney Garcia and representatives from the various organizations involved in the Desalination Project to discuss matters related 5 to the project.He stated that the Desalination Project is a $500 million project and the group is very committed to the project.There was an exchange of ideas and he felt that the project was moving in the right direction. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 7.The board recessed to closed session at 4:07 p.m.to discuss the following matters: a.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -PENDING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)] (I)MULTIPLE CASES RELATED TO THE FENTON BUSINESS CENTER AND FILED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED UNDER CASE NO.37- 2007-00077024-CU-BC-SC b.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -POTENTIAL LITIGATION [GOV- ERNMENT CODE §54956.9(b)] 1 CASE RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 8.REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION The board reconvened at 4:35 p.m.and General Counsel Calderon indicated that the board took no reportable actions in closed session. 13.ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board,President Bonilla adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m. President ATTEST: District Secretary 6 AGENDA ITEM 7a STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING:Regular Board SUBMITIED BY:Frank Anderson,Utility Services ManagerlL~ APPROVED BY:Pedro Porras, (Chief) Chief,Water Ope ons MEETING DATE: W.O.lG.F.NO: March 2nd,2011 DIV.NO.All APPROVED BY: (Ass!.GM): SUBJECT: Manny Magafia~~ Assistant Genera\~~ager,Engineering &Operations Purchase of one class 8 Hydro-Excavator GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorizes the General Manager to issue a purchase order to Haaker Equipment Company in the amount of $305,511.87,for the purchase of one (l)new Class 8 Hydro- Excavator. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment "A". PURPOSE: To provide bid results and obtain (1)new Class 8 Hydro-Excavator Capital Purchase Budget. ANALYSIS: authorization to purchase one identified within the FY11 Included in the approved FY 2011 budget is one (1)new class 8 Hydro-Excavator.Attachment "B"is a photo of a class 8 Hydro Excavator. The Hydro-Excavator is a new vehicle scheduled to be utilized by the Construction/Maintenance staff.This vehicle is unique from the District's existing vactor as it is configured to excavate more quickly and vacuums from the rear of the vehicle which allows for complex potholing and excavation to expose adj acent the CIP 2282 purchase.The the funds are utilities and excavate utility trenches at depths that sometimes reach 15 to 20 feet while performing maintenance and repairs of Otay's water distribution system.This type of hydro-excavation expedites excavations while reducing exposure to deep trench hand digging,especially when excavating around existing utility piping conflicts which in turn,increases crew efficiency.It will assist in efficient and safe repair activities that include main breaks,service line leak repair and replacement,air-vac and blow off upgrades and repairs,large meter vault repair and replacement,valve repair and replacement and potholing for Engineering projects.This unit would also minimize water and silt discharge to the storm drain system and adjacent water bodies. In accordance with District policy,bids were solicited for the one (1)Class 8 Hydro-Excavator.Of the 3 dealerships solicited three (3)bids were received.Prices received include all applicable fees and taxes. Dealer Vehicle Bid Bid Price Haaker Equipment Company International Hydro-$305,511.87 ea.Excavator Owen Equipment Company International Hydro-$318,163.07Excavator ea. Norwood Equipment International Hydro-$318,163.07CompanyExcavator ea. FISCAL IMPACT:~ The purchase o~vehicle will cost $305,511.87.The total FY11 CIP 2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases budget is $540,000.The initial projection of the Hydro-Excavator purchase was $280,000 however i additional cost is required for 2010 diesel emissions equipment that includes eliminating the secondary diesel engine that runs the excavation component of this vehicle and diverting its power to the primary vehicle diesel engine.This extra cost was not proj ected at the time this line item was established. Existing expenditures for all planned vehicle purchases, including this vehicle,if approved is $500,392.80 and would complete the vehicle purchases for this fiscal year with a savings of $39,607.20. Based on the Utility Service Manager's evaluation, budget is sufficient to complete the budgeted Finance Department has determined that 100%of available in the replacement fund. STRATEGIC GOAL: 3.1.1.9:Operate the system to meet demand 24/7. 3.1.1.10:Meet all of the health-related water standards. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachment "A",committee Action SUBJECT/PROJECT: ATTACHMENT A Purchase of FY 11 Hydro-excavating vehicle COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee discussed this item at a meeting held on February 16,2011 and the following comments were made: •Staff is requesting authorization to purchase a Class 8 Hydro- Excavator from Haaker Equipment Company in the amount of $305,511.87.It was noted that Class 8 references the weight rating of the vehicle (heavy weight vehicle) •The Hydro-Excavator will be utilized by the Construction/Maintenance staff.It is unique from the existing Vactor vehicle as it is configured to excavate from the rear of the vehicle.The advantage of this is it is away from the noise of the engine and allows the vehicle to be further away from the trench edge which increases safety by preventing potential trench failure.It also allows for complex potholing and can excavate trenches up to 20 feet deep while performing maintenance and repairs of the water distribution system.The Hydro-Excavator is also smaller than the Vactor truck which makes it more maneuverable. •The truck will be utilized for main breaks,service line repairs/replacement and any repairs requiring excavation.The Hydro-Excavator will also minimize water and silt discharge to the storm drain system and adjacent water bodies. •The District received three (3)bids and Haaker Equipment Company submitted the lowest bid of $305,511.87.The initial cost projected for this vehicle was $280,000.However,additional costs was required to add 2010 diesel emissions equipment and configuration that was not projected at the time the budget was established. •Expenditures for planned vehicle purchases this fiscal year, including the Hydro-Excavator,total $500,392.80 and this vehicle would complete the vehicle purchases for the fiscal year. •The committee inquired about the efficiency and safety of the Hydro-Excavator.It was noted that the Hydro-Excavator would increase safety as personnel would not need to be deep down within a trench to hand dig/clear the trench as the Hydro- Excavator could quickly and more efficiently handle the excavation of dirt. •The committee indicated that the truck was designed to excavate dirt without cutting through cable and because of this design feature,it can also be utilized for trench rescue as it can pull dirt from around a person without cutting/harming them. Following the discussion,the committee supported staffs' recommendation and presentation to the board as a consent item. Quality Assurance Approval Sheet Subject:Approval to purchase class 8 Hydro-excavating vehicle.Project No.:P2282 Document Description:Staffreport for the March 21ld,2011 Board Meeting. Author: Manager: Signature Printed Name ,/j -0_·/)Date:c/..-\I----'------ Date:J-q -(( Date:__··---.,;.f!_·,r-_)_(__ 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 infOlmation;being grammatically COlTect and free offormatting and typographical elTors;accurately presenting calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its presentation style. STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 7b TYPE MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: (Chief) Regular ~od Rom Sarno Chief,Adm'nistrative Services MEETING DATE: W.O.lG.F.NO: March 2,2011 DIV.NO.All APPROVED BY: (Ass!.GM): SUBJECT: Ge rmar;!Alv are zA~~General Manager,Finance and Administration ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4169 AMENDING BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY NO.29,CLAIMS HANDLING PROCEDURE GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt Resolution No.4169 to approve revisions to update Board of Directors Policy 29,Claims Handling Procedures. COMMITTEE ACTION: See "Attachment A". PURPOSE: To request the Board to approve revisions to update Board of Directors Policy 29,Claims Handling Procedures. ANALYSIS: After reviewing Policy 29 with General Counsel and Special District Risk Management Authority (SDRMA),the District's Property and Liability carrier,it is recommended that Policy 29 be revised because the applicable Government Code does not require an appeal process for claims filed with the District. Once a claim is investigated by SDRMA and if it is determined that the District is not liable,a rejection letter is sent to the claimant.At the point the claim is rejected by the District,the claimant has six (6)months to file a court action on the claim. Staff recommendation will remove one step that is not required by the Government Code and will further streamline the claims Handling procedure. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STRATEGIC GOAL: Improve the efficiency of business processes. LEGAL IMPACT: None. M~k Watton General Manager Enclosed Attachment A -Committee Action Report Attachment B -Resolution 4169 Exhibit A -Claims Handling Procedure (Strikethru) Attachment C -Claims Handling Procedure SUBJECT/PROJECT: ATTACHMENT A ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4169 AMENDING BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY 29,CLAIMS HANDLING PROCEDURE COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee discussed this item at a meeting held on February 16,2011 and the following comments were made: •Staff reviewed Board of Directors Policy 29,Claims Handling Procedure,with legal counsel and the District's property and liability insurance carrier,Special District Risk Management Authority (SDRMA),and it was identified that the Government Code which applies to claims handling does not require an appeals process. •Staff is recommending that the appeals process be deleted from Policy 29 to streamline the claims handling process. •It was discussed that once a claim is rejected by the District,it is referred to SDRMA where it is handled from that point forward.SDRMA generally will hire an adjustor to investiage the claim and,in many instances,handle the claim to closing.SDRMA does,when needed,involve the District in the handling of a claim. •It was also noted that once a claim is rejected by the District,it invokes the statute of limitations which provides the claimant six (6)months to file an action on the claim. •Staff is recommending that the the Board adopt Resolution No.4169 to approve the proposed amendments to Policy 29 to streamline the claims handling process. Following the discussion,the committee supported staffs' recommendation and presentation to the board as a consent item. ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO.4169 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AMENDING POLICY NO.29, CLAIMS HANDLING PROCEDURE WHEREAS,the District reviewed Policy 29 with General Counsel and the Special District Management Authority (SDRMA), the District's Property and Liability carrier;and WHEREAS,it was determined that the Government Statute applicable to Policy 29 does not require an appeal process for claims filed with the District;and WHEREAS,the Board would like to streamline the claims handling procedure by revising Policy 29 to match Government Statute requirements through the deletion of the appeal process; WHEREAS,once a claim determined that the District is not liable,a rejection letter is forwarded to the claimant,at which point the claimant has six (6)months to file a court action on the claim;and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District that Policy 29,Claims Handling Procedure,be amended as per Exhibit A to this resolution. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District at a regular meeting held this 2 nd day of March,2011. Page 1 of 2 Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: ATTEST: Secretary Page 2 of 2 President EXHIBIT A OTAYWATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Date Date Number Adopted Revised I CLAIMS HANDLING PROCEDURE 29 9/6/95 3/2/11 PURPOSE To establish a policy for handling claims filed against the District. BACKGROUND California Government Code Sections 935 et seq.authorize the District to establish procedures for handling claims and to delegate to the General Manager the authority to settle or deny claims up to certain amounts. POLICY The Board of Directors authorizes the General Manager,after consultation with the General Counsel,to 1&or 4efty-rejectl claims up to the amount of $10,000. The General Manager shall report to the Board,as an information item,all actions taken on claims within his authority at the Board's next regular meeting. If!iastaacco ,...herc the General Hanaqer denies alaims,'the let~er giving notiee of denial of the claim to the claimant shall also advise the elaimant that he or she may appeal tHe aeeisioE:of the General ~er to the Board 'di1':fiia 10 aays.If the claimant appeals the denial to the Board and the Boara sustains the denial,a seeoRd Rotioe of denial sHall be sent to tfie elaimaflt gi',':iaEj silt months "to file legal action. Page 1of 1 -Comment [rl]:These revisions are to ensure consistency of terminology with ~avernment Code section 912.6. ATTACHMENT C OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Date Date Number Adopted Revised CLAIMS HANDLING PROCEDURE 29 9/6/95 3/2/11 PURPOSE To establish a policy for handling claims filed against the District. BACKGROUND California Government Code Sections 935 et seq.authorize the District to establish procedures for handling claims and to delegate to the General Manager the authority to settle or deny claims up to certain amounts. POLICY The Board of Directors authorizes the General Manager,after consultation with the General Counsel,to allow or reject claims up to the amount of $10,000. The General Manager shall report to the Board,as an information item,all actions taken on claims within his authority at the Board's next regular meeting. Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM 8a TYPE MEETING:Regular SUBMITTED BY:Bill J IT Ope APPROVED BY:Geoff (Chief) STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: W.O.lG.F.NO: March 2,2011 DIV.NO. APPROVED BY: (Ass!.GM): SUBJECT: Chief n r ion Officer Ger~~P{Ayjar~z Assi~eral Manager,Finance and Administration BEGIN FY2011 WIRELESS CENTRAL AND SOUTH DISTRICT PROJECT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to negotiate and enter into agreements with: 1.Sage Design,Inc.in the amount of $243,792,plus applicable taxes and shipping charges,for FireTide radios and related hardware to continue the FY2011 Otay Water Wireless Network Project to the Central and South District. 2.Prime Electric in an amount not-to-exceed $63,838,for installation of electrical and wireless hardware at multiple sites throughout the Central and South District. 3.Henry Brothers in an amount not-to-exceed $183,873,for camera hardware and installation at all North District sites connected to our wireless network. COMMITTEE ACTION: See "Attachment A". PURPOSE: To continue the District's Wireless Project,establishing wireless network connections and other hardware installations to strategic facilities in the Central and South District. BACKGROUND: This project has been jointly planned by Operations/SCADA and Information Technology Departments to provide a single solution for reliable and effective communication capabilities to all our major facilities.The project is phased.Phase 1 (FY2009 & FY2010)tested the suitability and reliability of wireless technology to meet this objective and is complete.Phase 2 implemented this technology to our facilities in the North District reservoirs and pump stations.Phase 3 includes the current FY2011 projects and will expand the technology to the Central and South District reservoir and pump stations. This request for funds will provide resources for Phase 3 and allow the District to continue the FY2011 Wireless Project to the Central and South District,providing a final wireless network with broadband connection to approximately sixty (60) OWD facilities. Camera installations will enhance site security,visual inspection and alarming support.Each site in the North District that currently has wireless connectivity will receive two or three cameras for these purposes. The District has a Capital Improvement Program (CIP)to cover the costs for completing the next phase of the Otay Wireless Project. The District received the following bids in support of the work required for Phase 3: 1.For the hardware,OWD received three bids from FireTide,Inc. ($270,335),AES Global,Inc.($255,984),and Sage Design, Inc.($243,792). 2.For the services,OWD received three bids from IckIer Electric Corporation ($74,680),Gould Electrical Contractors, Inc.($7 5,797),and Prime Electrical Services,Inc. ($63,838). 3.For cameras,OWD received three bids from Lakewood Alarm ($198,138),Maxim Security Systems ($200,976),and Henry Brothers Electronics ($183,873). The District has determined that all bidders are capable of meeting the District's needs and therefore recommends the selection of the lowest bidders:for hardware,Sage Design ($243,792);for services,Prime Electric ($63,838);for cameras, Henry Brothers Electronics ($183,873). FISCAL IMPACT: This project will utilize funds from three eIPs:eIP P2485 (hardware),eIP P2469 (services),and eIP P2443 (cameras). The approved budget for eIP 2485 is $350,000.Expenditures to date are $46,121 and the remaining balance for FY2011 is $303,879.The Project Manager has determined that there are sufficient funds available to cover the proposed hardware purchases. The approved budget for eIP 2469 is $300,000.Expenditures to date are $130,156 and the remaining balance for FY2011 is $169,644.The Project Manager has determined that there are sufficient funds available to cover the proposed service purchases. The approved budget for eIP 2443 is $250,000.Expenditures to date are $27,342 and the remaining balance for FY2011 is $222,658.The Project Manager has determined that there are sufficient funds available to cover the proposed camera purchases and installation. Finance has determined that for P2485,100%of the funding for this project is available from the Replacement Fund.For P2469 and P2443,funding is available,40%from the Expansion Fund and 60%from the Replacement Fund. STRATEGIC GOALS: These items are in support of the District's Strategic Plan, including the following strategic objectives: •Develop and deploy the field wireless network for key facilities. •Optimize functionality,business continuity,bandwidth,and use of SeADA. •Optimize use of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)and unified messaging. •Evaluate implementing a fixed network Automated Meter Reading. •Develop optimized field work processing using integrated technology. •Update Security Assessment and implement Technology Recommendations. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachment A -Committee Action Report ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT:BEGIN FY2011 WIRELESS CENTRAL AND SOUTH DISTRICT PROJECT COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee discussed this item at a meeting held on February 16,2011 and the following comments were made: •Staff indicated that this is a request for funding to continue Phase III of the Wireless Project.The project establishes wireless network connections and other hardware installations at District facilities within the Central and South District.He noted Phase I encompassed the testing of the concept and technology;Phase II installed the wireless technology within the North District;and Phase III will complete the project. •The project will provide wireless network and video surveillance to 60 sites within the District's service area.The network is a central part of the District's strategy and will be the foundation for many future process improvements for management of the District facilities. The cameras will be high resolution to record detailed images.Staff also demonstrated the surveillance camera from one of the District's reservoir sites and the committee requested that staff provide the same demonstration for the full board. •The project is a joint effort between the Operations and Information Technology Departments.There are three parts to the project and each was competitively bid.Bids were received from three (3)vendors for each of the parts and the lowest bid was accepted in all three bids.Staff has had positive experience with the recommended vendors. •It was discussed with the capacity of the wireless network, the District can set-up a communications/radio system with San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District for emergency communications.As the system will be private and controlled by the District,it would not have the potential of being overloaded during an emergency. •Staff indicated that the SCADA information system will also be carried over the wireless network. •The surveillance cameras can also be utilized to view a facility site to determine a problem without an operator having to visit the site which will increase efficiency. •It was also noted that the surveillance cameras will enhance safety as staff can call for police assistance if images show that there is an intusion rather than having a staff member go out to a site to investigate an alarm. Following the discussion,the committee supported staffs' recommendation and presentation to the board as an action item. AGENDA ITEM 9a STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING:Regular Board Daniel Kay'\)"- Associate Civil Engineer MEETING DATE:March 2,2011 PROJECT:Various DIV.NO.ALL SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: (Chief) APPROVED BY: (Asst GM) SUBJECT: Ron Ripperger ~ Engineering Manager Rod Posad~~-.. Chief,Engineering Manny Magan~~ Assistant General ~nager,Engineering and Operations Informational Item -Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2011 Capital Improvement Program Report GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board) accepts the Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)Report for review and receives a summary via PowerPoint presentation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To update the Board about the status of all CIP project expenditures and to highlight significant issues,progress,and milestones on major projects. FISCAL IMPACT: ANALYSIS: To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers'expectations to adequately deliver safe,reliable,cost-effective,and quality water, each year the District Staff prepares a six-year CIP Plan that identifies the District infrastructure needs.The CIP is comprised of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities, replacement/renewal projects,developer1s reimbursement projects,and capital purchases. The Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2011 update is intended to provide a detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the allotted time and budget.Expenditures through the Second Quarter totaled approximately $8.0 million.Approximately 28%of the Fiscal Year 2011 expenditure budget was spent. ~KJV None. STRATEGIC GOAL: The CIP 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,\CIP\CIP Quarterly Reports\2011\Q2\Staff Report\BD 03-02-11,Staff Report,Second Quarter FY 2011 CIP Report,(RR-RP).doc RR/RP:jf Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action Presentation 2 Various CIID '..~JECT: ATTACHMENT A Informational Item Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2011 Capital Improvement Program Report COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on February 15,2011 and the following comments were made: •Staff provided a PowerPoint presentation to the Committee and indicated that expenditures through the Second Quarter totaled approximately $8.0 million,which is about 28%of the District's Fiscal Year 2011 expenditure budget. •Staff indicated that the District's FY 2011 CIP budget consists of 82 projects that total $28.5 million and is divided into four categories: o Capital Facilities=$16.2 million o Replacement/Renewal=$10 million o Capital Purchases=$2.3 million o Developer Reimbursement=$0 million •The PowerPoint presentation included the following: o Total Life-to-Date Expenditures thru December 31,2010 o Maj or CIP Proj ects o CIP Proj ects in Construction o Consultant Contract Status of contract amounts,approve payments to date,change orders,dates when contracts were signed and the end date of contracts. o Construction Contract Status thru December 31,2010 of projects,contract amount,and percent of project completion o Expenditures •It was indicated that the Otay Lakes Road 12-Inch Recycled Water Pipeline and Potable Utility Relocation Project (R2094 & P2496)is near completion.Staff noted that the District collaborated with the City of Chula Vista,who planned to expand the corridor along Otay Lakes Road.The collaboration between the District and City helped minimize the project's expenditures and impacts to the community.Staff indicated that a reimbursement agreement,executed between the District and City,required a deposit to the City for an estimated costs of $1,100,000 which included a 10%contingency.It was noted that staff consulted with the District's Legal Counsel prior to executing the reimbursement agreement. •In response to a question from the Committee,staff stated that the City's required deposit was part of the negotiation process with the understanding that if any issues occurred during the project's construction period,the deposit would be used to cover change orders.Staff determined that the required deposit for the project was justifiable and also believed that the District would save a significant amount of money with the City's assistance . •Staff indicated that over the next two CIP Quarterly Update's, the Construction Contract Status will include three additional projects: o Emergency Interconnections Project o 657-1&2 Coating and Upgrades o 944-1R Recycled Pump Station Upgrades Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs' recommendation and presentation to the full board as an informational item. 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. Quality Assurance Approval Sheet Subject:Informational Item -Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2011 Capital Improvement Program Report Project No.:Various Document Description:Staff Report for March 2,2011 Board Meeting Author:'J-/&/I( Date Daniel Kay Printed Name QA Reviewer: Manager:~~rSignature Ron Ripperger Printed Name 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. CAPITAL IMPRO,VEMENT P'ROGRAM Second Q,uarter Fis,calYear 201 11 (througlh December 31,2010) Background The approved CIP budget for Fiscal Year 2011 consists of 82 projects that total $28.5 millio'n.These~projects are broken down into four categories: 1.Capital Facilities: 2.Replacement/Renewal: 3.Capital P'urchases: 4.Developer Reimbursement: $16,.2 million $10.0 million $2.3 million $0.0 million Q'verall expenditures through the Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2011 totaled $8.0 million,which is 28°k of our fiscal year budget through the second quarter. 2 Fiscal Year 2011 Report (through December 31,2010) %% CIP FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2011 Total Life-to-Total Life-to- CAT Description Budget Expenditures Budget Date Budget Life-to-Date Date Expenditures BudgetSpentSpent 1 Capital Facilities $16,181,000 $5,004,000 31%$180,969,000 $45,186,000 25% 2 Replacement! Renewal $10,006,000 $2,362,000 24%$44,053,000 $16,822,000 38% 3 Capital Purchases $2,249,000 $656,000 29%$13,450,000 $6,413,000 48% 4 Developer Reimbursement $12,000 $0 0%$7,882,000 $1,000 0% Total: $28,448,000 $8,022,000 28%$246,354,000 $68,422,000 28% 3 Major CIP Projects LEMON GROVE N.T.S. ©0 PLANNING - 3 DESIGN -16 0 CONSTRUCTION - 3•COMPLETED IN USE - 2 ~District Boundary MAJOR CIP PROJECTS ®P2467 -San Diego Formation Groundwater Feasibility Study ®cB P2481 -Middle SweetwaterRiver Basin Groundwater Well©R2094 -Potable Irrigation Meterto Recycle Water ConversionseP2399-PL-30",980Reservoirs to Hunte Parkway I P2434 -Rancho Del ReyGroundwater well P2451 -Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection SystemCDP2466-Regional Training FacilityoP2473-711-1 Pump Station ImprovementsoP2488&P2489 --HelixWO &Otay WO Agency Interconnections ..P2502 &P2503 --803-1 and 850-2 Pump Station ModificationsoP2505&P2506 --657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Coating •P2511 --North DistrictI South District Interconnection SystemeR2048-Otay Mesa Distribution Pipelinesand ConversionsoR2058-Airway Rd Recycled WaterPipeline CD R2077 -Alta Rd Recycled WaterPipeline ~R2087 -V\r\.Jeste Rd Recycled Water PipelineeR2091-944-1 R Recycled WaterPump Station UpgradeGR2096-Ralph W.Chapman Water Reclamation Facility - Upgrades and ModificationseS2019,S2020 &S2022 -Sanitary Sewer Replacement (!)P2440 -SR905 Utility Relocations @ P2490 &P2492 .-1296-1 & 2 Reservoir Coating ®P2496 --Otay Lakes Road Utility Relocations "P2009 -PL-36"SDCWAOtay FCF No.14 to OWO RegulatorySiteoS2021-Jamacha Rd 8-lnch Sanitary Sewer Replacement 4 CIP Projects in Co,nstruction D 1296-1&2 Reservoirs Coating Projects Key Component:Interior and exterior coatings on the 1296-1 &2 Reservoirs. Schedule:A construction contract was awarded to West Coast Industrial Coating,Inc.,on February 3,2010.Project is approximaltely 70%con1plete.Project completion is anticipated for March 2011. Cost:The co,mbined FY 2011 project budgets for CIPs P249'O and P2492 are $680,000,of which $466,000,or 69%was spent. The life-to-date project budgets are $900,000.,of which $678,000,o,r 750/0,have been spent. Significant Issues:Contractor's production has been slower than the submitted schedules.Staff is monitoring the contractor's progress to address the production issues. Highlights:None. 6 CIP Projects in Construction ..,.1II!lI!"'!'----'"!P."'"~~~ 7 CIP Projects in Construction D Potable Irrigation Meters to Recycled Water Conversions Key Component:Installation of a 12-inch recycled pipeline along Otay Lakes Rd. and converting existing potable water irrigation systems to use recycled water. Schedule:Co,nstruction started in May 2010.Southland Paving completed the installation of the 12-inch recycled water main (approx.4,200 LF).They are currently working on punchlist items.Project completion is anticipated for February 2011. Cost:A Reimbursement Agreement,executed between the City of Chula Vista (City)and the District dated March 2,2010, required the District to submit a deposit to the City for the estimated construction costs of $1,100,000 (which includes a 10%contingency). The combined FY 2011 p,roject budgets for CIPs R2094 and P2496 are $6,95,00'0,of'which $139,000,or 20%was spent. The life-ta,-date project budgets are $3,350,000,of which $,2,510,0'00,or 75,0/0 ,have been spent. Significant Issues:None. Highlights:None. 8 Consultant Contract Status (through December 31,2010) Original Total Revised Approved %%Date of CIP Contract Change Contract Payment To Change Project Signed End Date of Consultant No.Project Title Amount Orders Amount Date Orders Complete Contract Contract PLANNING RANCHO DEL REY GROUNDWATER WELL AECOM P2434 DEVELOPMENT $1,561,625.00 $-$1,561,625,00 $1,292,224.50 0.0%82.7%1/20/2010 12131/2010 NORTH-SOUTH SERVICES AREA INTERTIE MWH AMERICAS INC.P2010 STUDY $119,505..00 $11,500.00 $131,005.00 $118,314.41 9.6%90.3%10/22/2009 6/3012011 SALVADOR LOPEZ-CORDOVA P2451 DESALINATION PROJECT $45,000.00 $-$45,000.00 $2,012.90 0.0% 0.0%9/15/2010 8/14/2011 SANITARY SEWER CCTV INSPECTION TRAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS S1201 AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT $560,025.00 $-$560,025.00 $334,095.32 0.0%59.7%1/20/2010 6/30/2013 DESIGN CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY Varies SOLAR POWER FEASIBILITY STUDY $34,400.00 $-$34,400.00 $2,700.00 0.0%7.8%5/18/2010 6/30/2011 CPM PARTNERS Varies AS-NEEDED SCHEDULING SERVICES $175,000.00 $-$175,000.00 $78,472.50 0.0%44.8%5/18/2010 6/30/2012 AS-NEEDED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DARNELL &ASSOCIATES Varies SERVICES FOR FY2010AND FY2011 $175,000.00 $-$175,000.00 $137,097.50 0.0%78.3%1/20/2010 6/30/2011 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC,THE Varies ELECTRICAL SERVICES $100,000.00 $-$100,000.00 $85,930.00 0.0%85.9%3/19/2007 6/30/2011 AS-NEEDED ELECTRICAL DESIGN ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC,THE Varies SERVICES $100.00000 $-$100,000.00 $54,320.00 0.0%54.3%101712009 6/30/2011 HDR Varies TEMPORARY LABOR SERVICES $150,000.00 $35,000.00 $185,000.00 $167,475.00 23.3%90.5%6/30/2010 6/30/2011 P2502, HVAC ENGINEERING INC P2503 HVAC SERVICES FOR 850-2 PS &803-1 PS $19,421.00 $-$19,421.00 $-0.0% 0.0%9/17/2010 12/31/2011 LEE &RO INC P2009 DESIGN OF 36-INCH PIPELINE $580,183.00 $61,629.00 $641,812.00 $627,786.00 106%97.8%9/11/2008 6/30/2011 AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN LEE &RO INC Varies SERVICES $175,000.00 $-$175,000.00 $20,692.50 0.0%11.8%6/30/2010 6/30/2012 NORTH DISTRICT/SOUTH DISTRICT LEE &RO INC P2511 INTERCONNECTION $2,769,119.00 $-$2,769,119.00 $22,891.63 0.0% 0.8%11/4/2010 12/31/2015 AS-NEEDED GEOTECHNICAL MTGL INC.Varies CONSULTING SERVICES $175,000.00 $-$175,000,00 $21,460.00 0.0%12.3%6/23/2010 6/30/2012 R2096, R2095, MWH AMERICAS INC.S2018 RWCWRF UPGRADE PROJECT $458,813.00 $122,048.00 $580,861.00 $244,456.28 26.6%42.1%10/14/2009 6/3012011 PBS&J Varies HYDRAULIC MODELING SERVICES $45,000.00 $-$45.000.00 $32,298.55 0.0%71.8%11/20/2009 6130/2011 PBS&J P2511 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS $5,000.00 $-$5,000.00 $0.0%0.0%12/9/2010 6130/2012 9/29/2010 PHOTO GEODETIC CORPORATION P2399 SURVEYING SERVICES $3,425.63 $-$3,425.63 $3,150.00 0.0%92.0%8/24/2010 COMPLETE REPROHAUS Varies AS-NEEDED REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES $20,000.00 $-$20,000,00 $7,345.81 0.0%36.7%2/16/2010 12/31/2011 SCHIFF &ASSOCIATES Varies PROFESSIONALCORROSION SERVICES $250,000.00 $36,000.00 $286,000.OC $187,910.37 14.4%65-7%11/20/2009 6130/2011 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL Varies AS-NEEDED GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES $175,000.00 $11,761.37 $186,761.37 $177,823.83 6.7%95.2%10/7/2009 6130/2011 1218/2010 S.R.BRADLEY &ASSOCIATES,INC.P2434 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES $5,100.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 0.0%100.0%10/11/2010 COMPLETE 8/11/2010 SUPERIOR TANK SOLUTIONS P2491 803-2 ReservoirVisual Inspection $250.00 $-$250.00 $250.00 0.0%100.0%7/15/2010 COMPLETE 9 Consultant Contract Status (continued) Original Total Revised Approved %%Date of CIP Contract Change Contract Payment To Change Project Signed End Date of Consultant No.Prolect Title Amount Orders Amount Date Orders Complete Contract Contract CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1485-1 PUMP STATION -TREE 9/8/2010 BRADLEY CONSULTING GROUP P2172 CONSULTING SERVICE $500.00 $-$500.00 $500.00 0.0%100.0%917/2010 COMPLETE 12/31/2010 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC Varies TEMPORARY LABOR SERVICES $150,000.00 $130,000.00 $280,000.00 $274,050.00 86.7%97.9%1/5/2009 COMPLETED 8/25/2010 PROWESTAPPRAISALS P2172 APPRAISALSERVICES $2,827.50 $-$2,827.50 $2,600.00 D.OOk 92.00/0 8/1212010 COMPLETE RBF CONSULTING P2009 36-INCH PIPELINE $1,088,785.00 $46,995.00 $1,135,780.00 $1,129,658.75 4.3%99.5%1/28/2008 3/112011 R2058,CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT R2077,SERVICES FOR THE OTAY MESA RBF CONSULTING R2087 RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY LINK $708,560.00 $708,560.00 $13,960.00 0.0%2.0%3/24/2010 12131/2011 S2019,10/6/2010 RBF CONSULTING S2021 CONSTRUCTION MANGAGEMENT $5,000.00 $-$5,000.00 $5,000.00 0.0%100.0%8/5/2010 COMPLETED AS-NEEDED CONSTRUCTION VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION MANAGEMENT Varies SERVICES $175,000.00 $175,000.00 $92,670.00 0.0%53.0%3/17/2010 6/30/2012 ENVIRONMENTAL A.D.HINSHAW Varies CONSULTING SERVICES FOR JWA's CEQA $34,625.25 $-$34,625.25 $6,865.83 00%19.8°.10 3/25/2010 6/30/2012 12/31/2010 BRGCONSULTING INC P2143 1296-3 RESERVOIR ENV SVCS $125,000.00 $-$125,000.00 $124,498.54 0.0%99.6%4/1112006 COMPLETED FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY SERVICES P2494 SCIENCE ADVISOR REVIEW $4,000.00 $-$4,000.00 $0.0°.10 0.0%9/30/2010 6/30/2011 ICF INTERNATIONAL (aka JONES &SAN MIGUEL HABITAT MANAGEMENT STOKESASSOCIATES)P1253 AREA $987,807.00 $-$987,807.00 $636,694.98 0.00/0 64.5%2/3/2009 12131/2011 R20581 ICF INTERNATIONAL (aka JONES &R20771 OTAY MESA RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY STOKES ASSOCIATES)R2087 LINK PIPELINES $213,087.00 $9,115.00 $222,202.00 $222,143.98 4.3%100.0%5/1/2009 6/30/2011 ICF INTERNATIONAL (aka JONES &AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL STOKES ASSOCIATES)Varies CONSULTING SERVICES $375,000.00 $-$375,000,00 $36,028.39 0..0%9.6%9/9/2010 6/30/2013 DR.MARY ANNE HAWKE P2494 SCIENCE ADVISOR REVIEW $4,350.00 $-$4,350.00 $0.0% 0.0%9/9/2010 6/30/2011 10/1212010 PHOTO GEODETIC CORPORATION R2096 AERIAL MAPPING $2,400.00 $-$2,400,00 $2,400.00 0.0%100.0%9/15/2010 COMPLETE RAHN CONSERVATION CONSULTING P2494 ADVISOR REVIEW $4,000.00 $-$4,000.00 $3,000.00 0.0%75.0%9/15/2010 6/30/2011 RECON P1253 PREPARATION OF THE SUBAREA PLAN $270,853.00 $-$270,853.00 $161,861.61 0.0%59.8%3/28/2008 3/28/2011 TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES Varies CONSULTING SERVICES FOR JWA's NCCP $34,625.25 $-$34,625.25 $28,731.52 0.0%83.0%4/5/2010 6/30/2012 WATER RESOURCES MIDDLESWEETWATER RIVER BASIN AECOM P2481 GROUNDWATER WELL PILOT PROJECT $1,065,037.00 $-$1,065,037,00 $265,085.15 0.0%24.9°.10 5/21/2009 5/31/2011 BI-NATIONAL DESALINATION FEASIBILITY CAMP DRESSER &McKEE INC P2451 STUDY $94,552.00 $18,005.00 $112,557.00 $98.577.34 19.0%87.6°.t'o 3/19/2008 6/30/2011 WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY CITY OFCHULA VISTA R2093 STUDY $150,000.00 $-$150,000,00 $86,900.50 0.0%57.9%9/24/2009 2/28/2011 MICHAEL R.WELCH P2481 ENGINEERING PLANNING SVCS.$40,000.00 $-$40,000.00 $19,440.00 0.0%48.6%3/25/2009 6/30/2011 PUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLED WATER PLAN CHECKING, AEGIS ENGINEERING RETROFIT,AND INSPECTION SERVICES MANAGEMENT Varies FOR DEVELOPER PROJECTS $300,000.00 $-$300,000.00 $143,947.09 0.00/0 48~O%1/20/2010 6/30/2012 RECYCLEDWATER PLAN CHECKING, AEGIS ENGINEERING RETROFIT,AND INSPECTION SERVICES MANAGEMENT Varies FOR DEVELOPER PROJECTS $300,000.00 $-$300,000.00 $4,407.50 0.0%1.5%,11/3/2010 6130/2013 TOTALS:$6,136,009.00 $204,115.00 $6,340,124,00 $3,359,021,18 3.3% 10 Construction Contract Status, (through December 31,2010) OftIGINAl TOTAL REVlS1m TOTAL %%EST. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE CONTRACT EARNED OF CHANGE PROJECT COMPo CIPNO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR AMOUNT ORDERS AMOUNT TO DATE ORDERS·COMPLETE DATE Jamacha Rd. P2009/36-lnch Pipeline &CCl Contracting $16,189,243 ($1,781,299)$14,407,944 $14,407,944 -11.00%100%September P2038 12-lnch Pipeline 2010 Replacement S2021 Jamacha Rd.8-lnch A.B.Hashmi $91,320 ($2,226)$89,094 $89,094 -2.44%100%September Sewer Replacement 2010 P2490&1296-1 &1296-2 West Coast March P2492 Reservoir Coating &Industrial $690,000 $2,580 $692,580 $454,690 0.37%66%2011Upgrades TOTALS:$16,970,563 ($1,780,945)$15,189,618 $14,951,728 -10.49% 11 Expenditures (through December 31,2010) ($000) FISCALYEAR·TO·DATE 12131/10 L1PE·TO·DATE Project FY2011 Expense to Comments CIPNo.Description Manager Budget Expenses Balance Budget%Budget Balance CAPITAL FACILITYPROJECTS 1160;,1 $ Construction is complete;project close-outin P2009 PL -36-lnch SDCWAOtllv FCF No.14to Reoulatorv Site Riooeroer $2,200 $2.543 $(343 21000 $1,517 recess. P2033 PL -16-lnch 1296 Zone Melodv Road -Campo/Presilia Rioperoer ---O%~1826 1821 Developer driven. P2038 ~L -12-lnch 978 Zone,Hidden Mesa Road Kav 130 30 100 23%~2378 196 Construction complete (Part of P2009). ~83 PS •819-J.Pump Station Replacement 28 000 GPM Riooeroer 50 -50 0%.12,581 12001 Moved to Phase III. P2143 IRes -1296-3Reservoir 2 MG Kav 5 106 101 2120%·3540 59 Construction comolete. P2172 PS -1485-1 PumD Station ReDlacement R.il!l'.erger $;10 5 200%2495 26 FJIlalizing remainingeasements. P2191 Res •850-4 Reservoir 2.2 MG K?'y""'-5 27 22 540%3410 (9 Pro'ect comalete. E2267 36-lnch Main Pumoouts and AirNacuum Ventilation Installations Munoz ---0%435 201 N/A P2318 ~L29-lnch.Jl.§7 Zone Summit Cross-Tieand 36-lnch Main Connections 1 Cameron 100 2 98 2%600 527 Preliminarydesign complete;begin design. ----E.~35L,E§-6!E:1L8'§Q:LP..'!!JlP Station Demoliti,?n Kennedv 50 7 43 14%300 293 In desian'to be combined with P2471. P2370 Res -DorchesterReservoirand Pump Station Del1l.2!l!!!?n Kennec!v 67 -67 0%150 137 In desian;to be combined with P2471. Rosarito Desai projectpreculdes the need for this project hencenoexpenditures are plannedfor FY P2391 PS - Perdue WfP Pumn Station.OO,OOO GPMl Peaslev 5 21 (16 420%11900 11854 12011. P2399 PL-30-lnch 980 Zone 980 Reservoirs toHunte Parl<wav Silverman """200 67 133 34%3600 797 In desian. P2431 Res -980-4 Reservoir 5 MG Kav 5 .5 0%5900 5900 Moved to Phase III. The Board authorized execution ofa professional services agreementand change ordernumberone for engineeringand developmentofthe Rancho del Rey Groundwater monitoringand production well.Well drilling activities have been completed. AECOM hascompleted all theworkand the AECOM contract is essentailly complete aswell. P2434 Rancho Del Rev Groundwater Well Develooment Peaslev 1,000 873 127 87%4250 2,111 FY-ll budget revised.Project on hold until fourth P2451 Rosarito Desalination Facililv Conveyance and Disinfection System Kennedv 1,000 179 821 18%30000 29-346 auarter FY-ll. Thisproject budget has been expended;may be increased to cover some minorfuture expenses. P2466 Reaional Trainina Facilitv Coburn-Bovd 24 13 11 54%252 3 Thisproject is jointlyfunded by SWAand Otay. The SDCWAawarded a LISA grant to SWAto !fund up to 50%of the costofthe effort.Monitoring wells in the Otay Riverhave been completed by USGS.Datllgathering on well information within the San Diego Formation continues.Otay River participation agreement between SWA and Otay San Die<lo Formation GroundwaterFeasibililvStudv Peaslev has been approved by the Board. P2467 600 -600 0%1,800 1,041 12 Expenditures (Continued) ($000) FISCALYEAR-TO-DATE,12131/10 LIFE-TO-DATE Project FY 2011 Expenseto Comments CIPNo.Description Manager Budget Expenses Balance Budget%Budget Balance CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS P2471 850/657 PRS at La Presa Pumo Station Silverman 240 7 233 3%3>10 255 In desk,". Thisproject budget is forwatersupply feasibility studyefforts.MWH completed the preparation a briefstudyincluding cost estimatesfor supplyfrom the SWA PerdueWTPand the North District to South District Interconnection. P2472 Water SupplYFeasibility Studies Peaslev 30 .30 0%175 149 P2473 PS -711-1 Pump Stati0'1I'!!l2':2vement Kav 200 27 173 14%500 428 Purchasino eouioment. P2474 Fuel StoraceCovers and Containment Kenne<1v 50 16 34 32%120 83 PDR comolete. P2475 Pum"Station Fire HvdrantInstallations Kennedv 45 10 35 22%55 2 Pro'eet complete. P2481 Middle SweetwaterRiverBasin GroundwaterWell Feasibililv Peaslev 50 33 17 66%1820 1,414 Groundwaterdevelopmentplanning efforts have P2488 Del Rio Road Helixand OtavAQencv Interconnection Kav 120 11 109 9%150 78 Pro'ect awarded for Construction In Januarv. P2489 Gillispie Drive Helix and OlayNlencvInterconnection Kav 135 29 106 21%150 91 Pro'ect awarded for Construction in Januarv. P2497 Solar Power Feasibility Studv Kennedv 150 10 140 7%250 210 Preparing draft RFP forreview. P2502 '803-1 Puma Station Modifications Silverman 50 24 26 48.'4 200 176 PDR UPdated;HVAC desian in process. P2503 850-2 Puma Station Modifications Silverman 150 ~2 118 21%650 618 PDR updated'HVAC desian in process. ~~§J Q.........0~l"!.\Lqns Yar:.cLLI))£!:.ovements Kay 25 -25 0%370 370 PDRcomplete. P2511 North District-South District Interconnection System Silverman 800 146 654 18%37300 37154 Pro'ect in orellminarvdesion. R2034 RecRes-860-1 Reservoir4 MG Kay 200 -200 0%3·800 3,776 Pro'ect an hold. R2048 RecPL -Otav.Mesa Distribution Pjpelines and Conversions Kav 250 122 128 49%2200'2,006 In desion. R2058 IRecPL -16-lnch,860Zane,AirwavRoad -Otav Mesa/Alta Reimbursement Agreement will consumemast of Kennedv 1.000 128 872 13%3500 2431 this budoet. Reimbursement Agreementwill consume mast of R2077 RecPL -24-lnch 860 Zane,Alta Road -Alta Gate/Airwa\'Kennedy 1750 92 1658 5%4500 3,699 this budoet. Easementacquisitionbudgetforthe City ofChula Vista and the City ofSan Diego.Revise budgetto R2087 RecPL -24-lnch.927 Zane Wueste Road-Olvmoic/Otav WTP Kennedv 3378 '~~''"3~7000 6175 ~OOforFY11. R208B RecPL -3D-Inch,860 zone~ail-Roll Reservoir/860-1 Reservoir Kennedv 240 6 234 3%3500 3437 Revlse'Sudgei'to $20K forFY-11. fU'L"'''~r=Tf'lllTl~e'TfU:OOV5PM)ana Syst..-90%design complete.R2091 Enhancements Riooemer 1.250 120 1.130 10%3950 3,582 R2092 Dis -450-1 Reservoir Disinfection Facility Kav 2 (16 18 -800%742 3 In warranty. The CityofChula Vista City counsel and the Otay WD Board ofDirectors have approved the MBR participation agreementto focus on the treatment facilityand related requirements.The Cityof Chula Vista awarded a consulting contract to RMC to accomplish the scope ofwork which is well underway.A draft report has been prepared and the City and OlayWD staffshave provided RMC R2093 MBR CilvofChula Vista FeasibililvStudy Peaslev 120 100 20 83%210 65 with review comments. R2094 Potable IrriQation Meters to Recycled Water Conversions Charles 500 121 379 24%3100 1,760 On budoet. I Total Capital Facility Projects Total:16,181 5,004 11,177 180,969 135,7S3 13 Expenditures (Continued) ($000) FISCALYEAR-TO-DATE,12131/10 LIFE·TO·DATE Project FY2011 Expense to CIPNo.Description Manager Budget Expenses Balance Budget%Budget Balance Comments REPLACEMENT/RENEWALPROJECTS 4421 Pending board approval,planning $333,000 P2366 APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits Rahders 1 441 0%3.213 1.453 urchase in this cateQorV in March orAoril. P2382 Safetvand SecuritY Improvements Munoz 102 94 8 92%1635 227 Plan to silend the full amount. ~2,41_EL sg:1~!LU!lli.\tBelocations Kennectv 50 .50 0%963 49 GCRcollectin~from SBX. P2440 1-905 Utilitv Relocations Silverman 100 42 58 42%1600 36 95%construction compiete. P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Kav 50 1 49 2%1 155 151 CalTransdriven. P2456 Airand VacuumValve Ul:>grades Acuna 450 286 164 64%2.722 384 On track. P2458 AMR Manual Meter Reolacement Keeran 1500·407 1093 27%10448 6024 On track. P2477 Res -624-1 Reservoir Cover Reolacement Kennedv 5 1 4 20%450 422 On budoetand on schedule. P2484 Laroe Water Meter Reolacement Prooram Keeran 100 107 (7 107%535 307 On track. P2485 SCADA Communication SYStem and Software Reolacement Stalker 3!>0 51 299 15%.1325 992 Plan to spend the full amount. P2486 Asset Manaoement Plan Condition Assessment and Data ACQuisition Stevens 600 140 460 23%1150 775 Plan tosoend thefull amount. P2490 1296-1 Reservoir Interior/ExteriorCoatino Kav 240 98 142 41%.350 192 Proiectunderconstructjon. P2491 8!i0-3 ReservoirExteriorCoatin"Kav 10 1 9 10%300 298 Proiectto be done in FY-12. P2492 1296-2 Reservoir Interior/ExteriorCoatino Kav 440 368 72 84%550 30 Pro'ectin construction. P2493 624-2ReservOJrlnterior Coatiiia---~-'Kav 5 -51 0%950 949 Pro'ectto be done in FY·12. P2494 Multiple &leciesConservation Plan Cobum-BQY.!j 170 123 47 72%830 166 This budoei"'Wiil be'spentih'is fiscal year. _.~?1.~1!_§l~~..ry)i!li'!ll.ti,,!~.i~~~~_1!~~~.n.!LM!!iaaJiQD.f.Lf!~Coburn.1!.o~f--'__250 104 146 42%1725 1.343 This budl:;etwill be spent this fiscal yeer. P2496 Otay Lakes Road UtiI'Relocations Kav 195 18 177 9%250 133 Pro'ect underconstruction. P2504 Reoulatorv SiteAccessRoad and Pipeline Relocation Cameron 200 1 199 1%600 599 Develooerdriven. P2505 657-1 ReservoirInterior/Exterior Coating Cameron 325 26 299 8%375 349 Award comolete.Construction starts 03 P2506 657-2 ReservoirInterior/Exterior Coatino Cameron 325 22 303 7%3751 353 Award comolete.Construction starts 03 P2507 East PalomarStreet Utililv Relocation Cameron 20 7 13 35%&xl 493 CalTrans driven. Selection for Cathodic As-Needed consultant P2508 Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Procram Kenned~50 -50 0%150 150 reouired tostart. Nofunding in this FY.Part of Ops budget.Meter P2509 R.J.Donovan Prison Water Meter Uoorade Riooemer --.0%60 60 will be reolaced nextouarter. The project schedule has changed so that not all 0 _i31.Q!!.L ~Y..V_Q.~F$LL!e!lr~.des imd Modifications Coburn-Boyd 1,200 232 968 19%2500 2,028 thepro'ected bud>let will be spent thisfiscal vear. The SVSDexpenditures are typicallybilled by SVSD and paid within thefourth quarter ofthe S2012 SVSD Outfall and RSD RElP-l.ace01ent and OM Reimbursement Peasley 642 1 641 0%4392 3,798 fiscal year. S2019 Avocado Boulevard 6-lnch SewerMain Imorovement Cameron 1515 95 1420 6%1730 1491 Desirm complete:aCQuirino easements. S2020 Calavo Drive 8-lnch Sewer Main Reolacement Cameron 360 6 354 2%420 378 Desilll1 comolete:aCQuiring easements. S2021 Jamacha Road 8-lnch SewerMain Replacement Kay 40 109 (69 273%160 4 Praiect complete. S2022 Hidden Mesa Drive 8-lnch SewerMain Rehabilitation Cameron 120 5 115 4%150 132 Desion comolete;acouirino easements. S2023 Calavo Drive Sewer Main Utililv Relocation Cameron 50 2 48 4%65 54 Countvof San DieDo driven. S2024 Campo.~_ad S~~'!!!l..!3~I.a.seJ]~!l\Cameron 75 2 73 3%3250 3248 To be assessed in the SewerMasterPI'!'l:.....--- 52025 Wieohorst WavSewer Main Reolacement Cameron 25 12 13 4~'10 175 163 County Pro·ect. Total Replacement/Renewal Projects Total:10,006 2,362 7,644 44,053 27,231 14 Expenditures (Continued) ($000) FISCAL YEAR·TO.DATE,12131/10 L1FE·TO·DATE I Project FY2011 Expense to ICIPNo.Description Manager Budget Expenses Bala~nce Budget %Budget Balance Comments CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS I Vehicle C<Klital Purchases Currently$252,847 encumbered against account P2262 Rahders 540 79 461 15%4945 2.662 awaitino delivelV ofvehicles. P2285 OfficeEauipmentand Fumiture Capital Purchases Dobrawa -·-0%481 42 NJA P2286 Field EQuipment Capital Purchases Rahders 201 109 92 54%~527 660 Plan 100%excense in this cateaO!V. P244.3 InformationTechnoloavMobile Services Jenkins 250 40 210 16%1552 664 Plan to sc",nd thefullamountbv'learend. P2461 Records ManaoementSYstem Uoorade Stevens 150 150 0%406 201 Plan to scend thefull amountbyyearend. P2469 InformationTechnoloavNetwork and Hardware Jenkins 300 132 168 44%1921 1052 Plan to scend thefull amountbv'learend. P2470 Aoolication SYStems Develooment and Inte<±ration Stevens I 4C8 180 228 44%2218 1.252 Plan to soend thefull amounttry 'learend. P2501 Telecommunications Eauioment Uoarade Jenkins 400 116 264 29%400 284 PI"ln.to_se.en.d.....the full amountbvYearend. I Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:2,249 656 1,,593 13450 7,037 DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTPROJECTS P2104 PL-12-lnch,711 Zone,La Media Road -Birch/Rock Mountain Chanes -·0%833 833 N/A P2107 PL-12-lnch 711 ZO~~9.!i.Qtain Road·La Media/SR 125 Ctia~s -··6%722 722 N/A PL-10"to 12"Oversize,1296Zone,PB Road -Rolling Hills Hydro PSJPB P2325 Bndv Chanes 1 -1 0%50 50 Awaitino Develooe~s reouestforreimbursement. P2402 PL-12-lnq,'-l?~1.Z.~1!),'1...1d'Media Road -Village 7/Ollly V~lIev Chanes --·0%444 444 N/A _.!:'~1Q~PL·12-lnch.624 Zone,Heritaae Road -OlYmoic/Otav Vallev Chanes -· · 0%925 925 NJA R2028 RecPL-8-inch 660Zone Hemaoe Road -Santa Victoria/Otav Vallev Chanes -·-0%600 600 NJA R2042 RecPL-8-lnch 927Zone Rock Mountain Road·SR-125/EastLake Chanes --·0%140 140 NJA R2047 RecPL-12-lnch 680 Zone La Media Road -BirchlRock Mountain Chanes · ·0%450 450 NJA R2082 RecPL -24-lnch.680 Zone.Olvmoic Parkwav -VillllQe 21Heritaoe Chanes 5 ·5 0%1747 1,747 Awaitino Develooe~s rrouest forreimbursement. R2083 RecPL -2Q-lnch,680 Zone.Herita.:le Road -Villane210lVll1llic Chanes 5 -5 0%400 400 Awaitina DeveJooe~sr9/:luest forreimbursement. R2084 RecPL -2Q-lnch 680 Zone.Villaoe2 -Heritane/La Media Chanes 1 -1 0%971 970 Awaitino Develo",,~s reouest forreimbursement.-W~085 RecPL -2Q-1r)~~!'§.\llQ~~a Media·State/OlYmoic Chanes - -·0%600 600 NJA TotalDeveloper Reimbursement Pro'eels Total:12 12 7,882 7.681 GRANDTOTAL $28,448 $8,022 $20,426 $246,354 $177,932 15 AGENDA ITEM 9b 5TAFF REPORT March 2,2011 DIV.NO.AllW.O.lG.F.NO: MEETING DATE:Regular Board ~ Sean Prendergast,~ Payroll/AP su~r Joseph R.Beachem,Chief Financial OfficerAPPROVEDBY: (Chief) APPROVED BY:German~l~rez,Assistant General Manager,Finance and (Ass!.GM): Admini ' n SUBMITIED BY: TYPE MEETING: SU~ECT:Director's Expenses for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To inform the Board of the Director's expenses for the 2nd quarter of Fiscal Year 2011. ANALYSIS: The Director's expense information is being presented in order to comply with State law.(See Attachment B for Summary and C-H for Details.) FISCAL IMPACT: None. STRATEGIC GOAL: Prudently manage District funds. LEGAL IMPACT: Compliance with State law. M1IMLGeneralManager Attachments: A)Committee Action Form B)Director's Expenses and per Diems C-H)Director's Expenses Detail ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECTI:.i~Ul'rector's Expenses for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 COMMITTEE ACTION: This item was presented to the Finance,Administration and Communications Committee at a meeting held on February 16,2011. The expenses for each director from October 1,2010 thru December 31,2010 was presented.It was indicated that directors'expenses totaled $2,505.50 for the 2nd quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 and to date,expenses total $5,452.Staff projects that the FY 2011 expenses will total $10,904 if reimbursements continue at the current level.Director Croucher indicated that he has been assigned to serve on many of the District's board committees and is the reason his per-diem total is higher in comparison to other members of the board.He asked if staff could include the directors committee assignments within the report.Staff indicated that they would incorporate the information in the report.This item will be presented to the full board as an informational item. Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgDirExp030211.doc ATTACHMENT B BOARD OF DIRECTORS' EXPENSES AND PER-DIEMS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 2,2011 Policy 8 requires that staff present the Expenses and Per-Diems for the Board of Directors on a Quarterly basis: •Fiscal Year 2011,2nd Quarter. •The expenses are shown in detail by Board member,month and expense type. •This presentation is in alphabetical order. •This information was presented to the Finance, Administration,and Communications Committee on February 16,2011. Board of Directors'Expenses and Per-Diems Fiscal Year 2011 Quarter 2 (Oct 10-Dec 10) Director Bonilla Director Croucher Director Gonzalez Director Lopez Director Robak Total $00.00 $1,200.00 $720.00 $210.00 $895.50 $3,025.50 Director Bonilla Fiscal Year 2011 Quarter 2 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Business Meetings 0.00 0.00 0.00 Director's Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mileage Business 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mileage Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seminars and Travel 0.00 00.00 0.00 Monthly Totals Quarterly Total Fiscal Year-to-Date 2011 (JulIO-Dec 10) 0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Director Bonilla does not request per diem reimbursements Meetings Attended Meetings Paid Director Croucher Fiscal Year 2011 Quarter 2 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Business Meetings 0.00 0.00 0.00 Director's Fees 600.00 300.00 300.00 Mileage Business 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mileage Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00 Monthly Totals Quarterly Total Fiscal Year-to-Date 2011 (JulIO-Dec 10) Director Croucher serves on all District Committees (6) 600,00 300,00 300,00 $1,200,00 $1,800,00 Meetings Attended 6 4 4 Meetings Paid 6 3 3 Director Gonzalez Fiscal Year 2011 Quarter 2 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Business Meetings 0.00 0.00 0.00 Director's Fees 0.00 200.00 400.00 Mileage Business 0.00 0.00 120.00 Mileage Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00 Monthly Totals Quarterly Total Fiscal Year-to-Date 2010 (JulIO-Dec 10) Meetings Attended Meetings Paid 0,00 200,00 ~I 0,00 $720,00 $1,320,00 Director Lopez Fiscal Year 2011 Quarter 2 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Business Meetings 0.00 0.00 0.00 Director's Fees 0.00 100.00 100.00 Mileage Business 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mileage Commuting 0.00 10.00 0.00 Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00 Monthly Totals Quarterly Total Fiscal Year-to-Date 2011 (JulIO-Dec 10) 0.00 110.00 100.00 210.00 $870.00 _M_ee_t_in_g_s_A_tt_e_nd_e_d +-+-l 1 1----11-1 Meetings Paid , Director Robak Fiscal Year 2011 Quarter 2 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Business Meetings 55.00 0.00 0.00 Director's Fees 300.00 200.00 300.00 Mileage Business 9.00 11.00 16.50 Mileage Commuting 2.00 2.00 0.00 Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00 Monthly Totals Quarterly Total Fiscal Year-to-Date 2010 (JulIO-Dec 10) 366,00 213,00 316,50 $895,50 $1,982,00 Meetings Attended 5 2 5 Meetings Paid 3 2 3 Board of Directors'Expenses and Per Diems Fiscal Year 2011 to Date (Jul 10-Dec 10) Director Bonilla Director Croucher Director Gonzalez Director Lopez Director Robak Total $00.00 $1,800.00 $1,320.00 $870.00 $1,982.00 $5,972.00 Board of Directors'Expenses and Per Diems Fiscal Year 2011 Projected (Jul 10-Jun 11) Director Bonilla Director Croucher Director Gonzalez Director Lopez Director Robak Total $00.00 $3,600.00 $2,640.00 $1,740.00 $3,964.00 $11,944.00 SECTIONC OTAY WATER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES -BOARD July 1,2010 -June 30,2011 Jul-IO Aug-IO Sep-IO Oct-IO Nov-IO Dec-IO Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Total I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 JAIMEBONILLA(DETAILEDIN SECTIOND): 5214 Business meetings $$$$$$$$$ 5281 Director's fees 5211 Mileage -Business 5211 Mileage -Commuting 5213 Seminars andconferences 5212 Travel Total $$$$$$$$$$ GARY D.CROUCHER (DETAILED INSECTION E): 5214 Businessmeetings $$$$$$$ 5281 Director's fees 200.00 400.00 600.00 300.00 300.00 1,800.00 5211 Mileage-Business 5211 Mileage-Commuting 5213 Seminarsand conferences 5212 Travel Total $200.00 400.00 $600.00 $300.00 300.00 $$$$$1,800.00 DAVID GONZALEZ(DETAILEDIN SECTIONF): 5214 Business meetings $$$$$$$ 5281 Director's fees 200.00 100.00 300.00 200.00 800.00 5211 Mileage -Business 5211 Mileage -Commuting 5213 Seminars and conferences 5212 Travel Total 200.00 $100.00 300.00 $$200.00 $$$$$800.00 JOSELOPEZ(DETAILEDINSECTION G): 5214 Business meetings $$$$$$$$$$$ 5281 Director's fees 300.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 800.00 5211 Mileage -Business 5211 Mileage -Commuting 30.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 70.00 5213 Seminarsand conferences 5212 Travel Total 330.00 220.00 $110.00 $$110.00 100.00 $$$$$870.00 MARKROBAK(DETAILED IN SECTIONH): 5214 Businessmeetings $120.00 55.00 $$$$$$175.00 5281 Director'sfees 400.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 200.00 300.00 1,700.00 5211 Mileage-Business 30.50 9.00 21.00 9.00 11.00 16.50 97.00 5211 Mileage-Commuting 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 5213 Seminars and conferences 5212 Travel Total 432.50 331.00 $323.00 $366.00 213.00 $316.50 $$$$$1,982.00 TOTALS: 5214 Business meetings $$120.00 $$55.00 $$$$$$$$175.00 5281 Director's fees 900.00 700.00 1,100.00 900.00 800.00 700.00 5,100.00 5211 Mileage -Business 30.50 9.00 21.00 9.00 11.00 16.50 97.00 5211 Mileage -Commuting 32.00 22.00 12.00 2.00 12.00 80.00 5213 Seminarsand conferences 5212 Travel Total $962.50 $851.00 $1,133.00 $966.00 823.00 $716.50 $$$$5,452.00 OTAY WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 DIRECTOR'S NAME:BONILLA,JAIME Account Name Dec 10/Bonilla J Date Descriptions Page 2 of Pages 7 ATTACHMENT D SECTION 0 Amount Printed Date: 2/7/201110:52 AM OTAY WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 DIRECTOR'S NAME:CROUCHER,GARY ATTACHMENT F SECTION F Account Name Date Descriptions Amount Director's Fee 8/4/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 8/19/2010 ENGINEERING AND OPERATION COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 9/8/2010 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN MONTHLY MEETING 100.00 9/15/2010 SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 9/16/2010 ENGINEERING AND OPERATION COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 9/20/2010 MEETING WITH DIRECTOR BONILLA 100.00 10/6/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 10/7/2010 AD HOC COMMITTEE -POLICY 42 100.00 10/13/2010 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN MONTHLY MEETING 100.00 10/14/2010 ENGINEERING AND OPERATION COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 10/15/2010 LAFCO SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 100.00 10/18/2010 ENGINEERING AND OPERATION COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 11/3/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 11/10/2010 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN MONTHLY MEETING 100.00 11/24/2010 LEGAL AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 12/7/2010 ENGINEERING AND OPERATION COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 12/8/2010 LEGAL AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 12/10/2010 LEGAL AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING 100.00 Director's Fee Total 1,800.00 Grand Total $1,800.00 Dec 10/Croucher Page 4 of Pages 7 Printed Date: 2/7/201110:52 AM OTAY WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 DIRECTOR'S NAME:GONZALEZ,DAVID Account Name Date Director's Fee 7/7/2010 7/28/2010 8/4/2010 9/1/2010 9/15/2010 9/16/2010 11/3/2010 11/30/2010 Director's Fee Total Grand Total ATTACHMENT E SECTION E Descriptions Amount REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING $100.00 ENGINEERING AND OPERATION COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 BOARD RETREAT MEETING 100.00 ENGINEERING AND OPERATION COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 ACWA FALL CONFERENCE 11/30/10 TO 12/3/10 100.00 800.00 $800.00 Dec 10/Gonzalez Page 3 of Pages 7 Printed Date: 2171201110:52 AM DIRECTOR'S NAME: OTAY WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 LOPEZ,JOSE ATTACHMENT G Date Descriptions 7/6/2010 INTERVIEWS CANDIDATE TO OTAY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Account Name Director's Fee Director's Fee Total Mileage -Commuting Mileage -Commuting Total Grand Total Dec 10/Lopez 7/7/2010 7/28/2010 8/4/2010 8/19/2010 9/7/2010 11/3/2010 12/7/2010 7/31/2010 8/30/2010 9/7/2010 11/3/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING -JULY 6,7 &28,2010 MEETING -AUGUST 4 &19,2010 MEETING -SEPTEMBER 7,2010 MEETING -NOVEMBER 3,2010 Page 5 of Pages 6 SECTION G Amount $100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 800.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 70.00 $870.00 Printed Date: 2/7/20114:01 PM OTAY WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD JULY I,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 DIRECTOR'S NAME:ROBAK,MARK ATTACHMENT H SECTION H Account Name Date Descriptions Amount Business meetings 8/20/2010 THE SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE -2ND ANNUAL $50.00 POLITICS IN PARADISE LEGISLATIVE FORUM. 8/10/2010 2ND ANNUAL POLITICS IN PARADISE LEGISLATIVE FORUM 50.00 10/1/2010 SD EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MONTHLY MEETING 20.00 10/21/2010 CA/NVAWWA-WATER FOR PEOPLE 35.00 9/10/2010 SD EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MONTHLY MEETING 20.00 Business meetings Total 175.00 Director's Fee 7/7/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 7/1/2010 GENERAL MANAGER AD HOC COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00 7/8/2010 METRO JPA REVIEW 100.00 7/14/2010 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN MONTHLY MEETING 100.00 8/4/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 8/23/2010 FINANCE COMMITIEE MEETING TO DISCUSS AUDIT AND DISTRICT 100.00 FINANCIAL MATIERS 9/1/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 9/15/2010 DISTRICT ANNUAL BOARD WORKSHOP 100.00 9/16/2010 FINANCE COMMITIEE MEETING TO DISCUSS AUDIT AND DISTRICT 100.00 FINANCIAL MATIERS 10/6/2010 MONTHLY BREAKFAST MEETING -EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF 100.00 COMMERCE 10/13/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 12/8/2010 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN MONTHLY MEETING 100.00 10/19/2010 WATER REUSE MEETING 100.00 11/3/2010 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00 11/23/2010 DISCUSS LEGAL COUNSEL RESIGNATION 100.00 12/6/2010 FINANCE COMMITIEE MEETING TO DISCUSS AUDIT AND DISTRICT 100.00 FINANCIAL MATIERS 12/21/2010 AD HOC COMMITIEE -DESALINATION COMMITIEE 100.00 Director's Fee Total 1,700.00 Mileage -Business 8/30/2010 MEETING -AUGUST 4 &23,2010 9.00 9/30/2010 MEETING -SEPTEMBER 1,15 &16,2010 21.00 7/31/2010 MEETING -JULY 1,7,8,14 &22,2010 30.50 11/30/2010 MEETING -NOVEMBER 23,2010 11.00 Oec 10/Robak Page 6 of Pages 7 Printed Dale: 2/7/201110:52 AM DIRECTOR'S NAME: OTAY WATER DISTRICT SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD JULY I,2010 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 ROBAK,MARK ATTACHMENT H Account Name Mileage -Business Mileage -Business Total Mileage -Commuting Date 10/31/2010 12/31/2010 8/4/2010 9/1/2010 7/31/2010 11/30/2010 10/31/2010 Descriptions MEETING -OCTOBER 6 &19,2010 MEETING -DECEMBER 6,8 &21,2010 MEETING -AUGUST 4,2010 MEETING -SEPTEMBER 1,2010 MEETING -JULY 7,2010 MEETING -NOVEMBER 3,2010 MEETING -OCTOBER 6,2010 SECTION H Amount 9.00 16.50 97.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mileage -Commuting Total Grand Total 10.00 $1,982.00 Dec 10/Robak Page 7 of Pages 7 Printed Date: 2/7/201110:52 AM Pay To:Gary Croucher I /?;)7000·2-1 a I.~~/0 I 01'AY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Period Covered: ~oo.oo EXHIBITB Employee Number:70]]-------------10 From:10/01110 To:10/31 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOME,oOWD OTHER OWDloHOME LOCATIONS /10/6 Board Regular Board Meeting II ] v'2 10/7 Committee Ad Hoc Committee -Policy 42 .;3 10/13 JPA Water Conservation Garden meeting -JPA Rep. .j 4 10/14 Committee Engineering and Operations Committee -Special Meeting ~10/15 LAFCO LAFCO Special Districts Advisory CommitteeII/ V /6 10/18 Committee Engineering and Operations Committee -Regular ~yJIt7 0-* rr (j-x 1UJoJJ/ Gu)·uO* Mf), ./ $600 Total Meeting Per Diem: ($100 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed:a miles GM ~-~tYrl-=-::---::~_________Date:H·IO :Z()IO FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_ f}0000·/83-000.2--101.5;)"-~/.o1 3oeJ.oQ EXHIBITB OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To:Gary Croucher Period Covered: Employee Number:_7_0_1_1 _From:1110112010 To:11130/2010 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOME,oOWD OTHER OWDloHOME LOCATIONS \'I 11/03 Board Regular Board Meeting VV2 11/10 Committee Water Conservation Garden meeting 11/15 Community Meeting regarding access/egress for Point Parkway '3 11/24 Committee Legal Ad Hoc Committee meeting QIf/~U·* ~~t 3·x 100-00= 5Uu'()O~ 0·* II $300 Total Meeting Per Diem: ($100 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed:o miles ~'Q2"t::Qx : eM ApjJ\"butl:-"-+...::::!.--\---.::::::=J;;~::.......-------- FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_ Pay To:Gary Croucher •10 6000.2-/0 I.5;;;.~I 0 J OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Period Covered: 300.00 EXHIBIT B Employee Number:_7_0_1_1 _From:12/0112010 To:12/3112010 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE 1 ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER OWD to HOME LOCATIONS \I~12/07 Committee Engineering and Operations Committee meeting V 2 12/08 Committee Legal Ad Hoc Committee meeting yl3 12/10 Committee Legal Ad Hoc Committee meeting 12/17 Committee Legal Ad Hoc Committee meeting ~vJ 0-* ~ilfP:J j •)< 100-::;: 5l)!J·ooy $300 Total Meeting Per Diem: ($100 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed:0 mileshl~---~db"gnntu,,) GM='-r@\tL Oat"~ FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_ OTAY WATERDISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM .,,?-OO ~o u a.ec,v'd IfIPlII)d~-Iv tn fn~per Ptt&.f(36)'lIl'tt:t. l/lct!l?p Pay To:David Gonzalez Period Covered: Employee Nu-mber:1796----------From:f'Jf1J'!2DIl To:fJD'J 7D ,ZOI' ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE I ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOME,oOWD OTHER--.~OWD'oHOME LQCATIONS J 1.Ir ti3 go~~1M e.E"t1 fJ6 /l(;D ~f'n tv"t (.WA F«.JI Gttfr\i 2.J\CW(\ 3..IY~O(IO ~1~/3IJ6) 4. 5.I 6. 7. 8. QpJ f1 0-* 9. 2·x 10.t i llU .U )::: 11.2;],j .U0*/ 12. U·*13. 14. 15. 16. l7. 18.I (Director's Signature)l Date:\~_~I,..;\;,..:.\_ miles ;';"00TotalMeetingPerDiem: ($100 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed: ~R~:~ifL(;~.,4~PnM) ~R OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$:...-_ :c::~ f- U-cr.:....•<... >-(.'),I ~;::::- -"-! OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AN MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To:.Jose Lopez Period Covered: Employee Number:7010----------From:11/01110 To:11130/10 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE 1 ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOMEIoOWD OTHER OWDIoHOME LOcATIONS ..I 1.11/03/10 OWO Re~lar BQard Meeting 20 2. 3.--. 4.I, I5. 6. 7.~~.~7 (j-* 8. 9.~'1 0 x 10U'00:::/ (10.1tJu'UU* fl.?~112.o-*- 113.2 o .. 14.UO:JJ::: l1 10 U -/ (15. 16. il7. ~8. Total Meeting Per Diem:$ (5100 permeeting) Date:--!...f·..:.',:..9-:,1fi;;......'_,_ milesTotalMileageClaimed: GM Redept:--/f1fl!l,;..:.~~.;..~,,----------- FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REll\'mURSEMENT:$,_ M ODD·113 L.fQ 00.-z.,tC)/.~?f!,0 I 5'211DI OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM /00·00 EXHIBITB PayTo:Jose Lopez Period Covered: Employee Number:7010----------From:12101110 To:12131/10 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE 1 ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD C1l1iI'lt OWDtollOME..,LOCATIONS /~,1.12/07/10 OWD ODS &Ene Committee MeetinJit ( 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.U ..;.;~ 8. 9.~pV 1•x ~II"~1LhJ •UtJ :: ,..J.P.OJ I.J J •LJ Uo!" 11.V'~ 112.U·* ,.3. H. 15. 16. /17 18 (Director's Signature) Date:,·/9,'ZO" miles 7 Total Meeting Per Diem:$ ($100 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed: GMReeI.pt:~_~_ FOR OFFICE USE:TOTALMILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$0 _ !'''f.i !f'\j,ti1- ..i..I.vHf!"-~Ail 'i"~5('i1..,-....J -IJ-7:!:;DO 0 ou //b 50DO.2-10 / -5';;;J..;'g /6/ /J'?"?l..'0 Co)•7-1 D / .~;)-II O?-- OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARDOF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM 300.00 ,;2..v 0 Pay To:Mark Robak Period Covered: Employee Number:_7;...;0:.::1c..:.4~10:.::1;...;.0 _ 3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978 From:10-1-10 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED 1I0ME'0OWD OTHER OWD'oHOME LOCATIONS 1 10-1 East County Chamber of Monthly breakfast meeting -No Charge 0 0 Commerce Breakfast j 2 10-6 Monthly Otay Board Meeting General District Business 4 6 J .j 3 10-13 Water Reuse Meeting Water reuse legislative updates and 0 0 speakers on local projects (See Exhibit A - Agenda) II vi 4 10-19 Finance Committee Discuss District financial matters 0 12 5 10-21 Water for People Yearly Yearly update on organizational work 0 0 throughout the world and hear speaker - No Chafj,~e I I I U •~~ QtI~j •)~ ~\lOO-UU':: j J iJ •Uul" ~y 0-* I \fJ lj.•}i Total Me¢ting'Per Diem:$300 4 18•£-.~.-($100 pir meeting)U .J 0 -/ 2 • U0 *vtJII I II /}I~o{al Mileage Claimed:....=;22~__I~I~ /MII~(Director's Signature) GM=-fWl"".flJAL~~,-----------Date:_H_·_'f:;.;....-·_ZO_,_C _ (1 DECl'.t:;..;~I,I',i .••\FOROFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$~~,0W~,q~4 ~~ 1)..'\\ lt0oo0~1650b O-"2-/D)·5~81DI e2--Do.o() 000.11351:>00-2/0(!5:J.IID';;'"01..on OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM , Pay To:Mark Robak Employee Number:_7:....::0~14...:.;1~1..;,.10=---_ 3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978 Period Covered: From:11-1-10 To:11-30-10 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOME10 OWD OTHER OWDtoHOME LOCATIONSV V 1 11-3 Monthly Otay Board Meeting General District Business 4 6 ""II 2 11-23 Lunch Meeting with Director Discuss legal counsel resignation 0 16 Bonilla ~"':{i''j 2·x ~\~1 O'OCJ=~OU·OU*/, 0-* _VJlf/ ,~• X~U-:50= ~·OUV' Total Meeting Per Diem:$200 4 22 ($100 per meetmg) Total Mileage Claimed:_26 miles GMe!t _--------Date:_+~------ FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_ rl'~iAw';lj""',1 ~':Act.4.\J s,Hi,".Jt.t-_ /J7!;ooo'/13 5l)OO.2-/0 I r 5:;L~/01,..300.00 Pay To:Mark Robak OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Period Covered: Employee Number:-,-70~1:....:4~1::;.;21::.;0,--_ 3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978 From:12-1-10 ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE DISCUSSED HOME to OWD OTHER OWDtoHOME LOCATIONS I 12-3 Holiday in the Water Annual lighting event and festivities -No 0 0 Conservation Garden Charge It ~..2 12-6 Finance Committee Discuss District financial matters 0 12 tI 3 12-8 Water Conservation Garden Monthly Meeting /General Business 0 9 (See Exhibit A -Agenda) 4 12-17 Rancho San Diego-Jamul Monthly Meeting -Holiday Mixer -No 0 0 Chamber of Commerce Charge I 5 12-21 Ad-Hoc Desalination Discuss progress of potential Desai project 0 12 Committee with NSC Agua , I 'VJ ? I ~J'0·* ;i.x , 100·=/3Uu-OO* .. Total Meeting Per Diem:$300 0 33 .~~1t~,1-GM 4.ppr~tI-.;..x.~_ ($100 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed:33 (D ector's Signature) Date:_'-+-'_\-I-7fJ_"_ FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$,_ 11 JAN l,j 1 AI,j f{:4:4,.\...J,.,I _".~ AGENDA ITEM 9c STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Regular Board Armando Buelna,~ Communications Officer MEETING DATE: W.O.lG.F.NO: March 2,2011 DIV.NO.All SUBJECT:Presentation of the Ocean Water Desalination Survey Report performed by Rea and Parker Research Inc. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive the Ocean Water Desalination Survey Report performed by Rea and Parker Research Inc. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: To present the Board of Directors with the findings of the Ocean Water Desalination Survey Report performed by Rea and Parker Research Inc. BACKGROUND: The Otay Water District has conducted a statistically reliable telephone survey of its customers on the subject of ocean water desalination.The survey was performed by Rea and Parker Research Inc.for the purpose of validating earlier findings from focus group interviews on the subject of ocean water desalination.The telephone survey contacted 401 Otay Water District customers between November 11 and November 22,2010. In the telephone about desalinated water.They were survey,customers were asked their opinion ocean water as an alternate source of potable also asked a series of questions that tested the effectiveness of messages with regard to the ability of the messages to communicate the advantages of desalination.In addition,customer opinions were solicited about a proposed international project that would distribute desalinated water from a facility located in Rosarito Beach,Mexico. The sample size for this survey was selected to secure a margin of error not to exceed +/-4.9 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.This means that there is a 95%chance that the "true"opinions of all Otay Water District customers are within +/-4.9 percent of the observed results from this survey. Findings of the survey included the following: • A substantial proportion of customers feel that the development of desalinated water is a good way for the District to serve its customers. •Customers feel about one-half of the available water supply should be derived from desalination,including an ocean water desalination facility located in Rosarito Beach, Mexico. •Customers do have some concern about the safety and security of the pipeline in Mexico,and show some preference for a United States location instead of Mexico. Customers feel it would bolster the local economy and create U.S.based jobs. •More than half (54 %)favor pursuing an international agreement to purchase desalination ocean water from a Rosari to Beach facility.Thirty-four percent do not favor such an agreement,with 12%having no opinion. More significant findings from the survey are attached PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B) of the full report (Attachment C). included in the and in the body FISCAL IMPACT: The Ocean Water Desalination Survey Report validated the earlier findings from the focus group interviews.The results of this study will also be used to update the messages staff will use to communicate the benefits and opportunities available from ocean water desalination. ,/ttv_//ij The cost of the Ocean Water Desalination Survey Report was $14,250 and was charged to CIP P2451.Budgeted funds are sufficient to cover the cost of this contract. LEGAL IMPACT: Genf3ral Manager Attachments: Attachment A -Committee Statement B -Otay Water District Desalination Survey Findings C -Otay Water Desalination Survey Report !SUBJECT/PROJECT: ATTACHMENT A Ocean Water Desalination Survey Report COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee and the Finance,Administration and Communications Committee reviewed this item in detail at meetings held on February 15 and 16,2011 respectively.The following comments were made: •In 2010,from November 11 to 22,a survey was conducted for the purpose of validating earlier findings from focus group interviews on the District's plan to participate in the Rosarito Beach Desalination Project.The 2010 survey results will serve as a benchmark for future surveys. •The Ocean Water Desalination Survey was conducted as a telephone survey by the District's consultant,Rea & Parker Research,Inc.The survey report was divided into eight (8)essential information components as follows: Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics Use of Desalinated Water General Opinion about Desalinated Water and the Desalination Process Testing of Desalination Messages Issues about the Joint Venture in Mexico and the Rosarito Beach Facility Testing of Rosarito Beach Facility Messages Overall Satisfaction and General Opinion about the Use of Desalination Water Relationship between Trust in the Otay Water District and Opinion about Ocean Water Desalination •Rea &Parker Research indicated that the total number of participants in the survey was 401.Information about the demographic statistics/respondent characteristics is available for review on page 5 of the District's Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey Report. •Desalination Survey Findings most high important and the rated the had a trust in the sufficient quantity of water at a reasonable Groups that support a larger percentage of the water supply from desalination are: o Females o Middle income customers o Customers with less than a college degree o Latinos o Renters o Customers who already District to provide a clean,safe reliable price o Desalination messages that were the effective (meant more)to respondents were: •Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis •Desalination ensures a reliable, quality supply of water for the future •Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the CA Department of Public Health •It was noted that younger customers are more influenced by these messages Respondents indicated the following: o Ever used desalinated water?(26%Yes,67 %No, 7%Don't Know) o Experience with desalinated water posi tive or negative (53%Positive,1%Negative,46%No Difference) o Desalination important to maintaining reliable water supply?(52%Very Important,36%Somewhat Important,4%Not Very Important,3%Not at All Important,5%Don't Know) Respondents were asked to rate the most characteristics of desalinated water following two characteristics were highest: o Reduce dependence on imported water o Successfully and extensively used world-wide Respondents favored the District pursuing an international agreement to purchase desalinated water from the Rosarito Beach facility (54%Favor, 34%Not Favor,12%Don't Know) with plant Respondents concerns about locating the plant In Mexico vs.United States included: o Quality of water o Safety and security of pipeline o Reliability of water deliveries o Environmental/Ecological impacts Respondents favored Otay Water District establishing an independent water source from MWD (77%Yes,12% No,11%Don't Know) An experienced international team increased respondents confidence in desalination water (65% Yes,24%No,11%Don't Know) The messages that meant more to respondents regard to the Rosarito Beach desalination were: o Close monitoring by CA Department of Health o Operator of facility is publicly-traded,well- established global company Respondents indicated the following when asked what percentage of the household and business water supply should come from desalinated water: o Initial Impression (48%) o After Desalination Messages (51%) o From Rosarito Beach Facility (45%) •The statistical results indicate a strong support for desalinated water and while respondents prefer that the plant be built in the United States,they were not opposed to desalinated water from a plant built in Mexico. Respondents felt that desalinated water was a good way for the District to serve its customers (87% Yes,6%No,7%Don't Know) indicates that a the District's is also supported •The overall desalination customers. south of the conclusion of the survey plant is supported by He noted that the plant border. •Rea and Parker Research stated that customers who have indicated a substantial amount of trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean and safe water demonstrated a more favorable opinion about desalination. •It was discussed that the real use of this survey is to shape the messages to the public on the desalination proj ect.It was noted that focus group interviews were also conducted in July,prior to this survey,which will also help shape the messaging to the public.The messages that were taken from the focus groups included: o The focus groups supported a desalination plant in Mexico,but indicated that the plant must also benefit the host country. o The District has strong support from its customer base for a desalination project whether in the United States or Rosarito Beach,Mexico. •The committee stated that the County Water Authority (CWA)plans to conduct a similar survey and inquired if this survey would be comparable to CWA's survey.Rea and Parker Research stated that the District's Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey Report would be comparable to other county-wide surveys that are similar,including CWA's survey. •The committee indicated that they were interested in how increased rates may impact views today as increased water cost has been the message the public has been hearing. It was stated that the survey did not include any cost promises and was focused on the supply aspect of desalinated water. •Staff indicated that the District's Survey Report will be the basis to add-on and refine questions for the concept of desalination.It was noted that input from focus groups,message testing,and press releases will be incorporated into the District's Updated Survey Report. •The committee requested that staff provide a breakdown of the number of customers from each of the divisions within the District's service area who participated in the survey.The information has been incorporated ln the attached presentation. Upon completion of the discussion,the committee recommended that the survey results be provided to the full Board as an informational item. Otay Water District Desalination Survey Findings ..A substa....In.tial proporti~n of custom~rs feel that the development of desalinated water IS a good way for theD,istnict to service its Icustomers. ~Customers feel that about one-half of the available water supply should be derived from desalination, i'ncluding an ocean water desalination facility in Rosarito Beach,Mexico. ~Customers are determined that the process of desalination not harm the ocean. ~It 'is important that desalination achlieve the objective of reducing our dependence Din imported water. Desalination Survey Findings ~Customers have some concerns about water quality and safety and security of the pipeline in Mexico. ~Customers also show some preference for a United States location instead of Mexico that would bolster the local economy and create U.S.based jobs. ~Especially younger customers,Asians,and African-Americans ~Groups that most notably support a greater percentage of the water supply from desalination are: ~Females ~Middle income customers ~Customers with less than a college degree ~Latinos ~Renters ~Customers who already trust the District to prOVide a sufficient quantity of clean,safe,reliable water at a reasonable price. :.E····················'f····~······,e·····'···················t············~··v····e········M·····.e'·'····"·'···"s····················s.·······a···················Q·e··········s······.·..',I·'C'··I .'.'..,.,I,, '' ,,,", ~Importa,nt and effective messages: ~General messages •"Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis." •"Desalination ensures a reliable,high quality supply of water for the future." ~Specific to Rosanito Beach •"Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the California Department of Public Health." ...Younger customers are more influenced by these messages Ever Used Desalinated Water? 100% 90%- 80% 70% 60% 50%-No,67% 40% 30% 20% 10%- 0% Experience with Desalinated Water Positive or Negative No Difference,46% Positive,53% Negative,1% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Desalination Important to Maintaining Reliable Water Supply 65%.20'10 2009 Very Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not at All Important Don't Know 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Mean Importance Ratings of Characteristics of Desalinated Water (1 =not important at all........7 =highest importance) Reduce dependence on imported water Successfully and extensively used world-wide Soft water Must not harm ocean 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Mean Effectiveness Ratings of Desalination Messages (1 =not at all effective........7 =very effective) Trusted,widely used way to increase water supply Eases potential Costs about the Ensures reliable, effects of water same as imported high quality supply crisis water for future Help region become independent of imported water suppliers 60% 50%- 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pursue International Agreement to Purchase Desalinated Ocean Water from Rosarito Beach Facility .2010 El2006 Favor Not Favor Don't Know Concerns about Location in Mexico,vs.United States 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% •Much More Concerned •Somewhat More Concerned o Same Concern No Matter Location IJ No Concerns atAll No,28% Prefer Desalination Plant in United States Even If 10-15 More Years are Required Don't Know,8% Reasons for Preferring United States Location Do Not Trust Mexico, 17% Help Local Economy, 18% Water Quality,9% America First-- Patriotism,8% Other,21% Jobs for United States, 27% Reliability/Security,6% Local Control,6% Crime in Mexico,2% Environment,2% Other,5% Favor Otay Water District Establishing Independent Water Source Don't Know,11 % No,24% Experienced International Team Increases Confidence Don't Know,11 % 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Effectiveness Ratings for Messages Pertaining to Rosarito Beach (1 =not at all effective........7 =very effective) Close Monitoring by CA Department of Health Operator of Facility is Publicly-traded, Well-established Global Company 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% '10% 0% Opinions about Mean Percentage of Household and Business Water that Should Come from Ocean Water Cesa ination Initial Impression After Desalination Messages From Rosarito Beach Facility Desalinated Water is a Good Way for District to Serve Custorners Don't Know,7% Yes,87% Otay Water District Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey Report Prepared for Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd. Spring Valley, CA 91978 Rea & Parker Research P.O. Box 421079 San Diego, CA 92142 www.rea-parker.com December, 2010 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 ii Table of Contents Page Executive Summary iii Introduction and Methodology 1 Sample 2 Survey Findings 4 Demographics/Respondent Characteristics 4 Use of Desalinated Water 6 General Opinion about Desalinated Water and the 12 Desalination Process Testing of Desalination Messages 13 Issues about the Joint Venture in Mexico and the Rosarito Beach Facility 18 Testing of Rosarito Beach Facility Messages 24 Overall Satisfaction and General Opinion about the Use of Desalinated Water 28 Customer Trust and the Relationship between Trust and Opinion about Desalination 30 Conclusions 36 Appendices 37 Questionnaire 38 Frequencies and Open-Ended Responses 49 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 iii Otay Water District 2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey Executive Summary The Otay Water District elected to conduct a statistically reliable telephone survey among residential customers about the subject of desalinated water and the desalination process. The purpose of the survey was twofold: 1) customers were asked about their opinion about desalinated water as an alternative source of water, and they were asked to test the effectiveness of messages with regard to the ability of the messages to communicate the advantages of desalination; and 2) customers were asked their opinion about a proposed international project that would pipe desalinated water to the Otay Water District from a desalination facility in Rosarito Beach, Baja California Norte, Mexico that would provide the District with an alternative source of water. This survey report has been divided into eight essential information components as follows: • Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics • Use of Desalinated Water • General Opinion about Desalinated Water and the Desalination Process • Testing of Desalination Messages • Issues about the Joint Venture in Mexico and the Rosarito Beach Facility • Testing of Rosarito Beach Facility Messages • Overall Satisfaction and General Opinion about the Use of Desalination Water • Relationship between Trust in the Otay Water District and Opinion about Ocean Water Desalination Use of Desalinated Water • Three-fifths of the customers of the Otay Water District are familiar with the term “desalination.” Among those who said they were familiar with the term, 96 percent correctly indicated that it pertained to removing salts and other impurities from water to make it useable for households. Nearly 90 percent of District customers feel that ocean water desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable and sufficient supply of water for San Diego County and Otay Water District residents. • This relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water supply was also exhibited by the District customers in the 2009 General Survey. • Customers indicated that they do not have very much experience in using desalinated water. About two thirds have never used desalinated water for any purpose to the best of their knowledge. • Among those who have used desalinated water, about three-fifths used it either on-board a ship while serving in the Navy or at a military base. • Over one-half (53 percent) of customers who used desalinated water had a positive experience and 46 percent of customers stated that their use of desalinated water was not different from their use of traditional water sources. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 iv • It is important to note that only 1 percent of customers who used desalinated water had a negative experience. • Well over one-fourth (29 percent) regard taste as the dominant positive characteristic of desalinated water, with another one-fifth (18 percent) touting desalinated water as clean and pure. General Opinions about Desalinated Water and the Desalination Process • Customers accorded the highest importance rating to the concern that the desalination process must not harm the ocean (rating of 6.02 on a 7 point scale). • This concern is closely followed in importance by the notion that desalinated water is an alternative source of water that can reduce dependence on imported water and precipitation (rating of 6.01 on a 7 point scale). • In an initial impression, customers were generally supportive of the notion that desalinated water should become a substantial portion of the District’s water supply. The recommended mean percentage of the total percentage of domestic water supply that should come from ocean water desalination is 48 percent. Testing of Desalination Messages • The message stating “Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis” has the greatest potential to communicate the advantages of desalination (overall rating of 5.94 on a 7 point scale). • This is closely followed by the message that “Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future” (overall rating of 5.85 on a 7 point scale). • The opinion of customers regarding the percentage of water that should come from desalinated water was asked again after the desalination messages were tested. The mean percentage from this second iteration was 51 percent -- consistent with and slightly increased from the initial impression of 48 percent. Issues about the Joint Venture in Mexico and the Rosarito Facility • More than half (54 percent) of the customers favor an international agreement to purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico. This is comparable to the percentage reported in the 2009 General Survey where 58 percent indicated that they favored such a joint venture in Mexico. • Customers are expressing some concern about locating the desalination facility in Mexico rather than in the United States. The most concern is focused on the security and safety of the pipeline (47 percent much more concerned about the location in Mexico and 27 percent somewhat more concerned). • There is also notable concern about the quality of water from the facility located in Mexico (45 percent much more concerned about the Mexico location and 27 percent somewhat more concerned). • Over three-fifths of customers (64 percent) prefer that the desalination project be built in the United States even if it took 10 -15 years or even longer than the Rosarito Beach plant to get the US plant operational. • Customers prefer the location of the desalination plant in the United States for three primary reasons: create jobs for US residents (27 percent), the plant will help stimulate the local economy (18 percent), and there is lack of trust in the Mexican government (17 percent). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 v • Over three-fourths of the customers (77 percent) favor a plan such as this one that would establish an independent water source for the Otay Water District. • Over three-fifths (65 percent) have more confidence in the desalination project because an experienced team of international experts is involved. Testing of Rosarito Beach Facility Messages • It is clear that the most effective message specific to the Rosarito beach facility is that “Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the California Department of Public Health” (rating of 5.70 on a 7 point scale). • Of secondary importance is the message that “The operator of the Rosarito Desalination Facility is a publicly-traded, well-established, global company” (4.81 on a 7 point scale). • After the two messages concerning the Rosarito Beach Facility were tested, customers were then asked to provide their opinion regarding the percentage of water available to the Otay Water District that should come from desalinated water produced at this project. The mean percentage of the water supply that comes from this third iteration is 45 percent – 6 percent lower than the mean percentage reported after testing the 5 desalination messages, but again still quite consistent with the overall pattern of favoring approximately half of the total supply from ocean water desalination. Overall Satisfaction and General Opinion about the Use of Desalinated Water • Customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water service. In fact, 54 percent rate the Otay Water District as either excellent (24 percent) or very good (30 percent). These ratings are consistent with those expressed in the 2009 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey. • Nearly 9 out of 10 customers (87 percent) feel that the development of desalinated water is a good way for the District to serve its customers. This further demonstrates the overall satisfaction with the District and shows confidence in the District’s efforts to find alternative sources of water. Customer Trust and the Relationship between Trust and Opinion about Desalination • Three-fourths of the customers have a substantial amount of trust in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water for its customers (31 percent indicated a great deal of trust and 44 percent a good amount of trust). These ratings are slightly higher than the ratings in the 2008 and 2009 General Surveys. • One half of the District’s customers (49 percent) have either a great deal of trust (17 percent) or a good amount of trust (32 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable prices. These ratings represent a considerable increase in the trust level exhibited in the 2009 General Survey where 39 percent of customers indicated either a great deal of trust (10 percent) or a good amount of trust (29 percent). • These aspects of trust are significantly related to opinions about desalination and the use of ocean water desalination to supplement the District’s supply of water. Those customers who trust the District the most are also much more in favor of desalination in general and for the Rosarito Beach facility, in particular. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 1 Introduction and Methodology In 1956, the Otay Water District was authorized by the State Legislature and gained its entitlement to imported water. Today, the District serves the needs of over 191,500 people by purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Otay Water District takes delivery of the water through several connections to large pipelines owned and operated by the San Diego County Water Authority. Since its inception, the Otay Water District also has collected and reclaimed wastewater generated within the Jamacha Drainage Basin and pumped the reclaimed water south to the Salt Creek Basin where it is used for irrigation and other non-potable uses. The District is considering alternative sources of water in order to reduce its dependence on imported water. To that end, it is seriously considering innovative ways to provide desalinated water to households and businesses in its service area. The desalinated water would comprise a portion of the overall water supply provided by the Otay Water District to its customers. The Otay Water District is considering a partnership with a consortium of international desalination construction companies, operations specialists, and financiers to bring desalinated ocean water to the District. The purpose of this project is to replace and supplement water that is currently purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority, which, in turn, purchases water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The proposed project calls for building a desalination plant in Rosarito Beach, Baja California Norte, Mexico. The plant will be designed to produce 56,000 to 112,000 acre feet of desalinated seawater each year and would serve 112,000 to 224,000 households. It would be built adjacent to the Rosarito Beach Thermoelectric Plant and is scheduled for completion in 2013 or 2014. The desalination plant will be constructed by a company that has built and installed over 40% of all desalination plants in the Middle East. The project will be financed by a European-based bank that is one of the largest and most solvent infrastructure banks in the world. The plant will be operated by a company that has 30 years of experience operating desalination plants and water distribution systems in several Caribbean countries. The water will travel from the Rosarito Beach plant to the international border by way of a 24 mile pipeline. It would continue to travel another 3.2 miles by way of pipeline from the border to a pump station in Otay Mesa. The water would be held in a storage facility, where it would be tested to ensure that it meets or exceeds United States and California standards for water quality. As a first stage in eliciting input from its customers regarding desalination issues in general and the proposed Rosarito Beach facility in particular, two focus groups were conducted in April 2010. The focus Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 2 groups provided valuable information about customer opinions and perceptions regarding these desalination issues. This information was used in the development of a formal, statistically reliable telephone survey among the residential customers of the Otay Water District. The purpose of this survey was to obtain data in the following areas of interest: • Customers’ knowledge of desalination • Customers’ experience (if any) using desalinated water • Perceived advantages and disadvantages of desalinated water • Relative importance of characteristics of desalinated water to customers • Issues and concerns about the proposed Rosarito Beach facility • Opinions about the effectiveness of certain test messages designed to communicate desalination issues to customers of the Otay Water District. • Opinions regarding the effectiveness of certain test messages designed to inform customers about the Rosarito Beach project and to demonstrate that this joint venture is a reasonable way to expand the water supply • Perceptions concerning the percentage of the Otay Water Districts’ water supply that should come from desalinated water and from the Rosarito Beach facility • Perceptions of confidence and trust in the Otay Water District and the relationship between that trust and opinions about desalinated water Beyond these primary survey objectives, other purposes of the survey are as follows: • O b t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c d a t a a b o u t t h e p o p u l a t i o n f o r u s e i n d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s a n d c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s o f d a t a t h a t c a n r e s u l t i n n e w , o p t i m a l l y t a r g e t e d a n d t a i l o r e d p u b l i c a w a r e n e s s p r o g r a m s . • C o m p a r e t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s u r v e y w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t i n previous years where the comparisons are appropriate and relevant. Rea & Parker Research was selected to conduct this study. Sample: The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 401 respondents in order to secure a margin of error not to exceed +/-4.9 percent @ 95 percent confidence. This figure represents the widest interval that occurs when the survey question represents an approximate 50 percent-50 percent proportion of the sample. When it is not 50 percent-50 percent, the interval is somewhat smaller. For example, in the survey findings that follow, 77.0 percent of respondent households favor the Otay Water District establishing an independent water source. This means that there is a 95 percent chance that the Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 3 true proportion of the total population of the District’s service area that favors an independent water source is between 72.1 percent and 81.9 percent (77.0 percent +/- 4.9 percent). Survey respondents were screened to exclude those who have not been customers of the Otay Water District for at least one year. When respondents asked about who was sponsoring the survey, they were told “this project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and it is about issues related to the water supply in the San Diego County region.” This information was provided to 57 percent of the respondents. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish. Spanish language respondents comprised slightly more than 1 percent of the survey population. The distribution of respondents according to gender was 54 percent male and 46 percent female. The survey was conducted from November 11, 2010 to November 22, 2010. Cooperation/participation among eligible respondents who were actually contacted was 73.6 percent (Table 1). The survey instrument is provided in the Appendix. Table 1 Otay Water District 2010 Desalination Survey Telephone Call Disposition Report Unknown Eligibility No Answer 584 Busy 36 Answering Machine 1425 Not Home—Call Back 439 Language Barrier 53 Total Unknown 2537 Ineligible NQ <1 year 1 Disconnect 361 Refusal 144 Fax/Wrong Number 146 Total Ineligible 652 Eligible Complete 401 Total Attempts 3,590 Cooperation Rate (Complete/(Complete + Refusal)) 73.6% This report is divided into eight essential information components as follows: Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 4 • Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics • Use of Desalinated Water • General Opinion about Desalinated Water and the Desalination Process • Testing of Desalination Messages • Issues about the Joint Venture in Mexico and the Rosarito Facility • Testing of Rosarito Beach Facility Messages • Overall Satisfaction and General Opinion about the Use of Desalinated Water • Customer Trust and the Relationship between Trust and Opinion about Desalination Each section of the report begins with a very brief abstract, or summary of highlights within the ensuing section, in order to orient the reader to what is to follow. Charts have been prepared for each of these major components depicting the basic survey results. Subgroup analyses for different age groups, various levels of education, gender, home ownership/rental status, household size, residential tenure in the community, different income categories, and ethnicity of residents of the service area are presented in succinct bulleted format when statistical significance and relevance warrants such treatment. Frequency distributions as well as lists of open-ended responses to survey questions are contained in the Appendices. Survey Findings Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics Table 2 presents selected demographic and sampling characteristics of the survey respondents. Respondents are predominantly White (44 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (29 percent) and earn an annual median household income of $85,600 (36 percent earning $100,000 or more and 10 percent earning under $25,000). They have a median age of 53 years and have been customers of the Otay Water District for a median of 9 years. Among these respondents, 58 percent possess a Bachelor’s degree or more, with 12 percent having a high school education or less. Survey respondents are largely homeowners (85 percent) with a mean household size of 3.67. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 5 Table 2 Respondent Characteristics Characteristic 2010 2009 2008 2006 2005 Ethnicity White 44% 55% 52% 55% 54% Hispanic/Latino 29% 28% 30% 29% 24% Asian/Pacific Islander 15% 8% 8% 9% 15% Black/African- American 8% 6% 6% 6% 5% Native American/Other 4% 3% 4% 1% 2% Annual Household Income Median $85,600 $75,700 $83,500 $77,500 $85,000 % over $100,000 36% 26% 30% 33% 34% % under $25,000 10% 8% 5% 6% 2% Age Median 53 years 53 years 47 years 49 years 47 years Years Customer of Otay Water District Median 9 years 12 years 8 years 10 years -- Education High School or Less 12% 17% 22% 22% 14% At Least One Year College, Trade, Vocational School 30% 32% 28% 24% 33% Bachelor’s Degree 41% 39% 33% 35% 25% At Least One Year of Graduate Work 17% 12% 17% 19% 28% Own/Rent Home Owner 85% 91% 88% 90% 92% Renter 15% 9% 12% 10% 8% Persons Per Household Mean 3.67 3.28 2.88 3.27 3.43 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 6 Respondent characteristics for the Customer Satisfaction surveys conducted in 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009 differ from the 2010 respondent characteristics in the current survey in the following fundamental ways: • Since 2006, the White population has declined and the Asian/Pacific Islander population has increased. • The median incomes in 2010 (current survey), 2005 and 2008 are similar but the median income levels are lower in the 2006 and 2009 surveys. • The median age of customers has shown a slight upward trend over the years. • The percentage of households earning an annual income over $100,000 was 36 percent in 2010 compared to 26 percent in 2009 and 30 percent in 2008. • Education level has increased, with 58 percent of respondents having a Bachelor’s Degree or higher in contrast to earlier years that ranged from 50-to-54 percent. • The average household size in 2010 is higher than the average household sizes in all previous survey periods -- 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009. Use of Desalinated Water SUMMARY: Three-fifths of the customers of the Otay Water District are familiar with the term “desalination.” Among those who said they were familiar with the term, 96 percent correctly indicated that it pertained to removing salts and other impurities from water to make it useable for households. Nearly 90 percent of District customers feel that ocean water desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable and sufficient supply of water for San Diego County and Otay Water District residents. Customers indicated that they do not have very much experience in using desalinated water. About two thirds have never used desalinated water for any purpose to the best of their knowledge. Among those who have used desalinated water, about three-fifths used it either on-board a ship while serving in the Navy or at a military base. Over one-half (53 percent) of customers who used desalinated water had a positive experience and 46 percent of customers stated that their use of desalinated water was not different from their use of traditional water sources. It is important to note that only 1 percent of customers who used desalinated water had a negative experience. Well over one-fourth (29 percent) regard taste as the dominant positive characteristic of desalinated water, with another one-fifth (18 percent) touting desalinated water as clean and pure. Chart 1 shows that 60 percent of the customers of the Otay Water District are familiar with the term “desalination.” Among those who said they were familiar with the term, 96 percent correctly indicated that it pertained to removing salts and other impurities from water to make it useable for households. Others incorrectly thought that the term “desalination” refers to the softening of the water, removing contaminants for drinking and other uses, and chemical purification to potable water. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 7 The following subgroups tend to be familiar with the term “desalination.” • Older customers are more familiar with the term “desalination” than are younger customers (age 45 and over – 70 percent; age 34 and under – 34 percent). • Familiarity with the term increases with education (high school graduate or less – 38 percent; some graduate work – 74 percent). • Males (74 percent) are more familiar with the term than are females (43 percent). • Whites (73 percent) are more familiar with the term than are Latinos (54 percent), Asians (45 percent), and African-Americans (31 percent). • Familiarity with the term increases with income (under $25,000 – 29 percent; $150,000 or more – 74 percent). • Homeowners (64 percent) are more familiar with the term than are renters (40 percent). • Smaller households are more familiar with the term than are larger households (1-2 persons – 71 percent versus 5 or more persons – 51 percent). • Longer term customers of the Otay Water District are more familiar with the term than are newer customers (customers of 10 years or more – 70 percent; customers of fewer than 10 years – 50 percent). Chart 1 Familiar with Term "Desalination" Yes , 60% No (including Don't Know), 40% 96% of those who indicated that they were familiar with the term "desalination" correctly indicated that it pertained to removing salts and other impurities from water to make it useable for households. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 8 Chart 2 indicates that a considerable proportion of District customers (88 percent) feel that ocean water desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable and sufficient supply of water for San Diego County residents (52 percent – very important and 36 percent – somewhat important). This relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water supply was also exhibited by the District customers in the 2009 General Survey (86 percent). • Customers who have used desalinated water previously feel that ocean water desalination is very imp ortant to maintaining a reliable and sufficient supply of water for San Diego County residents more so than do those who have not used desalinated water (68 percent – users; 47 percent – non-users). 52% 65% 36% 21% 4%3%3%3%5%8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Very Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not at All Important Don't Know Chart 2 Desalination Important to Maintaining Reliable Water Supply 2010 2009 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 9 Customers indicated that they do not have very much experience in using desalinated water. For example, about two thirds (67 percent) have never used desalinated water for any purpose to the best of their knowledge (Chart 3). Among those who have used desalinated water, over three-fifths (61 percent) used it either on-board a ship while serving in the Navy (57 percent) or at a military base (4 percent). Another 13 percent have used desalinated water in other countries and 9 percent on a cruise ship (Chart 4). The following subgroups are more likely to have used desalinated water: • More educated customers are more likely to have used desalinated water than are lesser educated customers (at least one year of graduate school – 42 percent and college graduates – 30 percent versus less than a college graduate -- 23 percent). • Males (44 percent) are more likely to have used desalinated water than have females (9 percent). • Higher income customers are more likely to have used desalinated water than are lower income customers ($100,000 or more – 37 percent and $50,000 and under $100,000 – 28 percent versus under $50,000 --11 percent). Don't Know, 7% No, 67% Yes, 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Chart 3 Ever Used Desalinated Water? Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 10 57% 13% 9% 4% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% On-board Ship in Navy Other Country Cruise Ship Military Base Other Chart 4 Where Used Desalinated Water Middle East, Caribbean, Baja California At resort, At home Chart 5 shows that over one-half (53 percent) of customers who have used desalinated water had a positive experience and 46 percent of customers stated that their use of desalinated water was not different from their use of traditional water sources. It is important to note that only 1 percent of customers who have used desalinated water had a negative experience. It is indicated in Chart 6 that well over one-fourth (29 percent) regard taste as a positive characteristic of desalinated water, followed by 18 percent who indicate that desalinated water is clean and pure. Others noted that desalinated water is plentiful (13 percent) and drinkable (11 percent). One fifth of those who have used desalinated water made general positive comments about desalinated water that revolve around the notion that it is not noticeably different from traditional water and that it has widespread use from cleaning and washing to drinking. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 11 Chart 5 Experience with Desalinated Water Positive or Negative Positive , 53% No Difference, 46% Negative, 1% 20% 2% 2% 5% 11% 13% 18% 29% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Taste Clean/Pure Plentiful Drinkable Low Cost Soft Better for Environment General Positive Remarks Chart 6 Positive Characteristics of Desalinated Water General remarks were mostly that the water was not noticably different or that it was useable Only one negative remark: taste Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 12 General Opinions about Desalinated Water and the Desalination Process SUMMARY: Among various characteristics of ocean water desalination, on a 7 point scale where 1 is not at all important and 7 is of the highest importance, customers accorded the highest importance rating of characteristics to the concern that the desalination process must not harm the ocean (rating of 6.02). This concern is closely followed in importance by the notion that desalinated water is an alternative source of water that can reduce dependence on imported water and precipitation (rating of 6.01). Older, more educated customers with some desalinated water experience find these characteristics to be of particular importance In an initial impression, customers were supportive of the notion that desalinated water should become a substantial portion of the District’s water supply. The recommended mean percentage of the total domestic water supply that should come from ocean water desalination was 48 percent. Customers rated characteristics of desalinated water on a 7 point scale where 1 is not at all important and 7 is of the highest importance. According to Chart 7, the highest rating is associated with the concern that the desalination process must not harm the ocean (mean rating of 6.02 with 75 percent indicating a rating of 6 or 7). This concern is closely followed in ranking by the notion that desalinated water is an alternative source of water that can reduce dependence on imported water and precipitation (mean rating of 6.01 with 72 percent indicating a rating of 6 or 7). Customers are somewhat impressed that desalinated water is used extensively in other parts of the world (mean rating of 5.51 with 57 percent indicating a rating of 6 or 7.) Respondents are least influenced by desalinated water being soft water that eliminates the need for water softening measures (mean rating of 5.15 with 48 percent indicating a rating of 6 or 7). It is noteworthy that each of these mean ratings is well above the scale midpoint of 4.0 demonstrating a good deal of importance pertaining to desalination issues. The following customer subgroups find certain characteristics of desalinated water to be particularly important. Mean importance ratings are on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = not at all important and 7 = highest importance. The pattern is clear that older, educated customers with some desalinated water experience find these characteristics to be of particular importance. Desalinated water reduces dependence on imported water  Older customers (6.36 – 65 and over)  More educated customers (6.22 – at least one year of graduate school).  Higher income customers (6.34 -- $150,000 and over).  Customers who have used desalinated water (6.26). Desalinated water is extensively used in other parts of the world.  Customers with a higher level of education (5.62 – college graduates and 5.61 -- at least one year of graduate school).  Asians (5.90. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 13  Customers who have used desalinated water (5.89). Desalinated water is soft water and eliminates the need for water softeners.  Customers with a higher level of education (5.45 – college graduates)  Asians (6.04), Blacks (5.63), and Latinos (5.24) regard water softening as more important than Whites (4.61).  Customers who have used desalinated water (5.43). The desalination process must not harm the ocean.  Females are more concerned than males about the ocean (6.30 – females; 5.79 –males). Chart 8 shows customers’ initial impression of a reasonable goal for the percentage of water used in the homes and businesses of the Otay Water District that should come from desalinated water. Customers are generally supportive of the notion that desalinated water should become a substantial portion of the District’s water supply. The recommended mean percentage is 48 percent with 29 percent indicating a range of 61 to 100 percent. About one fifth (22 percent) feel that less than 20 percent of the overall water supply should come from desalinated water. The following subgroups prefer to have a relatively substantial percentage of the total water supply derive from desalinated sources (preferences reflect initial impressions). • Middle income customers prefer that a greater percentage of the water supply come from desalinated sources more so than do lower income customers (53.1 percent -- $50,000-$75,000 and 51.3 percent -- $25,000 - $50,000 versus 34.8 percent – under $25,000). • Customers who are not familiar with the term “desalination” tend to prefer that a greater percentage of the water supply derive from desalinated sources than do those who are familiar with the term (52.5 percent—not-familiar; 44.5 percent – familiar). This would imply that there is potential support for desalination among customers who are relatively new to the concept. Testing of Desalination Messages SUMMARY: Based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = not at all effective and 7 = very effective, customers feel that the message stating “Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis” has the greatest potential to communicate the advantages of desalination (overall rating of 5.94). This is closely followed by the message that “Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future (overall rating of 5.85). The opinion of customers regarding the percentage of water that should come from desalinated water was asked again after the desalination messages were tested. The mean percentage from this second iteration – 51 percent -- is slightly higher and generally consistent with the initial impression of 48 percent). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 14 6.01 5.51 5.15 6.02 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Reduce dependence on imported water Successfully and extensively used world-wide Soft water Must not harm ocean Chart 7 Mean Importance Ratings of Characteristics of Desalinated Water (1 = not important at all……..7 = highest importance) 6-7 = 72%6-7 = 57% 6-7 = 48% 6-7 = 75% 22% 21% 28% 17% 12% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30% 20% or less 21%-40% 41%-60% 61%-80% 81%-100% Chart 8 Initial Impression of Percentage of Household and Business Water that Should Come from Desalination (mean = 48%) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 15 Chart 9 indicates the customer ratings of 5 messages that are designed to communicate the advantages of seawater desalination. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all effective and 7 is very effective. Customers feel that the message stating “Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis” has the greatest potential to communicate the advantages of desalination (overall rating of 5.94 with 71 percent indicating a 6 or 7). This is closely followed by the message that “Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future (overall rating of 5.85 with 67 percent indicating a 6 or 7). Customers regard the message that “The cost of desalinated water will be about the same as imported water (overall rating of 5.23 with 67 percent indicating a 6 or 7) as least effective among the 5 test messages. It is noteworthy that customers view all 5 messages as effective with all mean ratings well above the midpoint of 4. The characteristics of the customers that regard each desalination message as effective in communicating the advantages of seawater desalination are summarized below. • Desalination is a trusted, widely used way to increase water supply. o Older customers regard this message as particularly important (5.98 – 65 and over versus 4.63 – 18-24). o The newest customers as well as the longest term customers find this message effective (5.99 – 15 or more years as customer and 5.81 – 1-4 years as customer). o Asians (6.12) find this message most effective. o Customers who have used desalinated water (5.94). • Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis. o Newer customers find this message effective more so than do longer term customers (6.16 – 1-4 years as customer; 5.65 – 10-14 years as customer). • The cost of desalinated water will be about the same as imported water. o Newer customers find this message effective more so than do longer term customers (6.16 – 1-4 years as customer; 5.65 – 10-14 years as customer). • Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future. o Customers with higher levels of education feel that this message is particularly effective (5.93 – college graduates and 5.99 -- at least one year of college). o Newer customers find this message effective more so than do longer term customers (6.06 – 1-4 years as customer; 5.62 – 10-14 years as customer). Chart 10 again reports the opinion of customers regarding the percentage of water that should come from desalinated water. Customers responded to this inquiry just after they rated the 5 desalinated messages. The mean percentage from this second iteration – 51 -- percent is slightly higher but generally consistent Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 16 with the initial impression (mean of 48 percent). Also, over one-third (34 percent) indicate a percentage range of 61 – 100 percent – about 5 percent higher than demonstrated in the initial impression. The following subgroups prefer to have a relatively substantial percentage of the total water supply derive from desalinated sources (preferences expressed after testing desalination messages). In general, percentages are lower for better educated and more knowledgeable groups. • Females (54.4 percent) prefer that a greater percentage of water come from desalinated sources more so than do males (47.9 percent). • Middle income customers would like to have a greater percentage of the overall water supply derive from desalinated sources than do younger customers (58.3 percent –versus those with incomes under $25,000 = 41.0 percent) • Customers with somewhat less education prefer that a higher percentage of water come from desalinated sources than do customers with more education (55.3 percent – at least one year of college; 45.4 percent – at least one year of graduate work). • Renters (61.6 percent) prefer that a greater percentage of water be represented by desalinated sources than do owners (40.1 percent). • Customers who are not familiar with the term “desalination” would like to see a greater percentage of water come from desalination sources more so than those who are familiar with the term (57.7 percent – not familiar; 46.6 – familiar). The following customer subgroups exhibit significant changes (from initial impression to opinion after hearing desalination messages) in their assessment of the percentage of the water supply that should come from desalinated sources. • Younger customers exhibit a greater change in percentage points from initial impression to opinion after desalination messages than do older customers (change of +13.57 percentage points – 18-24 years of age, change of +5.61 percentage points – 25–34 years of age, and change of +5.34 percentage points – 55-64 years of age versus -2.13 percentage points – 65 and over. • Both the largest and smallest household sizes exhibit a smaller change in percentage points than do medium household sizes. For example, there is a change of +.38 percentage points for household sizes of 1-2 persons and a change of +1.52 percentage points for household sizes of 5 or more. This contrasts with a change of +6.47 percentage points for household sizes of 3-4 persons. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 17 5.62 5.94 5.23 5.85 5.73 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Trusted, widely used way to increase water supply Eases potential effects of water crisis Costs about the same as imported water Ensures reliable, high quality supply for future Help region become independent of imported water suppliers Chart 9 Mean Effectiveness Ratings of Desalination Messages (1 = not at all effective……..7 = very effective) 6-7 = 60% 6-7 = 71% 6-7 = 52%6-7 = 67% 6-7 = 64% 19% 20% 27% 19% 15% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30% 20% or less 21%-40% 41%-60% 61%-80% 81%-100% Chart 10 After Hearing Desalination Messages: Percentage of Household and Business Water that Should Come from Desalinated Water (mean = 51%) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 18 Issues about the Joint Venture in Mexico and the Rosarito Facility SUMMARY: More than half (54 percent) of the customers favor an international agreement to purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility. This is comparable to the percentage reported in the 2009 General Survey where 58 percent indicated that they favored such a joint venture in Mexico. Customers are expressing some concerns, however, about locating the desalination facility in Mexico rather than in the United States. The greatest amount of concern is focused on the security and safety of the pipeline (47 percent much more concerned about the location in Mexico versus locating it in the United States and 27 percent somewhat more concerned). There is also notable concern about the quality of water from the facility located in Mexico (45 percent much more concerned about the Mexico location and 27 percent somewhat more concerned). Over three-fifths of customers (64 percent) prefer that the desalination project be built in the United States even if it took 10 -15 years or even longer than the Rosarito Beach plant to get the US plant operational. Customers prefer the location of the desalination plant in the United States for three primary reasons: create jobs for US residents (27 percent), the plant will help stimulate the local economy (18 percent), and there is lack of trust in the Mexican government (17 percent). Over three-fourths of the customers (77 percent) do favor the aspect of this plan that would establish an independent water source for the Otay Water District, and over three-fifths (65 percent) have more confidence in the desalination project given the experienced team of international experts involved. Chart 11 shows that more than half (54 percent) of District customers favor an international agreement to purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico. This is comparable to the percentage reported in the 2009 General Survey where 58 percent indicated that they favored such a joint venture in Mexico. Both of these percentages well exceed the percentage recorded in the 2006 General Survey where 45 percent felt that such a joint venture in Mexico was a good idea. Chart 12 exhibits the concern that District customers are expressing about locating the desalination facility in Mexico rather than in the United States. The greatest degree of concern is focused on the security and safety of the pipeline (47 percent much more concerned about the location in Mexico than in the United States and 27 percent somewhat more concerned). There is also notable concern about the quality of water from the facility to be located in Mexico (45 percent much more concerned about the Mexico location and 27 percent somewhat more concerned). Lesser levels of concern are expressed about the reliability of water deliveries from Mexico and environmental/ecological impacts that could result from a location in Mexico. However, these issues still merit consideration since over three-fifths of District customers voice either much more concern or somewhat more concern about these issues regarding the Mexico location. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 19 54% 45% 34% 42% 12%13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Favor Not Favor Don't Know Chart 11 Pursue International Agreement to Purchase Desalinated Ocean Water from Rosarito Beach Facility 2010 2006 2009: Only those 86% who thought that desalinated water was important were asked this question. Results were 59% in favor, 35% not in for and 6% unsure. In 2010 and 2006, all respondents were asked this question. Screening 2010 only for 88% who thought that desalinated water is important, these percentages that are comparable to 2009 become 58% in favor, 30% not in favor and 12% unsure The following customer subgroups exhibit significant relationships regarding their concern about the location of the proposed desalination plant in Rosarito Beach. These subgroups are organized according to four specific characteristics/possible concerns of the plant/project. The mean concern ratings are based upon a four point scale where 1 = no concerns at all and 4 = much more concerned. • Quality of the water  Females are more concerned about the quality of the water (3.22 – females; 2.74 – males).  Younger customers are more concerned about the quality of the water (3.26 – 25-34 years of age versus 2.74 – 65 and over).  Lower income customers are more concerned than middle-to-higher income customers (3.00 -- $25,000 - $50,000 versus 2.68 -- $75,000 - $100,000).  Customers who are not familiar with the term “desalination” have more concern (3.14 –not familiar; 2.58 – familiar).  Customers who have not used desalinated water are more concerned (mean of 3.06 – non- user; mean of 2.80 – users). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 20 • Safety and security of the pipeline • Females (3.22) are more concerned about the safety of the pipeline than are males (2.84). • Reliability of Water Deliveries  Females (3.00) are more concerned about the reliability of water deliveries than are males (2.68). • Environment/ecological impacts  Middle-aged customers are more concerned about the environment and ecological impacts than are older customers (2.88 -- 45 -54 and 2.83 – 55-64 versus 2.38 – 65 and over).  Asians (3.13) are more concerned about ecological impacts than are Whites (2.51).  Customers with lower income levels are more concerned about the environmental impacts than are customers with higher income levels (3.05 -- $25,000 to $50,000 and 2.83 -- $50,000 to $75,000 versus 2.37 -- $100,000 to $150,000).  Longer term customers of the Otay Water District are more concerned about ecological impacts than are newer customers (2.96 – customers of 10-14 years versus 2.57 – customers of 5-9 years). 47% 21% 14% 18% 45% 27% 12% 16% 38% 27% 15% 20% 35% 26% 17% 22% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Qualit y o f W a t e r Safet y a n d S e c u r i t y o f P i p e l i n e Relia b i l i t y o f W a t e r D e l i v e r i e s Envir o n m e n t a l / E c o l o g i c a l I m p a c t s Chart 12 Concerns about Location in Mexico vs. United States Much More Concerned Somewhat More Concerned Same Concern No Matter Location No Concerns at All Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 21 Chart 13 indicates that over three-fifths of customers (64 percent) prefer that the desalination project be built in the United States even if it took 10 -15 years or even longer than the Rosarito Beach plant to get the US plant operational. Customers prefer the location of the desalination plant in the United States for three primary reasons: create jobs for US residents (27 percent), the plant will help stimulate the local economy (18 percent), and there is lack of trust in the Mexican government (17 percent) (Chart 14). Chart 13 Prefer Desalination Plant in United States Even If 10-15 More Years are Required Yes, 64% No, 28% Don't Know, 8% Chart 15 shows that over three-fourths of the customers (77 percent) favor this planned establishment of an independent water source for the Otay Water District. The following subgroups prefer that the plant be built in the United States as opposed to Mexico. • Younger customers (25-34 – 79 percent versus 65 and over -- 46 percent) • Asians (95 percent) and Blacks (79 percent) versus Latinos (59 percent) and Whites (53 percent). • Customers not familiar with the term “desalination” (70 percent) versus those who are familiar with the term (61 percent). • Customers who have used desalinated water in the Navy or on a military base (80 percent) as opposed to those who have used desalinated water in various other places (54 percent) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 22 The following subgroups encourage the Otay Water District to establish a source of water for its customers that is independent of the other agencies in the region. • Younger customers versus older customers (under 65 – 80 percent; 65 and over – 61 percent). Chart 14 Reasons for Preferring United States Location Jobs for United States, 27% Help Local Economy, 18% Do Not Trust Mexico, 17% Water Quality, 9% Reliability/Security, 6% Local Control, 6% Crime in Mexico, 2% Environment, 2% Other, 5% Other, 21% America First-- Patriotism, 8% Chart 16 shows that over three-fifths (65 percent) have more confidence in the desalination project with the experienced team of international experts involved. • Younger customers are more likely to have confidence in the Rosarito Project than are older customers with the involvement of the experienced team of international experts (under 35 years – 77 percent versus 35 – 64 years – 66 percent and 65 and over – 57 percent). • Latinos (77 percent) are most likely to feel confident with the presence of the international team, followed by Blacks (69 percent), and Whites and Asians (each 62 percent). • Renters (81 percent) versus owners (63 percent). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 23 Chart 15 Favor Otay Water District Establishing Independent Water Source Yes, 77% No, 12% Don't Know, 11% Chart 16 Experienced International Team Increases Confidence Yes, 65% No, 24% Don't Know, 11% Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 24 Testing Messages about the Rosarito Beach Facility SUMMARY: Two messages were tested concerning their ability to communicate effectively the advantages of the Rosarito Beach ocean water desalination facility to provide an alternative water source. The customer ratings of these messages are based upon a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all effective and 7 is very effective. It is clear that the more effective message is that “Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the California Department of Public Health” (rating of 5.70). Of secondary importance is the message that “The operator of the Rosarito Desalination Facility is a publicly-traded, well-established, global company” (4.81). After the two messages concerning the Rosarito Beach Facility were tested, customers were then asked to provide their opinion, once again, regarding the percentage of water available to the Otay Water District that should come from desalinated water produced at this project. Knowledge about the proposed desalination project in Mexico did not induce customers to change their opinion very much about the percentage of available water that should come from desalinated water at the Rosarito Facility. Specifically, the mean percentage of the water supply that comes from this third iteration is 45 percent – 6 percent lower than the mean percentage reported after the testing of the 5 desalination messages and 3 percent lower than the initial opinion—all three iterations indicate support for approximately one-half of the District’s water supply to come from the Rosarito beach desalination project. The District tested two messages that are being considered in an effort to inform its customers about the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility and to inform its customers that the construction and operation of the Rosarito Beach desalination project is a reasonable way to expand the water supply. Chart 17 displays the customer ratings of the two tested messages in terms of their ability to communicate effectively – ratings based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all effective and 7 is very effective. It is clear that the message that is rated as most effective is that “Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the California Department of Public Health” (a rating of 5.70 with 67 percent indicating a score of 6 or 7). Of secondary importance is the message that “The operator of the Rosarito Desalination Facility is a publicly-traded, well-established, global company” (a rating of 4.81 with 42 percent indicating a score of 6 or 7). The following subgroups find the Rosarito Beach messages particularly effective. The ratings are on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 = not at all effective and 7 = very effective. Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the California Department of Public Health.  Newer customers of the Otay Water District find this message more effective than longer term customers (5.92 – customers of 1-4 years; 5.39 – customers of 10-14 years).  Customers who have not used desalinated water find this more effective than customers who have used desalinated water (5.83 – non-user; 5.36 – user). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 25 The operator of the Rosarito Desalination facility is a publicly-traded, well-established, global company.  Whites (4.98) and Latinos (5.18) find this message more effective than do Asians (4.30).  Longer term customers of the District find this message more effective than do newer customers (5.67 – customers of 15 or more years and 5.39 – customers of 10-14 years versus 5.22 -- 5-9 years and 5.09 – 1-4 years.)  Customers who have not used desalinated water find this message more effective than those who have (5.01 – non-users; 4.48 – users). 5.70 4.81 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Close Monitoring by CA Department of Health Operator of Facility is Publicly-traded, Well-established Global Company Chart 17 Effectiveness Ratings for Messages Pertaining to Rosarito Beach (1 = not at all effective……..7 = very effective) 6-7 = 42% 6-7 = 67% After the two messages concerning the Rosarito Beach Facility were tested, customers were then asked to provide their opinion of the percentage of water available to the Otay Water District that should come from desalinated water produced at this project (Chart 18). Also, 27 percent indicate a percentage range of 61 – 100 percent –5 percent lower than demonstrated in the impression after the second iteration Knowledge about the proposed desalination project in Mexico is does not alter the findings from the previous iterations of this question much at all. Specifically, the mean percentage of the water supply that comes from this third iteration is 45 percent – 6 percent lower than the mean percentage reported after the testing of the 5 desalination messages and 3 percent lower than the first iteration; however, all three indicate that approximately one-half of the Otay Water District water supply should come from this facility (Chart 19). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 26 26% 17% 30% 15% 12% 0%5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 20% or less 21%-40% 41%-60% 61%-80% 81%-100% Chart 18 Percentage of Household and Business Water that Should Come from Desalinated Water from Rosarito Beach Facility (mean = 45%) The following subgroups prefer to have a relatively substantial percentage of the total water supply derive from the Rosarito Beach facility. • Latinos (52.4 percent) prefer that a greater percentage of the water supply derive from desalinated water produced at the proposed Rosarito facility more so than do Whites (43.0 percent). • Middle income customers prefer that a greater percentage of water come from Rosarito Beach than do lower income customers (50.7 percent -- $50,000 - $75,000 and 50.2 percent -- $25,000 - $50,000 versus 32.1 percent – under $25,000). • Renters (54.0 percent) tend to prefer a greater percentage of water to come from Rosarito Beach than do owners (44.1 percent). • The newer customers (50.2 percent – customers from 1-4 years) and the longest term customers (52.5 percent – customers for 15 or more years) prefer that a greater percentage of water come from Rosarito Beach than do customers of 10-14 years (38.8 percent). • Customers who are not familiar with the term “desalination” prefer a greater proportion of water to derive from Rosarito Beach than do those who are familiar with the term (51.2 percent – not- familiar; 41.9 percent – familiar). The following customer subgroups exhibit significant changes (from opinions after hearing desalination messages to opinions after hearing Rosarito Beach project messages) in their assessment of the percentage of the water supply that should come from desalinated sources. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 27 • Older residents exhibit a positive change in percentage points while middle-aged customers exhibit negative changes in percentage points (change of +1.21 percentage points – 65 and over versus a change in percentage points of -10.37 – 55-64 years of age and a change of -7.61 percentage points – 45-54 years of age. • Asians (-11.78 percentage point change) show a greater change (decline) in opinion than Whites (-3.41 percent change). • The longest term customers of the District exhibit a smaller change in percentage points than do those who have been customers for a shorter period of time (a change of -0.11 percentage points – customers of 15 or more years versus a change of -8.09 percentage points – customers for 10-14 years). The following customer subgroups exhibit significant changes (from initial impression to opinion after hearing Rosarito Beach project messages) in their assessment of the percentage of the water supply that should come from desalinated sources. • Latinos show a positive change in percentage points (+3.18 percent) while Asians show a negative change (-5.69 percentage points). • Smaller household sizes show a positive change in percentage points while larger household sizes show a negative change (change of +2.15 percentage points – household sizes of 3-4 persons versus change of -4.67 – household sizes of 5 or more). • The newest customers in the District as well as the longest term customers exhibit a positive change in percentage points while others exhibit a negative change (change of +2.95 – customers of 1-4 years and a change of +2.05 – customers of 15 or more years versus a change of -5.80 percentage points for customers of 10-14 years.) 48% 51% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Initial Impression After Desalination Messages From Rosarito Beach Facility Chart 19 Opinions about Mean Percentage of Household and Business Water that Should Come from Ocean Water Desalination Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 28 Overall Satisfaction and General Opinion about the Use of Desalinated Water SUMMARY: Customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water service. In fact, 54 percent rate the Otay Water District as either excellent (24 percent) or very good (30 percent). These ratings are consistent with those expressed in the 2009 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey. Nearly 9 out of 10 customers (87 percent) feel that the development of desalinated water is a good way for the District to serve its customers. This further demonstrates the overall satisfaction with the District and shows confidence in the District’s efforts to find alternative sources of water. Chart 20 shows that customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water service. In fact, 54 percent rate the Otay Water District as either excellent (24 percent) or very good (30 percent). These ratings are consistent with those expressed in the 2009 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey. However, both the current survey and the 2009 survey demonstrate a slight decline in the level of confidence from the 2006 and 2008 surveys. For example, in 2008, 63 percent of customers rated the Otay Water District as either excellent or very good. It is indeed quite possible that customers are still responding to the increase in water rates and/or restrictions in water use. • Lower income customers tend to express a decreased level of satisfaction with the Otay Water District as a water service provider than do all other customers(3.88 for those earning less than $25,000 per year versus 4.50 -- $150,000 and over, 4.62 -- $100,000 - $150,000, 4.80 -- $75,000 -$100,000, and 4.75 -- $50,000 - $75,000. The ratings are based on a 6 point scale where 1 = very poor and 6 = excellent). Nearly 9 out of 10 customers (87 percent) feel that the development of desalinated water is a good way for the District to serve its customers. This further demonstrates the overall satisfaction with the District and shows confidence in the District’s efforts to find alternative sources of water (Chart 21). The following subgroups feel that having desalinated water as a portion of the water supply provided by the Otay Water District is a good way for the District to serve its customers. • Customers who earn $50,000 or more (96 percent) versus those who earn under $50,000 (82 percent). • Customers with household sizes of 5 or more (99 percent) as opposed to all other household sizes (91 percent). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 29 2%2% 11% 31% 30% 24% 1%2% 9% 32% 39% 17% 1%1%5% 30% 37% 26% 0%2%8% 25% 38% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 2009 2008 2006 Chart 20 Overall Satisfaction with Otay Water District as Water Service Provider Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Chart 21 Desalinated Water is a Good Way for District to Serve Customers Yes, 87% No, 6% Don't Know, 7% Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 30 Customer Trust and the Relationship between Trust and Opinion about Desalination SUMMARY: Three-fourths of the customers have a substantial amount of trust in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water for its customers (31 percent indicated a great deal of trust and 44 percent a good amount of trust). These ratings are slightly higher than the ratings in the 2008 and 2009 General Surveys. One half of the District’s customers (49 percent) have either a great deal of trust (17 percent) or a good amount of trust (32 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable prices. These ratings represent a considerable increase in the trust level exhibited in the 2009 General Survey where 39 percent of customers indicated either a great deal of trust (10 percent) or a good amount of trust (29 percent). The 2009 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey demonstrated a significant relationship between the importance of desalination for maintaining a reliable water supply and confidence and trust in the ability of the District to provide a clean, safe water supply as well as the ability to obtain water at a reasonable price. The District decided to pursue this relationship more fully in the current 2010 Desalination survey. This section of the report pursues the relationship between customer trust in the District providing clean, safe water at a reasonable price and the importance of desalination. Chart 22 indicates that 75 percent of Otay Water District customers have a substantial amount of trust in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water for its customers (31 percent indicated a great deal of trust and 44 percent a good amount of trust). Only 4 percent expressed a lack of trust (2 percent not much trust and 2 percent no trust at all). These ratings are slightly higher than the ratings in the 2008 and 2009 General Surveys where 72 percent and 68 percent respectively expressed some level of trust in the ability of the District to provide clean, safe water. • Customers who are college graduates (4.09) tend to have more trust than do those with one year of college (3.77) in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water. Ratings are based upon a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = no trust at all, 2 = not much trust, 3 = some trust, 4 = a good amount of trust, and 5 = a great deal of trust). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 31 2%2% 21% 44% 31% 1%3% 28% 40% 28% 1%4% 23% 42% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2010 2009 2008 Chart 22 Trust in Ability of Otay Water District to Provide Clean, Safe Water Great Deal of Trust Good Amount of Trust Some Trust Not Much Trust No Trust at All Chart 23 shows that nearly one half of the District’s customers (49 percent) have either a great deal of trust (17 percent) or a good amount of trust (32 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water a reasonable prices – not much trust (7 percent) and no trust at all (6 percent). These ratings represent a considerable increase in the trust level from those exhibited in the 2009 General Survey where 39 percent of customers indicated either a great deal of trust (10 percent) or a good amount of trust (29 percent). In 2009, 17 percent of customers expressed not much trust in the ability of the District to obtain water at reasonable prices – 10 percent more than who expressed this sentiment in the current survey. • Customers with middle-to-higher income levels have more trust than do those with lower income levels in the ability of the District to provide water at a reasonable price ($25,000-$50,000 = 3.18 versus $50,000 - $75,000 = 3.80, and $75,000 - $100,000 = 3.72, on a scale where 1 = no trust at all, 2= not much trust, 3 = some trust, 4 = a good amount of trust, and 5 = a great deal of trust. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 32 17% 10% 32% 29% 38%38% 7% 17% 6%6% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Great Deal of Trust Good Amount of Trust Some Trust Not Much Trust No Trust at All Chart 23 Trust In Otay Water District to Obtain Water at Reasonable Price 2010 2009 Trust-based Significant Relationships Customers who have indicated that they have a substantial amount of trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water demonstrate more favorable opinions about desalination in general and about Rosarito Beach, specifically than do those who trust the District less to provide clean, safe water. In particular, • Positive experiences in using desalinated water (65 percent – good amount of trust or a great deal of trust versus – 45 percent -- some trust, not much trust, or no trust at all) • Favor an agreement with international companies to develop desalinated water (62 percent – a good amount of trust or a great deal of trust versus 36 percent – some trust, not much trust, or no trust at all) • Encourage Otay Water District to establish a source of water independent of the agencies in the region (80 percent – some trust, good amount of trust, or great deal of trust versus 33 percent – not much trust) • Feel that having desalinated water as a portion of the water supply is a good way for the Otay Water District to serve its customers (97 percent – good amount of trust or a great deal of trust versus 83 percent – some trust, not much trust, or no trust at all). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 33 • Feel desalination is important in maintaining a reliable water supply (65 percent – great deal of trust versus 44 percent – some trust, not much trust, or no trust at all) • Prefer project in the United States (60 percent – great deal of trust or a good amount of trust versus 78 percent – some trust, not much trust, no trust at all). • Overall satisfaction with the District as water service provider (5.14 – great deal of trust versus 2.50 – no trust at all—scale 1-6) The same pattern applies to trust in the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable prices. Customers who have indicated that they have a substantial amount of trust in the Otay Water District to obtain water at a reasonable price exhibit the following significant relationships: • Favor an agreement with international companies to develop desalinated water (66 percent – good amount of trust or a great deal of trust versus 46 percent – some trust, not much trust, no trust at all) • Encourage Otay Water District to establish a source of water independent of the agencies in the region (83 percent – some trust, good amount of trust, or a great deal of trust versus 47 percent – not much trust) • Feel that having desalinated water as a portion of the water supply is a good way for the Otay Water District to serve its customers (96 percent – some trust, good amount of trust, or a great deal of trust versus 76 percent – not much trust and no trust at all) • Feel desalination is important in maintaining a reliable water supply (68 percent -- great deal of trust or good amount of trust versus 45 percent). • Overall satisfaction with the District as water service provider (5.38 – great deal of trust versus 2.83 – no trust at all—scale 1-6) Characteristics of Desalinated Water (significant relationships) Customers who have a substantial amount of trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water exhibit the following impo rtance ratings with regard to characteristics of desalinated water—scale 1-7, with 7 being very important: • Desalinated water reduces dependence on imported water (6.16 – great deal of trust and 6.06 – a good amount of trust versus 4.89 – not much trust) • The desalination process must not harm the ocean (6.17 – great deal of trust and 6.19 – good amount of trust versus 5.58 -- some trust, 5.67 – not much trust, and 5.00 no trust at all) Customers who have a substantial amount of trust in the Otay Water District to obtain water at a reasonable price exhibit the following importance ratings with regard to characteristics of desalinated water (same 1-7 scale): • Desalinated water reduces dependence on imported water (6.17 – great deal of trust and 6.21 – good amount of trust versus 5.50 – not much trust) • The desalination process must not harm the ocean (6.23 – good amount of trust versus not much trust – 5.48 and 5.36—no trust at all) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 34 Testing of Desalination Messages (significant relationships) Customers who have a substantial amount of trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water exhibit the following ratings of effectiveness with regard to the testing of desalination messages (scale 1- 7, with 7 being very effective): • Desalination is a trusted, widely used way to increase water supply (5.87 –great deal of trust and 5.75 – good amount of trust versus 4.00 – no trust at all) • Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis (6.10 – great deal of trust and 6.06 – good amount of trust versus not much trust – 5.10) • The cost of desalinated water will be about the same as imported water (5.52 – good amount of trust and 5.29 –great amount of trust versus 2.80 – no trust at all) • Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future (6.11 – great amount of trust and 5.95 – good amount of trust versus 5.33 – not much rust and 5.14 – no trust at all) • Desalination will help the region become independent from imported water (5.83 – good amount of trust, 5.82 – great deal of trust, and 5.68 – some trust versus 4.38 – no trust at all). Customers who have a substantial amount of trust in the Otay Water District to obtain water at a reasonable price exhibit the following ratings of effectiveness with regard to the testing of desalination messages (same 1-7 scale): • Desalination is a trusted, widely used way to increase water supply (6.12 – great deal of trust and 5.84 – good amount of trust versus 4.91 – not much trust and 4.88 – no trust at all) • Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis (6.31 – great deal of trust and 6.22 – good amount of trust versus 5.81 – some trust, 5.56 – not much trust, and 5.26 – no trust at all) • The cost of desalinated water will be about the same as imported water (5.68 – great deal of trust, 5.44 – good amount of trust, 5.11 – some trust versus 3.89 – no trust at all) • Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future (6.32 --- great deal of trust and 6.04 – good amount of trust versus 4,48 – no trust at all) • Desalination will help the region become independent from imported water (6.12 – good amount of trust versus 5.67 – some trust, 5.54 – not much trust, and 5.30 – no trust at all) Issues and Concerns about Locating the Desalination Plant in Mexico Customers who have a diminished level of trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water exhibit the following significant relationships with regard to concerns about locating the facility in Mexico instead of the United States (scale 1-4, with 4 being much more concerned with Mexico location): • Water quality (3.67 – not much trust and 3.21 – some trust versus 2.75 – great deal of trust) • Safety and security of the pipeline (3.60 – not much trust versus 2.89 – great deal of trust) • Reliability of deliveries (3.60 – not much trust versus 2.89 – a great deal of trust) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 35 • Environmental/ecological issues (3.56 -- not much trust versus 2.46 – great deal of trust and 2.67 – a good amount of trust) Customers who have a diminished level of trust in the Otay Water District to obtain water at a reasonable price exhibit the following significant relationships with regard to concerns about locating the facility in Mexico (same 1-4 scale): • Water quality (3.43 – not much trust versus 2.75 – great deal of trust) • Reliability of deliveries (2.92 – all levels of trust (except great deal) versus 2.40 – a great deal of trust) • Environmental/ecological issues (2.81 – all levels of trust (except great deal) versus 2.39 – great deal of trust) Testing of Rosarito Beach Facility Messages Customers who have substantial trust in the ability of the Otay Water Authority to provide clean, safe water exhibit the following significant ratings of effectiveness with regard to the testing of messages about the Rosarito Beach facility (scale 1-7, with 7 being very effective): • Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the CA Department of Public Health (6.13 – great deal of trust, 5.84 – good amount of trust, and 5.31 -- some trust -- versus 4.14 – no trust at all and 3.56 – not much trust). • The operator of the Rosarito Beach Desalination Facility is a publicly-traded, well-established, global company (5.33 – great deal of trust, 4.93 – good amount of trust, and 4.49 – some trust versus 2.50 – no trust at all and 2.63 – not much trust). Customers who have substantial trust in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at a reasonable price exhibit the following significant ratings of effectiveness with regard to the testing of messages about the Rosarito Beach facility (same 1-7 scale): • Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the CA Department of Public Health (6.22 – great deal of trust and 6.02 – good amount of trust versus 4.54 – no trust at all and 4.92 – not much trust). • The operator of the Rosarito Desalination Facility is a publicly-traded, well-established, global company (5.38 – great deal of trust 5.19 – good amount of trust, and 4.69 – some trust versus 2.79 – no trust at all). Customers who have substantial trust in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water exhibit the following significant relationships regarding the recommended percentage of the overall supply of water customers feel should come from desalinated sources: • Initial impression: (53.7 percent – great deal of trust versus 28.0 percent – not much trust) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 36 • After testing desalination messages: (56.4 percent – great deal of trust versus 49.7 – good amount of trust, 47.7 – some trust, 38.9 not much trust, and 33.4 percent – no trust at all) • After testing messages about Rosarito Beach facility: (56.6 percent – great deal of trust versus 4.20 percent – no trust at all and 37.9 percent – some trust) Customers who have substantial trust in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at a reasonable price exhibit the following significant relationships regarding the recommended percentage of the overall supply of water customers feel should come from desalinated sources: • Initial impression: (52.8 percent – great deal of trust versus 39.1 percent – not much trust) • After testing desalination messages: (56.3 percent – great deal of trust versus 40.0 percent – no trust at all) • After testing messages about Rosarito facility: (55.6 percent – great deal of trust, 49.6 percent – good amount of trust, and 38.0 –some trust versus 20.2 percent – no trust at all) Conclusions Consistent with previous surveys conducted by the Otay /Water District, there is a high level of satisfaction with the District as a provider of water service. Further, customers have considerable trust in the District to provide clear, safe water and to obtain water at a reasonable price. A substantial proportion of customers feel that the development of desalinated water is a good way for the District to service its customers. Customers feel that about one-half of the available water supply should derive from desalinated sources, including an ocean water desalination facility in Rosarito Beach, Mexico. Customers are determined that the process of desalination not harm the ocean and that it is important that desalination achieve the objective of reducing our dependence on imported water. Customers do have some concern about the safety and security of the pipeline in Mexico and also show some preference for a United States location instead of Mexico that would bolster the local economy and create U.S. based jobs. Trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water and to do so at reasonable prices is significantly related to opinions about desalination and the use of ocean water desalination to supplement the District’s supply of water. Those customers who trust the District the most are also much more in favor of desalination in general and for the Rosarito Beach facility, in particular. Important and effective messages that customers responded most favorably to are the following: • “Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis.” • “Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future.” • “Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the California Department of Public Health.” Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 37 APPENDICES Questionnaire Survey Frequencies Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 38 Desalination Questionnaire Otay Water District October 2010 INT. Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling on behalf of the Otay Water District. We're conducting a study about some issues having to do with the water supply in the San Diego County region and we're interested in your opinions. [IF NEEDED:] Are you at least 18 years of age or older? [IF 18+ HOUSEHOLDER NOT AVAILABLE NOW, ASK FOR FIRST NAME AND MAKE CB ARRANGEMENTS] VER. [VERSION OF INTERVIEW:] 1 - VERSION A 2 - VERSION B* * = RESPONSE OPTIONS REVERSED ON VERSION B FOR ALL QUESTIONS INDICATED IC. Let me assure you that no names or addresses are associated with the telephone numbers, and all of your responses are completely anonymous. The questions take about eight minutes. To ensure that my work is done honestly and correctly, this call may be monitored. Do you have a few minutes right now? [IF ASKED ABOUT MONITORING:] My supervisor randomly listens to interviews to make sure we're reading the questions exactly as written and not influencing answers in any way. TOP. [ONLY IF ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT TOPIC OR WHO'S SPONSORING IT?:] This project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and it's about some issues related to the water supply in the San Diego County Region. [IF SPONSOR INFORMATION GIVEN TO RESPONDENT, "TOPIC"=1] CUST. How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District? [IF LESS THAN ONE YEAR, THANK AND CODE NQR-RES] _________ YEARS 0 -----------> "NQR-RES" 99 - DK/REF, BUT AT LEAST ONE YEAR SEX. [RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT:] 1 - MALE 2 - FEMALE -------------------------- QUALIFIED RESPONDENT: QUOTAS CHECKED; DATA SAVED ------------------------- LP. [IF INDICATED BY ACCENT:] Would you prefer that we speak in... 1 - English or 2 – Spanish? Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 39 Use of Desalinated Water I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT DESALINATION. 1. Are you familiar with the term “desalination.” 1. YES 2. NO (include DK/REF) [GO TO Q2] Q1a. [IF Q1 = 1]. How would you describe what desalination is? ___________________________________________________ [NOTE: Code all responses that refer to making water for household use from ocean or other salty water as 1. List the rest verbatim.] [IF Q1 = 1, THEN ADD “AS YOU INDICATED,” BEFORE READING NEXT SENTENCE] DESALINATION IS THE PROCESS OF MAKING DRINKING WATER AND WATER FOR OTHER HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS USES FROM OCEAN WATER. DESALINATION IS A PROCESS THAT FORCES WATER THROUGH A VERY FINE SCREEN THAT IS DESIGNED TO REMOVE OCEAN SALTS AND OTHER IMPURITIES FROM THE OCEAN WATER. Q2. Do you believe that ocean water desalination can be important to maintaining a reliable and sufficient supply of water for San Diego County residents? [REVERSE 1-4] 4- Yes, very important 3- Yes, somewhat important 2- No, not very important 1- No, not at all important 9- DK/REF---[DO NOT READ—ONLY IF VOLUNTEERED] Q3. To your knowledge, have you ever used desalinated water for any purpose? 1 – Yes 2 – No (GO TO Q6) 9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ] (GO TO Q6) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 40 Q4a-b. Where were you when you used desalinated water? [DO NOT READ--Want geographical location—one response only] 1. on-board ship in Navy 2. country or other location ___________Q4b 3. military base in ________Q4b 4. other _________________Q4b Q5. Was your overall experience with desalinated water positive, negative, or did it make no difference from traditional water sources? 1. Positive (Go to Q5a) 2. Negative (Go to Q5b) 3. No difference (Go to Q6) 4. DK/REF [DO NOT READ] (Go to Q6) Q5a. [IF Q5 = 1] What did you like about the desalinated water that you used? _______________________________________________________________ [Go to Q6] Q5b. [IF Q5 = 2] What did you dislike about the desalinated water that you used? _______________________________________________________________ Q6a-d. Please indicate how important the following characteristics of desalinated water are to you. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 is of the highest importance and 1 is not important at all [RANDOMIZE] Characteristics of Desalinated Water Not at all Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 Highest Importance 7 a. Desalinated water is an alternative source of water that can reduce our dependence on imported water and precipitation b. Desalinated water is extensively and successfully used in many parts of the world. c. Desalinated water is soft water and Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 41 eliminates the need for water softening measures d. The desalination process must not harm the ocean Q7. Just off the top of your head and whether you know much about desalinated water or not, what is your initial impression of a reasonable goal to set for the percentage of water used in Otay Water District homes and businesses that should come from desalinated water? Allow for volunteered response, but if needed, offer the following choices as Q7a and RECORD 999 for Q7 1. 80-100% 2. 60-79% 3. 40-59% 4. 20-29% 5. less than 20% Testing of General Desalination Messages Q8a-e. I would like to ask what you think of some messages that the Otay Water District is considering using in its effort to communicate the advantages of seawater desalination to its customers. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 is very effective and 1 is not at all effective, please rate the following messages in terms of their ability to communicate the advantages of seawater desalination. [RANDOMIZE] Desalination Messages Not at all Effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Effective 7 a. Desalination is a trusted, widely used way to increase water supply. b. Desalination eases the potential effects of a water crisis. c. The cost of desalinated water will be about the same as imported water. d. Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future. e. Desalination will help the region become independent from imported water suppliers. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 42 Q9. Now, after hearing these messages, what is your opinion of the percentage of water used in Otay Water District homes and businesses that should come from desalinated water? Q9a. Allow for volunteered response, but if needed, offer the following choices as Q9a and RECORD 999 for Q9 1. 80-100% 2. 60-79% 3. 40-59% 4. 20-29% 5. less than 20% Issues about the Joint Venture in Mexico and the Rosarito Facility I’d like to share some potential news with you. An ocean water desalination plant is tentatively planned for the City of Rosarito Beach in Mexico, and the Otay Water District has the opportunity to purchase some of that water starting in 2014 or 2015. This project would be financed and operated by international companies with considerable experience in ocean water desalination. The water would be piped through an underground pipeline from the Rosarito Beach north to the Otay Water District distribution facility, north of the border, where it would be tested and treated as necessary to meet the water quality standards of the District and the State of California. Q10. Based upon this information about the potential desalination project, do you think that you would be in favor of pursuing such an agreement with these international companies to develop additional supplies of water from desalination of ocean water? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] Q11. Please indicate if any of the following characteristics of the water from this potential desalination plant in Rosarito Beach cause you more concern than they would if the plant were located in the United States. Would you say that your level of concern is the same no matter where the plant is located, that you are somewhat more concerned with the Rosarito Beach location, that you are much more concerned with the Rosarito Beach Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 43 location or that you are not concerned at all regarding…[REVERSE Levels of concern and RANDOMIZE characteristics] . Characteristics No Concerns at all 1 Same Concern— no matter location 2 Somewhat More Concerned 3 Much More Concerned 4 a. Quality of the water b. Safety and Security of the Pipeline c. Reliability of Water Deliveries d. Environmental/ Ecological Impacts Q12. Would you prefer that the project be built in the United States even if it took 10-15 or even more years longer than the Rosarito Beach plant to get the US plant operational? 1. Yes 2. No [GO to Q13] 3. DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] [Go to Q13] Q12a. [Q12 = 1] What is the main reason that you want the plant located in the US? RECORD ONE RESPONSE--DO NOT READ RECORD Up to Two RESPONSES--DO NOT READ 1. Jobs 2. Spend money locally/help local economy 3. Do not trust Mexico 4. Crime in Mexico 5. Use for drug smuggling 6. Patriotism/America First 7. Other, ___________________________ Q13. The Otay Water District has taken the lead in this venture versus participation by a Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 44 broader group of regional water agencies. Do you like that the Otay Water District is establishing a source of water for its customers that is independent of the other agencies in the region? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] Q14. How do you feel about working with an international team of desalination experts? Would you say that the experienced international team increases your confidence in the project? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] Testing Messages about the Joint Venture in Mexico Q15a-b. I would like to ask you what you think about two more messages that the Otay Water District is considering in an effort to inform its customers about this project and to demonstrate to customers that the construction and operation of the Rosario Beach desalination project is a reasonable way to expand the water supply. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 is very effective and 1 is not at all effective, please rate the following messages. Rosarito Beach Messages Not at all Effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Effective 7 a. Desalinated water will be closely monitored by the CA Department of Public Health. b. The operators of the Rosarito Desalination facility are a publicly-traded, well-established, global company. Q16. One last time and more specifically, what is your opinion of the percentage of water that is provided by the Otay Water District to the homes and businesses in the area that should come from desalinated water produced at this project? Allow for volunteered response, but if needed, offer the following choices as Q17a and RECORD 999 for Q17 1. 80-100% Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 45 2. 60-79% 3. 40-59% 4. 20-29% 5. less than 20% Confidence in the Otay Water District Q17. How much trust do you have in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water to the district? Would you say...* [REVERSE] 5 – a great deal of trust, 4 – a good amount of trust, 3 – some trust, 2 -- not much trust, 1 – no trust at all? 9 -- not sure [INCLUDES DK/REF] Q18. How much trust do you have in the Otay Water District to obtain this water for you at a reasonable price? Would you say…[REVERSE] 5 – a great deal of trust, 4 – a good amount of trust, 3 – some trust, 2 -- not much trust, 1 – no trust at all? 9 -- not sure [INCLUDES DK/REF] Q19: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Otay Water District as your water service provider? [REVERSE] 6---Excellent 5---Very Good 4—Good 3---Fair Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 46 2—Poor 1---Very Poor 7—DK/REF [DO NOT READ] Q20. Do you feel that having desalinated water as a portion of the water supply provided by the Otay Water District is a good way for the District to serve its customers? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] ASK ALL: In closing, these questions are for comparison purposes only. PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household? ___________ 99. DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] TEN. Is your residence owned by someone in your household, or is it rented? 1 - OWN 2 - RENT/OTHER STATUS 3 - DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] EDU. What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit for... 1 - high school or less, 2 - at least one year of college, trade or vocational school, 3 - graduated college with a bachelor's degree, or 4 - at least one year of graduate work beyond a bachelor's degree? Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 47 5 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ] AGE. Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age... 1 - 18 to 24, 2 - 25 to 34, 3 - 35 to 44, 4 - 45 to 54, 5 - 55 to 64, or 6 - 65 or over? 7 - DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] ETH. Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background... 1 - white, not of Hispanic origin; 2 - black, not of Hispanic origin; 3 - Hispanic or Latino; 4 - Asian or Pacific Islander; 5 - Native American; or 6 - another ethnic group? [SPECIFY:] __________________________________ 7 - DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] INC. Now, we don't want to know your exact income, but just roughly, could you tell me if your annual household income before taxes is... 1 - under $25,000, 2 - $25,000 up to but not including $50,000, 3 - $50,000 up to (but not including) $75,000, 4 - $75,000 up to (but not including) $100,000, or 5 - $100,000 up to but not including $150,000? Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 48 6 - DK/REF.[DO NOT READ] LAN. [LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW:] 1 - ENGLISH 2 - SPANISH Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 49 Frequency Table Familiar with term "desalination?" Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 240 60.0 60.0 60.0 No 160 40.0 40.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Description of desalination Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Remove salts and impurities from water for household use 231 57.8 97.5 97.5 Other 6 1.5 2.5 100.0 Total 237 59.3 100.0 Missing No Answer 3 .8 System 160 40.0 Total 163 40.8 Total 400 100.0 Other descriptions of desalinated water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 392 98.0 98.0 98.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 50 A purification method (probe) Nothing else 1 .3 .3 98.3 Charcoal. Take the impurities out. Whatever filtration systems you have, big plants near the sea 1 .3 .3 98.5 Chemical purification to potable water 1 .3 .3 98.8 Cleaning the water isnt it? 1 .3 .3 99.0 It has something to do with using salt water. probe-That is about it. Actually I think it has to do with converting salt water into drinking water. 1 .3 .3 99.3 Same as drinking deionized water 1 .3 .3 99.5 Softening of the water 1 .3 .3 99.8 The removing of contaminates for drinking and other uses. 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Importance of ocean water desalination Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No, not at all important 14 3.5 3.5 3.5 No, not very important 16 4.0 4.0 7.5 Yes, somewhat important 144 36.0 36.0 43.5 Yes, very important 207 51.8 51.8 95.3 DK/REF 19 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Ever used desalinated water? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 104 26.0 26.0 26.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 51 No 266 66.5 66.5 92.5 DK/REF 30 7.5 7.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Where used desalinated water? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid On-board ship in navy 57 14.3 57.0 57.0 Other country 13 3.3 13.0 70.0 Military base 4 1.0 4.0 74.0 Cruise ship 9 2.3 9.0 83.0 Other 17 4.3 17.0 100.0 Total 100 25.0 100.0 Missing DK/REF 4 1.0 System 296 74.0 Total 300 75.0 Total 400 100.0 Country where used desalinated water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 394 98.5 98.5 98.5 Aruba 1 .3 .3 98.8 Baja California 1 .3 .3 99.0 Isreal 1 .3 .3 99.3 Saudi Arabia 2 .5 .5 99.8 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 52 Saudi Arabia, Cabo San Lucas 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Location of Military base Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 399 99.8 99.8 99.8 Army 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Other location Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 378 94.5 94.5 94.5 At a resort 1 .3 .3 94.8 Cruise ship 3 .8 .8 95.5 Cruise ships 1 .3 .3 95.8 Have a filter 1 .3 .3 96.0 Have done it at work 1 .3 .3 96.3 Home 1 .3 .3 96.5 In the house 1 .3 .3 96.8 My house 1 .3 .3 97.0 On a boat 1 .3 .3 97.3 On a boat cruise 1 .3 .3 97.5 On a cruise ship 1 .3 .3 97.8 On a ocean cruise 1 .3 .3 98.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 53 On a trip at a hotel 1 .3 .3 98.3 People were giving it away 1 .3 .3 98.5 San Diego, CA 1 .3 .3 98.8 Santa Barbara, CA 1 .3 .3 99.0 Traveling by cruise ship to Alaska & back 1 .3 .3 99.3 Up in Del Mar 1 .3 .3 99.5 Used for business on a project 1 .3 .3 99.8 When I lived in Key West 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Overall experience with desalinated water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Positive 53 13.3 53.0 53.0 Negative 1 .3 1.0 54.0 No difference 46 11.5 46.0 100.0 Total 100 25.0 100.0 Missing DK/REF 4 1.0 System 296 74.0 Total 300 75.0 Total 400 100.0 Positives of desalinated water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid plentiful 6 1.5 13.3 13.3 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 54 taste 13 3.3 28.9 42.2 soft 1 .3 2.2 44.4 lower cost 2 .5 4.4 48.9 drinkable 5 1.3 11.1 60.0 better for environment 1 .3 2.2 62.2 clean and pure 8 2.0 17.8 80.0 other 9 2.3 20.0 100.0 Total 45 11.3 100.0 Missing System 355 88.8 Total 400 100.0 Negatives of desalinated water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid taste 1 .3 100.0 100.0 Missing System 399 99.8 Total 400 100.0 Other positives of desalinated water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 355 88.8 88.8 88.8 Available 1 .3 .3 89.0 Clean 1 .3 .3 89.3 Cleaner 1 .3 .3 89.5 Didn't have salt 1 .3 .3 89.8 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 55 Free 1 .3 .3 90.0 Good clean water 1 .3 .3 90.3 I did not have an opinion although the experience was positive 1 .3 .3 90.5 I feel more comfortable with it on my skin and scalp. Taste is better 1 .3 .3 90.8 I was on a ship cruise and I like the fact that we would not run out of water, and that the water was coming from the sea 1 .3 .3 91.0 Impurities removed and better tasting 1 .3 .3 91.3 It had no salt 1 .3 .3 91.5 It is plenty of it 1 .3 .3 91.8 It is really clean and pure. The water is cleaner than the water we already use and get now. 1 .3 .3 92.0 It tasted good, quenched my thirst! 1 .3 .3 92.3 It tasted much better! Very good. 1 .3 .3 92.5 It tasted pretty good right out of the tap! 1 .3 .3 92.8 It tastes a lot better. 1 .3 .3 93.0 It was just as good 1 .3 .3 93.3 It was like regular water 1 .3 .3 93.5 It was the purest water on earth 1 .3 .3 93.8 It wasn't as hard as the water we have now from the Colorado River. 1 .3 .3 94.0 It's good 1 .3 .3 94.3 It's just water 1 .3 .3 94.5 Mainly for flavor coordinated 1 .3 .3 94.8 No answer 1 .3 .3 95.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 56 Nothing really. 1 .3 .3 95.3 Plentiful 1 .3 .3 95.5 Plentiful. The reverse osmosis can make up to 1500 gallons per hour. For a crew of 400, we could take a shower every day, nice and long. We didn't have to worry about running out of water. 1 .3 .3 95.8 Plenty of ocean water, we won't run out of water 1 .3 .3 96.0 Positive, very good drinking water. 1 .3 .3 96.3 So I don't need to be buying water bottles, and it is better for recycling. 1 .3 .3 96.5 Tastes good. 1 .3 .3 96.8 That it is drinkable 1 .3 .3 97.0 That we were using sea water and not regular water being that it was for a project and not drinking 1 .3 .3 97.3 The flavor 1 .3 .3 97.5 The purification of seawater 1 .3 .3 97.8 The ship we had a reverse water osmosis unit 1 .3 .3 98.0 The taste 1 .3 .3 98.3 The taste of it is much more different than tap water. 1 .3 .3 98.5 Water bill would go down hopefully 1 .3 .3 98.8 We were able to use the water to take showers and to do the dishes. 1 .3 .3 99.0 Without chemical background would not know the differences 1 .3 .3 99.3 You can use and drink the water from the ocean 1 .3 .3 99.5 You could drink it 1 .3 .3 99.8 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 57 You could use it 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Other negatives of desalinated water Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 399 99.8 99.8 99.8 It doesn't taste clean. It tastes a little minerally. 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Importance: Desalinated water is an alternative source of water that can reduce our dependence on imported water and precipitation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all Important 7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 5 1.3 1.3 3.1 3 12 3.0 3.1 6.2 4 19 4.8 4.9 11.1 5 66 16.5 17.1 28.2 6 80 20.0 20.7 49.0 Highest Importance 197 49.3 51.0 100.0 Total 386 96.5 100.0 Missing DK/REF 14 3.5 Total 400 100.0 Importance: Desalinated water is extensively and successfully used in many parts of the world Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 58 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all Important 14 3.5 4.2 4.2 2 11 2.8 3.3 7.6 3 15 3.8 4.5 12.1 4 27 6.8 8.2 20.2 5 76 19.0 23.0 43.2 6 61 15.3 18.4 61.6 Highest Importance 127 31.8 38.4 100.0 Total 331 82.8 100.0 Missing DK/REF 69 17.3 Total 400 100.0 Importance: Desalinated water is soft water and eliminates the need for water softening measures Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all Important 29 7.3 8.4 8.4 2 12 3.0 3.5 11.8 3 23 5.8 6.6 18.5 4 32 8.0 9.2 27.7 5 83 20.8 24.0 51.7 6 53 13.3 15.3 67.1 Highest Importance 114 28.5 32.9 100.0 Total 346 86.5 100.0 Missing DK/REF 54 13.5 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 59 Total 400 100.0 Importance: The desalination process must not harm the ocean Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all Important 18 4.5 4.7 4.7 2 5 1.3 1.3 6.0 3 13 3.3 3.4 9.4 4 20 5.0 5.2 14.6 5 39 9.8 10.2 24.7 6 53 13.3 13.8 38.5 Highest Importance 236 59.0 61.5 100.0 Total 384 96.0 100.0 Missing DK/REF 16 4.0 Total 400 100.0 q7 and q7arec combined Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 8 2.0 2.2 2.2 1 3 .8 .8 3.0 4 2 .5 .6 3.6 5 6 1.5 1.7 5.3 6 1 .3 .3 5.5 7 2 .5 .6 6.1 9 1 .3 .3 6.4 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 60 10 21 5.3 5.8 12.2 15 6 1.5 1.7 13.9 20 31 7.8 8.6 22.4 25 22 5.5 6.1 28.5 30 33 8.3 9.1 37.7 33 1 .3 .3 38.0 35 4 1.0 1.1 39.1 40 16 4.0 4.4 43.5 50 87 21.8 24.1 67.6 60 15 3.8 4.2 71.7 65 3 .8 .8 72.6 70 24 6.0 6.6 79.2 75 14 3.5 3.9 83.1 80 18 4.5 5.0 88.1 85 2 .5 .6 88.6 90 7 1.8 1.9 90.6 100 34 8.5 9.4 100.0 Total 361 90.3 100.0 Missing System 39 9.8 Total 400 100.0 Effectiveness: Desalination is a trusted, widely used way to increase water supply Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all effective 12 3.0 3.2 3.2 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 61 2 11 2.8 3.0 6.2 3 15 3.8 4.1 10.3 4 33 8.3 8.9 19.2 5 78 19.5 21.1 40.3 6 68 17.0 18.4 58.6 Very effective 153 38.3 41.4 100.0 Total 370 92.5 100.0 Missing DK/REF 30 7.5 Total 400 100.0 Effectiveness: Desalination eases the potential effects of the water crisis Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all effective 13 3.3 3.4 3.4 2 6 1.5 1.6 5.0 3 11 2.8 2.9 7.9 4 17 4.3 4.5 12.3 5 61 15.3 16.0 28.3 6 79 19.8 20.7 49.1 Very effective 194 48.5 50.9 100.0 Total 381 95.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 19 4.8 Total 400 100.0 Effectiveness: The cost of desalinated water will be about the same as imported water Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 62 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all effective 28 7.0 7.9 7.9 2 16 4.0 4.5 12.4 3 17 4.3 4.8 17.2 4 32 8.0 9.0 26.3 5 76 19.0 21.5 47.7 6 61 15.3 17.2 65.0 Very effective 124 31.0 35.0 100.0 Total 354 88.5 100.0 Missing DK/REF 46 11.5 Total 400 100.0 Effectiveness: Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all effective 12 3.0 3.1 3.1 2 6 1.5 1.6 4.7 3 17 4.3 4.5 9.2 4 18 4.5 4.7 13.9 5 73 18.3 19.2 33.1 6 67 16.8 17.6 50.7 Very effective 188 47.0 49.3 100.0 Total 381 95.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 19 4.8 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 63 Total 400 100.0 Effectiveness: Desalination will help the region become independent from imported water suppliers Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all effective 17 4.3 4.5 4.5 2 8 2.0 2.1 6.6 3 14 3.5 3.7 10.3 4 23 5.8 6.1 16.4 5 76 19.0 20.1 36.4 6 61 15.3 16.1 52.5 Very effective 180 45.0 47.5 100.0 Total 379 94.8 100.0 Missing DK/REF 21 5.3 Total 400 100.0 q9 and q9arec combined Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1 3 .8 .8 2.7 4 1 .3 .3 3.0 5 10 2.5 2.7 5.8 6 2 .5 .5 6.3 7 2 .5 .5 6.9 10 19 4.8 5.2 12.1 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 64 15 6 1.5 1.6 13.7 20 19 4.8 5.2 19.0 25 20 5.0 5.5 24.5 30 32 8.0 8.8 33.2 33 1 .3 .3 33.5 35 4 1.0 1.1 34.6 40 17 4.3 4.7 39.3 45 3 .8 .8 40.1 50 78 19.5 21.4 61.5 51 1 .3 .3 61.8 52 1 .3 .3 62.1 55 1 .3 .3 62.4 60 14 3.5 3.8 66.2 65 4 1.0 1.1 67.3 70 21 5.3 5.8 73.1 75 18 4.5 4.9 78.0 80 27 6.8 7.4 85.4 85 3 .8 .8 86.3 90 8 2.0 2.2 88.5 95 2 .5 .5 89.0 100 40 10.0 11.0 100.0 Total 364 91.0 100.0 Missing System 36 9.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 65 Total 400 100.0 Combined increase or decrease in percentage of desalinated water after messages about desalination Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid -95 1 .3 .3 .3 -80 1 .3 .3 .6 -70 2 .5 .6 1.1 -50 3 .8 .8 2.0 -45 1 .3 .3 2.2 -40 2 .5 .6 2.8 -35 1 .3 .3 3.1 -30 4 1.0 1.1 4.2 -25 5 1.3 1.4 5.6 -20 10 2.5 2.8 8.4 -18 1 .3 .3 8.7 -15 1 .3 .3 9.0 -10 12 3.0 3.4 12.4 -5 4 1.0 1.1 13.5 -3 1 .3 .3 13.8 -2 1 .3 .3 14.0 0 192 48.0 53.9 68.0 1 3 .8 .8 68.8 5 18 4.5 5.1 73.9 10 18 4.5 5.1 78.9 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 66 15 9 2.3 2.5 81.5 19 1 .3 .3 81.7 20 22 5.5 6.2 87.9 25 6 1.5 1.7 89.6 30 20 5.0 5.6 95.2 35 3 .8 .8 96.1 40 4 1.0 1.1 97.2 46 1 .3 .3 97.5 50 2 .5 .6 98.0 55 2 .5 .6 98.6 60 1 .3 .3 98.9 70 2 .5 .6 99.4 71 1 .3 .3 99.7 80 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 356 89.0 100.0 Missing System 44 11.0 Total 400 100.0 Favor agreement with international companies to develop desal at Rosarito Beach Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 217 54.3 54.3 54.3 No 134 33.5 33.5 87.8 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 67 Don't Know 49 12.3 12.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Concern about location in Mexico: water quality Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No concerns at all 68 17.0 17.3 17.3 Same concern in U.S. or Mexico 55 13.8 14.0 31.3 Somewhat more concerned 85 21.3 21.6 52.9 Much more concerned 185 46.3 47.1 100.0 Total 393 98.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 7 1.8 Total 400 100.0 Concern about location in Mexico: safety and security of pipeline Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No concerns at all 61 15.3 15.5 15.5 Same concern in U.S. or Mexico 49 12.3 12.4 27.9 Somewhat more concerned 108 27.0 27.4 55.3 Much more concerned 176 44.0 44.7 100.0 Total 394 98.5 100.0 Missing DK/REF 6 1.5 Total 400 100.0 Concern about location in Mexico: reliability of water deliveries Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 68 Valid No concerns at all 80 20.0 20.6 20.6 Same concern in U.S. or Mexico 57 14.3 14.7 35.2 Somewhat more concerned 104 26.0 26.7 62.0 Much more concerned 148 37.0 38.0 100.0 Total 389 97.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 11 2.8 Total 400 100.0 Concern about location in Mexico: environmental/ecological impacts Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No concerns at all 86 21.5 22.3 22.3 Same concern in U.S. or Mexico 65 16.3 16.9 39.2 Somewhat more concerned 100 25.0 26.0 65.2 Much more concerned 134 33.5 34.8 100.0 Total 385 96.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 15 3.8 Total 400 100.0 Prefer project in U.S. even if took additional 10-15 years? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 258 64.5 64.5 64.5 No 111 27.8 27.8 92.3 Don't Know 31 7.8 7.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 69 Reason #1 for preferring plant in U.S. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Jobs 77 19.3 30.7 30.7 Spend money locally/help local economy 33 8.3 13.1 43.8 Do not trust Mexico 43 10.8 17.1 61.0 Crime in Mexico 5 1.3 2.0 62.9 Patriotism/America first 16 4.0 6.4 69.3 Control 19 4.8 7.6 76.9 Water Quality 21 5.3 8.4 85.3 Reliability-Security 16 4.0 6.4 91.6 Environment 5 1.3 2.0 93.6 OSHA standards 1 .3 .4 94.0 National Security 1 .3 .4 94.4 Other 14 3.5 5.6 100.0 Total 251 62.8 100.0 Missing DK/REF 6 1.5 System 143 35.8 Total 149 37.3 Total 400 100.0 Reason #2 for preferring plant in U.S. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 70 Valid Jobs 23 5.8 18.4 18.4 Spend money locally/help local economy 33 8.3 26.4 44.8 Do not trust Mexico 21 5.3 16.8 61.6 Crime in Mexico 3 .8 2.4 64.0 Will use for drug smuggling 1 .3 .8 64.8 Patriotism/America first 14 3.5 11.2 76.0 Control 5 1.3 4.0 80.0 Water Quality 11 2.8 8.8 88.8 Reliability-Security 8 2.0 6.4 95.2 Environment 1 .3 .8 96.0 OSHA standards 1 .3 .8 96.8 Other 4 1.0 3.2 100.0 Total 125 31.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 5 1.3 System 270 67.5 Total 275 68.8 Total 400 100.0 Other reason for preferring plant in U.S. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 295 73.8 73.8 73.8 Accessible to the environmental laws of the US and security 1 .3 .3 74.0 Accountability and safer 1 .3 .3 74.3 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 71 America has higher quality standards. 1 .3 .3 74.5 Because of safety and would feel more safe about the water being cleaner 1 .3 .3 74.8 Better control and inspection is better 1 .3 .3 75.0 Better quality in the U.S. 1 .3 .3 75.3 California has higher standards than any other state 1 .3 .3 75.5 Cheaper to produce over here and purity of water 1 .3 .3 75.8 Cleaner water 1 .3 .3 76.0 Control 2 .5 .5 76.5 Control and quality 1 .3 .3 76.8 Control and Responsibility 1 .3 .3 77.0 Control and security 1 .3 .3 77.3 Control over quality of water 1 .3 .3 77.5 Cost measures only 1 .3 .3 77.8 Cost would be less 1 .3 .3 78.0 Developing technology here rather than abroad 1 .3 .3 78.3 Do not want to pay foreign countries for resources 1 .3 .3 78.5 Easier to monitor here 1 .3 .3 78.8 Economic impact 1 .3 .3 79.0 Environmental concerns 1 .3 .3 79.3 Environmental reasons 1 .3 .3 79.5 Eventually there should be one built here 1 .3 .3 79.8 For security of the community in case they 1 .3 .3 80.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 72 contaminate For US customers should be built in the US 1 .3 .3 80.3 Guarantee water and safety 1 .3 .3 80.5 Guidelines and the regulations, security of the project 1 .3 .3 80.8 Have our own, independent supply 1 .3 .3 81.0 I like it built here to keep it here in the US 1 .3 .3 81.3 I trust the water quality more in the US there is a lot of corruption in Mex 1 .3 .3 81.5 I'm concerned about Mexico standards 1 .3 .3 81.8 I'm concerned about the sewage in Rosarito. 1 .3 .3 82.0 If its water people are drinking it is a concern if it's coming from Mexico 1 .3 .3 82.3 Independence and reliability of the water 1 .3 .3 82.5 It would be better to be controlled by the US than international 1 .3 .3 82.8 It would be nice to have it close by and we can be self sufficient 1 .3 .3 83.0 It would be safer and cleaner 1 .3 .3 83.3 Maintenance and easy access 1 .3 .3 83.5 Managed well 1 .3 .3 83.8 More control 1 .3 .3 84.0 More control here 1 .3 .3 84.3 More control if in our own country 1 .3 .3 84.5 More control over what is in the backyard 1 .3 .3 84.8 More local control and not having to do with another government bureaucracy. 1 .3 .3 85.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 73 More reliable 1 .3 .3 85.3 More restrictions here than in other countries as far as safety goes. 1 .3 .3 85.5 More trust 1 .3 .3 85.8 My whole concern is the pipeline 1 .3 .3 86.0 National security 1 .3 .3 86.3 Need to invest in our own infrastructure 1 .3 .3 86.5 OSHA laws more strict 1 .3 .3 86.8 OSHA standards 1 .3 .3 87.0 Our system is much more reliable and safety concerns 1 .3 .3 87.3 Quality and safety 1 .3 .3 87.5 Quality control 3 .8 .8 88.3 Quality in the water, concerned about Mexico and low standards 1 .3 .3 88.5 Quality of water security 1 .3 .3 88.8 Regulations 1 .3 .3 89.0 Safer 2 .5 .5 89.5 Safety 4 1.0 1.0 90.5 Safety and cleanliness of the water 1 .3 .3 90.8 Safety and full control 1 .3 .3 91.0 Safety and quality 1 .3 .3 91.3 Safety and security 1 .3 .3 91.5 Safety environmental impact 1 .3 .3 91.8 Safety of the water and no food and drink regulations 1 .3 .3 92.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 74 Sanitation 1 .3 .3 92.3 Security 4 1.0 1.0 93.3 Security and quality 1 .3 .3 93.5 Security of the water supply 1 .3 .3 93.8 Security quality 1 .3 .3 94.0 Sewage spillage 1 .3 .3 94.3 So the agents can monitor the quality of the water 1 .3 .3 94.5 So we remain independent of outside sources. 1 .3 .3 94.8 Standards and quality 1 .3 .3 95.0 Standards are higher 1 .3 .3 95.3 Stricter guide lines and safety 1 .3 .3 95.5 Stricter regulations 1 .3 .3 95.8 Stringent rules and regulations more oversight 1 .3 .3 96.0 Supervision 1 .3 .3 96.3 Supposedly more responsible 1 .3 .3 96.5 The lack of water supply, our lack of water supply 1 .3 .3 96.8 The standards would higher 1 .3 .3 97.0 They have better inspection of the water in the US than in Mexico 1 .3 .3 97.3 To be handled in U.S 1 .3 .3 97.5 Trust the quality of the water more 1 .3 .3 97.8 Water quality in Rosarito is really bad. 1 .3 .3 98.0 Water safety and more research and 1 .3 .3 98.3 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 75 domestic water would more cost effective We have better monitoring and we put fluoride and different chemicals in wat 1 .3 .3 98.5 We might run out of water 1 .3 .3 98.8 We need the industry here 1 .3 .3 99.0 We should monitor and govern our selves 1 .3 .3 99.3 We would have more control of it 1 .3 .3 99.5 We would have more control over the standards & quality of the water. 1 .3 .3 99.8 We'd control of it 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Like OWD establishing water source indedendent of other water agencies Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 309 77.3 77.4 77.4 No 48 12.0 12.0 89.5 Don't Know 42 10.5 10.5 100.0 Total 399 99.8 100.0 Missing System 1 .3 Total 400 100.0 Experienced international team increases confidence? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 261 65.3 65.3 65.3 No 94 23.5 23.5 88.8 Don't Know 45 11.3 11.3 100.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 76 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Effectiveness: Desalinated water will be closely monitored by CA Dept. of Public Health Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all effective 32 8.0 8.3 8.3 2 9 2.3 2.3 10.6 3 15 3.8 3.9 14.5 4 18 4.5 4.7 19.2 5 52 13.0 13.5 32.6 6 47 11.8 12.2 44.8 Very effective 213 53.3 55.2 100.0 Total 386 96.5 100.0 Missing DK/REF 14 3.5 Total 400 100.0 Effectiveness: Operator of Rosarito Desalination facility is public traded, well- established global company Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Not at all effective 52 13.0 14.6 14.6 2 10 2.5 2.8 17.4 3 25 6.3 7.0 24.4 4 39 9.8 11.0 35.4 5 79 19.8 22.2 57.6 6 43 10.8 12.1 69.7 Very effective 108 27.0 30.3 100.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 77 Total 356 89.0 100.0 Missing DK/REF 44 11.0 Total 400 100.0 q16 and q16arec combined Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 29 7.3 8.0 8.0 1 6 1.5 1.7 9.7 2 1 .3 .3 9.9 3 1 .3 .3 10.2 4 1 .3 .3 10.5 5 8 2.0 2.2 12.7 6 1 .3 .3 13.0 7 2 .5 .6 13.5 9 1 .3 .3 13.8 10 20 5.0 5.5 19.3 15 4 1.0 1.1 20.4 20 19 4.8 5.2 25.7 25 14 3.5 3.9 29.6 30 30 7.5 8.3 37.8 33 1 .3 .3 38.1 35 4 1.0 1.1 39.2 40 14 3.5 3.9 43.1 45 5 1.3 1.4 44.5 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 78 50 90 22.5 24.9 69.3 55 1 .3 .3 69.6 60 14 3.5 3.9 73.5 65 2 .5 .6 74.0 70 17 4.3 4.7 78.7 75 10 2.5 2.8 81.5 76 1 .3 .3 81.8 78 1 .3 .3 82.0 80 22 5.5 6.1 88.1 85 1 .3 .3 88.4 90 14 3.5 3.9 92.3 95 1 .3 .3 92.5 100 27 6.8 7.5 100.0 Total 362 90.5 100.0 Missing System 38 9.5 Total 400 100.0 Combined increase or decrease in percentage of desalinated water after messages about Mexico Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid -100 5 1.3 1.4 1.4 -90 1 .3 .3 1.7 -75 1 .3 .3 2.0 -74 1 .3 .3 2.3 -68 1 .3 .3 2.6 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 79 -65 1 .3 .3 2.8 -60 2 .5 .6 3.4 -55 1 .3 .3 3.7 -50 8 2.0 2.3 6.0 -49 1 .3 .3 6.3 -45 2 .5 .6 6.8 -40 4 1.0 1.1 8.0 -30 6 1.5 1.7 9.7 -26 1 .3 .3 9.9 -25 10 2.5 2.8 12.8 -20 14 3.5 4.0 16.8 -19 1 .3 .3 17.0 -15 5 1.3 1.4 18.5 -10 16 4.0 4.5 23.0 -9 1 .3 .3 23.3 -8 1 .3 .3 23.6 -5 11 2.8 3.1 26.7 -2 1 .3 .3 27.0 -1 2 .5 .6 27.6 0 204 51.0 58.0 85.5 2 1 .3 .3 85.8 5 9 2.3 2.6 88.4 9 1 .3 .3 88.6 10 19 4.8 5.4 94.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 80 15 1 .3 .3 94.3 18 1 .3 .3 94.6 20 4 1.0 1.1 95.7 25 1 .3 .3 96.0 30 1 .3 .3 96.3 35 2 .5 .6 96.9 40 1 .3 .3 97.2 45 3 .8 .9 98.0 50 4 1.0 1.1 99.1 54 1 .3 .3 99.4 70 1 .3 .3 99.7 75 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 352 88.0 100.0 Missing System 48 12.0 Total 400 100.0 Combined increase or decrease in percentage of desalinated water from beginning to end Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid -100 2 .5 .6 .6 -99 1 .3 .3 .9 -80 1 .3 .3 1.1 -75 3 .8 .9 2.0 -70 2 .5 .6 2.6 -60 1 .3 .3 2.9 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 81 -56 1 .3 .3 3.2 -55 1 .3 .3 3.4 -50 11 2.8 3.2 6.6 -45 2 .5 .6 7.2 -43 1 .3 .3 7.5 -40 3 .8 .9 8.3 -39 1 .3 .3 8.6 -35 1 .3 .3 8.9 -30 6 1.5 1.7 10.6 -25 6 1.5 1.7 12.4 -20 14 3.5 4.0 16.4 -18 1 .3 .3 16.7 -15 5 1.3 1.4 18.1 -10 11 2.8 3.2 21.3 -9 1 .3 .3 21.6 -5 2 .5 .6 22.1 -2 1 .3 .3 22.4 -1 1 .3 .3 22.7 0 168 42.0 48.3 71.0 5 14 3.5 4.0 75.0 10 27 6.8 7.8 82.8 15 2 .5 .6 83.3 18 1 .3 .3 83.6 20 19 4.8 5.5 89.1 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 82 25 6 1.5 1.7 90.8 30 11 2.8 3.2 94.0 35 3 .8 .9 94.8 40 4 1.0 1.1 96.0 45 1 .3 .3 96.3 46 1 .3 .3 96.6 50 3 .8 .9 97.4 55 1 .3 .3 97.7 61 1 .3 .3 98.0 65 1 .3 .3 98.3 70 5 1.3 1.4 99.7 75 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 348 87.0 100.0 Missing System 52 13.0 Total 400 100.0 Trust OWD to provide clean, safe water to district? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No trust at all 8 2.0 2.1 2.1 Not much trust 10 2.5 2.6 4.6 Some trust 80 20.0 20.6 25.3 Good amount of trust 169 42.3 43.6 68.8 Great deal of trust 121 30.3 31.2 100.0 Total 388 97.0 100.0 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 83 Missing DK.REF 12 3.0 Total 400 100.0 Trust in OWD to obtain water at reasonable price Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid No trust at all 23 5.8 6.0 6.0 Not much trust 26 6.5 6.8 12.9 Some trust 144 36.0 37.8 50.7 Good amount of trust 124 31.0 32.5 83.2 Great deal of trust 64 16.0 16.8 100.0 Total 381 95.3 100.0 Missing DK.REF 19 4.8 Total 400 100.0 Overall satisfaction with OWD as water service provider Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Very poor 8 2.0 2.0 2.0 Poor 9 2.3 2.3 4.3 Fair 43 10.8 10.9 15.3 Good 121 30.3 30.8 46.1 Very Good 116 29.0 29.5 75.6 Excellent 96 24.0 24.4 100.0 Total 393 98.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 7 1.8 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 84 Total 400 100.0 Desalinated water is a good way to serve customers? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 348 87.0 87.0 87.0 No 24 6.0 6.0 93.0 Don't Know 28 7.0 7.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Persons per household Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 24 6.0 6.0 6.0 2 87 21.8 21.9 28.0 3 61 15.3 15.4 43.3 4 113 28.3 28.5 71.8 5 67 16.8 16.9 88.7 6 31 7.8 7.8 96.5 7 10 2.5 2.5 99.0 8 3 .8 .8 99.7 9 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 397 99.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 3 .8 Total 400 100.0 Ow n/rent Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 85 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid O w n 339 84.8 85.4 85.4 Rent/Other 58 14.5 14.6 100.0 Total 397 99.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 3 .8 Total 400 100.0 Highest grade/year of school completed Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid High school or less 45 11.3 11.6 11.6 At least one year of college, trade or vocational school 116 29.0 29.9 41.5 Bachelor's degree 161 40.3 41.5 83.0 At least one year of gradutae work 66 16.5 17.0 100.0 Total 388 97.0 100.0 Missing DK/REF 12 3.0 Total 400 100.0 A g e Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 18-24 9 2.3 2.3 2.3 25-34 47 11.8 12.0 14.2 35-44 100 25.0 25.4 39.7 45-54 112 28.0 28.5 68.2 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 86 55-64 71 17.8 18.1 86.3 65 and over 54 13.5 13.7 100.0 Total 393 98.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF 7 1.8 Total 400 100.0 Ethnicity Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid White, not of Hispanic origin 165 41.3 44.0 44.0 Black, not of Hispanic origin 29 7.3 7.7 51.7 Hispanic or Latino 107 26.8 28.5 80.3 Asian or Pacific Islander 58 14.5 15.5 95.7 Native American 6 1.5 1.6 97.3 Other ethnic group 10 2.5 2.7 100.0 Total 375 93.8 100.0 Missing DK/REF 25 6.3 Total 400 100.0 Annual household income Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Under $25,000 17 4.3 5.2 5.2 $25,000 up to but not including $50,000 41 10.3 12.4 17.6 $50,000 up to but not including $75,000 73 18.3 22.1 39.7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 87 $75,000 up to but not including $100,000 80 20.0 24.2 63.9 $100,000 but not including $150,000 85 21.3 25.8 89.7 $150,000 or more 34 8.5 10.3 100.0 Total 330 82.5 100.0 Missing DK/REF 70 17.5 Total 400 100.0 Sex of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 217 54.3 54.3 54.3 Female 183 45.8 45.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 How long customer of OWD Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 32 8.0 8.1 8.1 2 27 6.8 6.8 14.9 3 17 4.3 4.3 19.1 4 14 3.5 3.5 22.7 5 23 5.8 5.8 28.5 6 24 6.0 6.0 34.5 7 17 4.3 4.3 38.8 8 32 8.0 8.1 46.9 9 19 4.8 4.8 51.6 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 88 10 56 14.0 14.1 65.7 11 17 4.3 4.3 70.0 12 24 6.0 6.0 76.1 13 10 2.5 2.5 78.6 14 10 2.5 2.5 81.1 15 11 2.8 2.8 83.9 16 2 .5 .5 84.4 17 4 1.0 1.0 85.4 18 1 .3 .3 85.6 20 16 4.0 4.0 89.7 21 2 .5 .5 90.2 22 2 .5 .5 90.7 23 1 .3 .3 90.9 25 10 2.5 2.5 93.5 26 1 .3 .3 93.7 28 1 .3 .3 94.0 30 10 2.5 2.5 96.5 31 1 .3 .3 96.7 32 2 .5 .5 97.2 33 2 .5 .5 97.7 35 3 .8 .8 98.5 40 3 .8 .8 99.2 45 1 .3 .3 99.5 53 1 .3 .3 99.7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 89 70 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 397 99.3 100.0 Missing DK/REF but at least one year 3 .8 Total 400 100.0 Language of interview Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid English 395 98.8 98.8 98.8 Spanish 5 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Descriptives Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Importance: Desalinated water is an alternative source of water that can reduce our dependence on imported water and precipitation 386 1 7 6.01 1.350 Importance: Desalinated water is extensively and successfully used in many parts of the world 331 1 7 5.51 1.645 Importance: Desalinated water is soft water and eliminates the need for water softening measures 346 1 7 5.15 1.863 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 90 Importance: The desalination process must not harm the ocean 384 1 7 6.02 1.617 Valid N (listwise) 295 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation q16 and q16arec combined 362 0 100 45.44 29.602 q7 and q7arec combined 361 0 100 47.53 28.021 q9 and q9arec combined 364 0 100 50.81 28.954 Valid N (listwise) 345 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Effectiveness: Desalination is a trusted, widely used way to increase water supply 370 1 7 5.62 1.580 Effectiveness: Desalination eases the potential effects of the water crisis 381 1 7 5.94 1.488 Effectiveness: The cost of desalinated water will be about the same as imported water 354 1 7 5.23 1.866 Effectiveness: Desalination ensures a reliable, high quality supply of water for the future 381 1 7 5.85 1.516 Effectiveness: Desalination will help the region become independent from imported water suppliers 379 1 7 5.73 1.627 Valid N (listwise) 327 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research Desalination Survey Report December, 2010 91 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Effectiveness: Desalinated water will be closely monitored by CA Dept. of Public Health 386 1 7 5.70 1.894 Effectiveness: Operator of Rosarito Desalination facility is public traded, well-established global company 356 1 7 4.81 2.071 Valid N (listwise) 351 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.000 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.000 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Persons per household 397 1 9 3.67 1.537 Valid N (listwise) 397 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 10a TYPE MEETING:Regular Board Meeting SUBMITTED BY:Mark Watton, General Manager MEETING DATE: W.O.lG.F.NO: March 2,2011 DIV.NO. SUBJECT:Board of Directors 2011 Calendar of Meetings GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the Board,the attached Board of Director's meeting calendar for 2011 is being presented for discussion. PURPOSE: This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 2011 Board of Director's meeting calendars and amend the schedule as needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: N/A ANALYSIS: The Board requested that this item be presented at each meeting so they may have an opportunity to review the Board meeting calendar schedule and amend it as needed. STRATEGIC GOAL: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: None. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments:Calendar of Meetings for 2011 G:IUserDatalDistSecIWINWORDlSTAFRPTSlBoardMeeting Calendar3·2·II.doc Regular Board Meetings: January 5,2011 February 2,2011 March 2,2011 April 6,2011 May 4,2011 June 1,2011 July 6,2011 August 3,2011 September 7,2011 October 5,2011 November 2,2011 December 7,2011 Board Workshops: Board of Directors,Workshops and Committee Meetings 2011 Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted) January 19,2011 February 16,2011 March 16,2011 Apri120,2011 May 18,2011 June 15,2011 July 20,2011 August 17,2011 September 21,2011 October 19,2011 November 16,2011 December 21,2011 Budget Workshop,TBD Special Board Meeting/Board Retreat Workshop,TBD G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting CalendarAttach A for 2011 3-2-11.doc Page 1 of 1 AGENDAITEM11a STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:March 2,2011 SUBMITTED BY: Mark Watton General Manager W.O./G.F. NO: N/A DIV. NO. N/A SUBJECT:General Manager's Report ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: Human Resources: •Training Tracking Program -Human Resources,Safety and IT rolled out the new Training Tracking Module on SharePoint. The Training Tracking Module is a new tool for managers and supervisors to more easily keep track of required training and view upcoming training classes for their employees. •New Hires -There was one new hire in the month of February: Temporary Utility Construction Assistant. Water Conservation and School Education: •Water Conservation Outreach -The District is actively promoting its waterwise landscape contest,as well as its photo contest and launched its inaugural video contest focused on the theme "make every drop count".Details on all 3 contests can be found on the District's webpage.On February 1st ,the District's Water Conservation Manager gave a presentation entitled "Otay's Cash for WaterSmart Plants and Water Smart Irrigation Upgrade Programs"at the 49th annual California Irrigation Institute Conference in Sacramento. •School Education Update -In February,four 3rd to 5th grade classes involving 190 students and 40 adults from Rogers, Casillas,and Olympic View Elementary Schools visited the Garden and participated in school Garden tours.To date,14 tours have been completed and another 12 are scheduled to be completed before the end of March 2011. •Water Waste Reporting -In February (through the 22 nd ),there were 5 reports of water waste,either phoned in or reported through the District's website.The water waste report listing the activity is attached. Safety &Security: •HAZWOPER Team -The Team completed their annual respirator fit test on February 3,2011. •Training/Meetings: o February 8,2011 -Otay hosted the Water Utilities Safety Managers Association (WUSMA)meeting. o February 16,2011 -Training on "Ethics in Safety Leadership",conducted by Pacific Safety Council. o February 23,2011 -Cal-OSHA Electrical Safety Training. •The Safety Committee conducted an earthquake hazard inspection on February 10,2011. •Claims -The District processed the following claim: o County of San Diego (1/6/11)-Rejected claim for $8,093.84;a claim for reimbursement of Workers' Compensation expenses for an injured County employee. This claim has been referred to the District's Property & Liability carrier,Special District Risk Management Authority (SDRMA).SDRMA will investigate this claim. Purchasing and Facilities: •Purchase Orders -There were 91 purchase orders processed in February 2011 for a total of $635,971.68. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING: •Network Switch Upgrade -As the result of our Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)upgrade,we are installing network switches that will allow "power over Ethernet"for our new phone system.Power over Ethernet is a system to pass electrical power,along with data,safely on Ethernet (CAT5 or higher)cabling. •Verizon 4G Air Cards -We have received our first Verizon 4th Generation (4G)cellular wireless standards air cards.The new technology has the potential to increase our field mobile computer access up to 20 times faster than is now possible. •Strategic Plan -The District's plan for 2012-2014 is nearing completion for review by the Board prior to the FY 2012 2 Budget process.Staff will brief the Board at a workshop In March on the changes in the new plan. FINANCE: •Bill Format -After receiving Board input on the new bill format,staff is testing the various aspects of the new bill and expects customers to receive the new version in June. Staff will keep the Board updated as this process progresses. •AMR -Staff is testing new AMR routes to bring them online. When the testing is complete,an additional 9 routes and over 4,500 AMR meters will be used for billing.This will bring the total AMR meters used for billing up to 32,815.Another 7,047 AMR meters,which are currently serving customers,will be brought into AMR routes as additional whole routes are developed. •Alternative Payment Types -The total alternative payments made in January was 23,535.Alternative payment types include ACH,web payments,online banking,credit card by phone,and payment through retailers such as Wal-Mart.These methods of payments are much less expensive to the District than the standard payment via check.Approximately 53%of customer payments are now made using these alternative methods.As of February 18th ,8,047 customers have chosen to stop receiving paper bills,another significant cost savings to the District. •FEMA Claims -Representatives from Otay met with State and Federal emergency management personnel on February 16th , regarding the submittal of reimbursement claims for damages incurred to District property as a result of the December 2010 rainstorms.This entire process of completing repairs, and the subsequent claims requests,is expected to continue for several months.The District is submitting an estimate of damages at $225,000 and can expect as much as 97% reimbursement for the actual cost to repair. The financial reporting for January 31,2011 is as follows: •For the seven months ending January 31,2011,there are total revenues of $41,274,293 and total expenses of $43,604,236.The expenses exceeded revenues by $2,329,943 due primarily to potable and reclaimed water sales that are below budget.Other variances include a back-billing charge from the San Diego Metro Commission in the amount of $261,000 and cost to the City of San Diego of $221,431 on the recycled "Take-or-Pay"Agreement. 3 San Diego Metro Commission's process includes a back billing to true up estimated flows to actual flows.The FY 2009 back billing amount is $261,000.Also,in FY 2009 the District did not meet its take requirement for recycled water from the City of San Diego.Though the City did not bill the District,the District estimates that it will be billed $221,431 for its contractual obligation on the "Take-or-Pay" agreement. The financial reporting for investments for January 31,2011 is as follows: •The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and Investment Portfolio Details as of January 31,2011 $105,245,104.44 with an average yield to maturity of The total earnings year-to-date are $642,706.38. in the total .851%. ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS: Engineering: •Otay Lakes Road Widening:The District is awaiting final billing and quantities from the City of Chula Vista for the construction of the 12-Inch Recycled Water main.The pipeline installation is complete with punchlist items remaining.The District and the City partnered up with a 12- Inch Recycled Water Pipeline and Road Widening Project on Otay Lakes Road.The recycled pipeline starts at Telegraph Canyon Road and ends in front of Bonita Vista High School. The project also includes relocations of a few potable water facilities.The project is on budget and on schedule.This project is scheduled to be completed March 1,2011.(R2094, P2496) •Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development:A pre-proposal meeting was conducted on January 25,with over 15 firms represented.Design proposals were received on February 10 and the selection process is timed to allow Board consideration of an award at the April meeting.The design is anticipated to be complete by the end of calendar 2011, with construction complete by the end of calendar 2012. (P2434) •1296-1 & 2 Reservoirs Coating:West Coast Industrial Coating (West Coast)has completed coating the 1296-1 Reservoir.The reservoir is now in service.West Coast completed the interior of the 1296-1 Reservoir and has completed the exterior coating of the 1296-2 Reservoir.The project is expected to be completed in March 2011.(P2492) 4 •Del Rio Rd.&Gillispie Dr.Emergency Interconnections:The contract was awarded to LH Woods &Sons at the January 2011 Board meeting.The Notice to Proceed has been issued and LH Woods expects to mobilize in March.This project consists of installing two new emergency interconnections with Helix Water District.This project is on schedule to be completed in August 2011.(P2488,P2499) •657-1 &2 Reservoirs Coating:The contract was awarded to Blastco Inc.at the January 2011 Board meeting.The Notice to Proceed has been issued and Blastco began removing the interior coating of the 657-1 Reservoir.This project consists of recoating the interior and exterior of each reservoir as well as structural upgrades.This project is on schedule to be completed in June 2011.(P2505,P2506) •City of San Diego Recycled Water Study:The District staff has reviewed Technical Memorandum No.5.Staff has developed 21 pages of detailed comments that will be provided to the City's consultants so that they may be addressed and incorporated into the Recycled Water Study final report. •For the month of January 2011,the District sold 16 meters (29 EDUs)generating $245,321 in revenue.Projection for this period was 12 meters (26 EDUs)with budgeted revenue of $217,086.Projected revenue from June 1,2010 through June 30,2011 is $2,605,036;against a budget of $1,519,604 as of January 31,2011.Revenue collected to date is $2,064,598, which is 36%above projection. •For the month of January,staff reviewed one potential easement encroachment and will be gathering all the necessary information prior to informing customer of the removal of the encroachment.The above is a part of an on-going program of easement monitoring. •Approximately 402 linear feet of both CIP and developer project pipeline was installed in January 2011.The Inspection Division performed quality control for these pipelines. The following table summarizes Engineering's project purchases and Change Orders issued during the period of January 15,2011 through February 16,2011 that were within staff signatory authority: 5 Date Action Amount Contractor/ProjectConsul.tant 1/12/11 Check $8,115.00 City of Chula Otay Mesa Recycled Supply Request Vista Link Project (P1253) 1/24/11 Check $9,800.00 Steven and Settlement for real and Request Janice Moyers personal property (P2172) Grant of a drainage 1/24/11 Check $5,200.00 Steven and easement and permanent use Request Janice Moyers and access easement (P2172) West Coast 1296-1 &2 Reservoir 1/26/11 C.O.#3 $20,900.00 Industrial Exterior/Interior Coating Coatings &Upgrades (P2490 &P2492) 2/16/10 P.O.$4,400.00 Paso Robles 1296-3 Reservoir (P2143)Tank Inc. Water Operations: •Total number of potable water meters is 48,228 . •In January 2011,Potable water purchases were 1,966.2 AF, which was 7.6%less than the budgeted amount for the month of January.The year-to-date potable water purchases are 10.7% less than budget and 27.9%less than the CWA allocation. Below is the chart showing cumulative purchases vs.budget and the allocation. Potable Water Purchases 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ....Purchases _Budget -.-Allocation Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 6 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 •Recycled water consumption for the month of January is as follows: Total consumption was 59.3 acre-feet or 19,326,076 gallons and the average daily consumption was 623,422 gallons per day. Total number of recycled water meters is 685. Total recycled water consumption to date for FY 2011 is 2,592.9 acre-feet. •Wastewater flows for the month of January were as follows: • • • • • Total basin flow,gallons per day:2,012,000. Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro,gallons per day:667,000. Total Otay flow,gallons per day:1,345,000. Flow Processed at the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling Facility,gallons per day:409,000. Flow to Metro from Otay Water District,gallons per day: 934,603. •For the month of January there were no new wastewater connections;total EDUs is 6,079. ~~~General Manager 7 Water Waste Reporting 4 17 6 47 8 1 79 17 4 70 8 1 52 7 1 41 6 20 11 26 4 22 4 1 9 3 6 1 5 2 10 4 1 5 11 3 4 3 1 1 13 2 1 2 1 1 9 4 2 6 3 6 4 13 2 1 5 2 3 1 14 1 1 1 1 4 9 2 11 2 3 5 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 73 2 180 61 109 24 9 35 493 OTAY WATER DISTRICT COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY FOR SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31,2011 Exhibit A Annual YTD YTD YTD Budget Actual Budget Variance Var% REVENUES: Water Sales $36,560,100 $18,948,474 $22,392,600 $(3,444,126)(15.4%) Energy Charges 1,854,600 1,017,945 1,134,100 (116,155)(10.2%) System Charges 9,532,200 5,483,772 5,488,200 (4,428)(0.1%) Penalties 747,600 417,286 448,300 (31,014)(6.9%) MWD &CWA Fixed Charges 7,639,400 3,967,151 4,100,700 (133,549)(3.3%) Total Water Sales 56,333,900 29,834,630 33,563,900 (3,729,270)(11.1%) Reclamation Sales 7,620,600 4,191,220 4,880,600 (689,380)(14.1%) Sewer Charges 2,270,500 1,430,906 1,414,075 16,831 1.2% Meter Fees 50,300 38,274 29,400 8,874 30.2% Capacity Fee Revenues 1,095,300 534,378 568,800 (34,422)(6.1%) Betterment Fees for Maintenance 657,400 362,484 383,500 (21,016)(5.5%) Non-Operating Revenues 1,948,300 1,083,626 1,106,292 (22,666)(2.0%) Tax Revenues 3,843,900 2,023,719 1,983,900 39,819 2.0% Interest 296,200 96,456 157,800 (61,344)(38.9%) General Fund Draw Down 1,657,500 966,900 966,900 0,0% Transfer from OPEB 1,220,000 711,700 711,700 0,0% Total Revenues $76,993,900 $41,274,293 $45,766,867 $(4,492,574)(9.8%) EXPENSES: Potable Water Purchases $26,238,700 $14,810,951 $16,856,800 $2,045,849 12.1% Recycled Water Purchases 1,179,900 919,826 726,750 (193,076)(26.6%) CWA-Infrastructure Access Charge 1,550,700 835,151 835,400 249 0.0% CWA-Customer Service Charge 1,315,200 709,154 709,200 46 0.0% CWA-Emergency Storage Charge 2,875,200 1,555,965 1,554,700 (1,265)(0.1%) MWD-Capacity Res Charge 665,100 387,277 387,800 523 0.1% MWD-Readiness to Serve Charge 1,232,400 718,003 718,900 897 0.1% Subtotal Water Purchases 35,057,200 19,936,327 21,789,550 1,853,223 8.5% Power Charges 2,520,700 1,363,256 1,518,500 155,244 10.2% Payroll &Related Costs 16,749,400 9,847,204 9,738,309 (108,895)(1.1 %) Material &Maintenance 3,769,500 2,191,752 1,953,375 (238,377)(12.2%) Administrative Expenses 5,130,400 2,270,763 2,554,959 284,196 11.1% Legal Fees 451,200 227,534 263,200 35,666 13,6% Expansion Reserve 2,775,000 1,618,800 1,618,800 0.0% Betterment Reserve 1,435,000 837,100 837,100 0.0% Replacement Reserve 6,965,000 4,062,900 4,062,900 0.0% Transfer to Sewer General Fund 390,500 227,800 227,800 0.0% Transfer to General Fund Reserve 1,750,000 1,020,800 1,020,800 0.0% Total Expenses $76,993,900 $43,604,236 $45,585,293 $1,981,057 4.3% EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENSE)$$(2,329,943)$181,574 $(2,511,517) F/MORPT/FS2011-0111 2/22/2011 8:28 AM OTAY WATER DISTRICT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW JANUARY 31,2011 INVESTMENT OVERVIEW &MARKET STATUS: The federal funds rate has remained constant now for over 25-months.On December 16,2008,at the Federal Reserve Board's regular scheduled meeting,the federal funds rate was lowered from 1.00%to "a target range ofbetween Zero and 0.25%"in response to the nation's ongoing financial crisis,as well as banking industry pressure to ease credit and stimulate the economy.This marked the ninth reduction in a row since September 18,2007,when the rate was 5.25%.There have been no further changes made to the federal funds rate at the Federal Reserve Board's subsequent regular scheduled meetings,the most recent of which was held on December 14,2010. They went on to say:"The Committee continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels ofthe federal funds rate for an extended period." Despite the large drop in available interest rates,the District's overall effective rate of return at January 31 st was 0.86%,which was an increase of 1 basis point (0.01 %)from the prior month.At the same time the LAIF return on deposits has dropped slightly over the last several months,reaching an average effective yield of0.54%for the month of January 2011.Based on our success at maintaining a competitive rate of return on our portfolio during this extended period of interest rate declines,no changes in investment strategy are being considered at this time. In accordance with the District's Investment Policy,all District funds continue to be managed based on the objectives,in priority order,of safety,liquidity,and return on investment. PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE:January 31,2011 Investment 8.01:Treasury Securities 8.02:Local Agency Investment Fund (Operations) 8.02:Local Agency Investment Fund (Bonds) 8.03:Federal Agency Issues 8.04:Certificates of Deposit 8.05:Short-Term Commercial Notes 8.06:Medium-Term Commercial Debt 8.07:Money Market Mutual Funds 8.08:San Diego County Pool 12.0:Maximum Single Financial Institution State Limit 100% $40 Million 100% 100% 30% 25% 30% 20% 100% 100% Otay Limit 100% $40 Million 100% 100% 15% 15% 15% 15% 100% 50% Otay Actual o $20.40 Million 3.85% 57.40% 1.98% o o o 16.15% 1.23% Target:Meet or Exceed 100%of LAIF Performance Measure F-12 Return on Investment 1Il 1.80C1.60QlE1.40..CIlQl 1.20>.=1.00c00.80c..0.60::sGi 0.40a: 0.20 0.00 1st Qtr FYIO IILAIF 0.90 -Otay 1.62 DDifferenee 0.72 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr FY10 FYIO 0.61 0.56 1.52 1.35 0.91 0.79 4thQtr FYIO 0.56 1.08 052 July FYII Aug FYII Sep FYII 0.53 0.51 050 1.14 1.12 1.13 0.61 0.61 0.63 Month lstQtr OetFYl1 Nov FYII Dec FYII 2nd Qtr Jan FY"FYII FYI) 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.54 1.13 0.91 0.99 0.85 0.92 0.86 0.62 0.43 054 0.39 0.45 0.32 I liILAIF .Otay ODiHerence I Otay Water District Investment Portfolio:01/31/11 $60,372,000 57.40%~/__----------~ I ~ ......."------------- $41,433,096 39.39% oBanks (Passbook/Checking/CD)•Pools (LAIF &County)o Agencies &Corporate Notes OlAY Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary January 31,2011 Investments Federal Agency Issues-Callable Certificates ofDeposn-Bank Local Agency InvestmentFund (LAIF) San Diego County Pool Investments Cash Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equlv.365 Equlv. 60,372,000.00 60,412,968.99 60,370,890.57 58.11 847 702 1.008 1.022 2,079,108.00 2,079,108.00 2,079,108.00 2.00 379 16 1.399 1.419 24,446,352.12 24,482,076.13 24,446,352.12 23.53 1 1 0.531 0.538 16,986,744.37 16,973,000.00 16,986,744.37 16.35 1 1 0.688 0.698 103,884,204.49 103,947,153.12 103,883,095.06 100.00%500 408 0.851 0.863 (not included in vield calculations) Total Cash and Investments 1,297,951.32 105,182,155.81 1,297,951.32 105,245,104.44 1,297,951.32 105,181,046.38 500 408 0.124 0.851 0.125 0.863 Total Earnings January 31 MonthEnding Fiscal YearTo Date Current Year 77,019.97 642,706.38 Average Daily Balance 105,989,145.58 106,892,780.40 Effective Rate ofReturn 0.86%1.58% I hereby certify that the inv~tained in this report are made in accordance with the District Investment Policy Number27 adopted by the Board ofDirectors on September 6,2006.The marketvaIU~y.~eData Corporation.The investments provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow requirements ofthe District for the next six months ofexpenditures. ?--?-?--I! Reporting period 01/01/2011·01/31/2011 Run Date:0211712011 -16:30 Portfolio OTAY AP PM (PRF PM1)7.3.0 ReportVer.7.3.2 OTAY Portfolio Management Page 1 Portfolio Details -Investments January 31,2011 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment#Issuer Balance Date ParValue Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 360 Maturity Date Federal Agency Issues-Callable 31331JZV8 2164 Federal Farm Credit Bank 09/03/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,160.00 2,000,000.00 0.950 AM 0.937 822 05103/2013 31331JM75 2170 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/12/2010 2,000,000.00 1,996,220.00 2,000,000.00 0.900 0.888 801 04/12/2013 3133XXRW9 2128 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/29/2010 2,000,000.00 2,003,240.00 2,000,000.00 1.250 AM 1.233 514 06/29/2012 3133XYNSO 2145 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/10/2010 2,000,000.00 2,006,760.00 2,000,000.00 1.280 AM 1.262 678 12/10/2012 3133XYSH9 2147 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/21/2010 2,000,000.00 2,006,920.00 2,000,000.00 1.125 AM 1.110 598 09/21/2012 313370P77 2162 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/25/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,660.00 2,000,000.00 0.850 AM 0.838 755 02/25/2013 313370UP1 2165 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/13/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,120.00 2,000,000.00 0.875 AM 0.863 771 03/13/2013 313371LKO 2173 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/16/2010 2,000,000.00 1,993,180.00 2,000,000.00 0.700 AM 0.690 654 11/16/2012 313371MR4 2174 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/22/2010 2,000,000.00 1,984,440.00 2,000,000.00 0.700 AM 0.690 841 05/22/2013 313371RA6 2175 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/07/2010 2,000,000.00 1,993,880.00 2,000,000.00 0.700 AM 0.690 675 12/07/2012 313371U20 2176 Federal Home Loan Bank 12103/2010 2,000,000.00 1,992,220.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 853 06/03/2013 313372B45 2181 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/05/2011 2,000,000.00 2,001,740.00 2,000,000.00 1.375 AM 1.356 885 07/05/2013 3137EACK3 2146 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 05/28/2010 2,000,000.00 2,018,940.00 1,999,339.46 1.147 AM 1.154 542 07/27/2012 3137EACK3A 2148 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 05/27/2010 1,030,000.00 1,039,754.10 1,030,000.00 1.125 AM 1.109 542 07/27/2012 3137EACK3B 2149 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 05/27/2010 2,707,000.00 2,732,635.29 2,707,000.00 1.125 AM 1.109 542 07/27/2012 3134G1MD3 2153 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 07/22/2010 2,000,000.00 2,006,460.00 2,000,000.00 1.100 AM 1.085 171 07/22/2011 3134G1PK4 2158 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 08/11/2010 2,000,000.00 2,006,720.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 741 02111/2013 3134GHU8 2167 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 2,001,400.00 2,000,000.00 0.800 0.789 605 09/28/2012 3134G1UR3 2169 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 2,001,360.00 2,000,000.00 0.900 0.888 786 03/28/2013 3134G1C69 2177 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 12/20/2010 2,000,000.00 1,994,800.00 2,000,000.00 0.850 AM 0.838 870 06/20/2013 3134G1G32 2179 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 12/28/2010 2,000,000.00 1,999,820.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 786 03/28/2013 3134G1P81 2180 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 01/07/2011 2,000,000.00 2,001,360.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 706 01/07/2013 3136FMFRO 2127 Federal National Mortage Assoc 04/05/2010 2,000,000.00 2,003,840.00 2,000,000.00 1.500 AM 1.479 612 10105/2012 3136FMPB4 2132 Federal National Mortage Assoc 04/29/2010 2,000,000.00 2,004,800.00 2,000,000.00 1.480 AM 1.460 636 10/29/2012 3136FMRH9 2136 Federal National Mortage Assoc 04/29/2010 2,000,000.00 2,005,740.00 2,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 636 10/29/2012 3136FM4N1 2157 Federal National Mortage Assoc 08/11/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,380.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 741 02111/2013 3136FPHU4 2168 Federal National Mortage Assoc 09/21/2010 2,000,000.00 2,001,400.00 2,000,000.00 0.875 AM 0.863 779 03/21/2013 3136FPQG5 2171 Federal National Mortage Assoc 10/26/2010 635,000.00 631,799.60 635,000.00 0.850 AM 0.837 906 07/26/2013 3136FPSK4 2172 Federal National Mortage Assoc 10/29/2010 2,000,000.00 1,990,620.00 1,999,551.11 0.675 AM 0.676 818 04/29/2013 3136FPL47 2178 Federal National Mortage Assoc 12/27/2010 2,000,000.00 1,993,160.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 877 06/27/2013 3136FP5X1 2182 Federal National Mortage Assoc 01/28/2011 2,000,000.00 1,998,440.00 2,000,000.00 0.860 AM 0.848 727 01/28/2013--------- Subtotal and Average 63,209,575.16 60,372,000.00 60,412,968.99 60,370,890.57 1.008 702 Certificates of Deposit-Bank 2050003183-4 2121 California Bank &Trust 01/22/2010 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 1.380 1.380 355 01/22/2012 1006200563-2 2126 Neighborhood National Bank 02104/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1.400 1.400 3 02/04/2011 Portfolio OTAY AP Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:30 PM (PRF]M2)7.3.0 Report VeL 7.3.2 OTAY Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Investments January 31,2011 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment#Issuer Balance Date ParValue Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 360 Maturity Date Subtotal and Average 2,079,108.00 2,079,108.00 2,079,108.00 2,079,108.00 1.399 16 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07101/2004 20,400,249.75 20,430,061.10 20,400,249.75 0.538 0.531 LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/21/2010 4,046,102.37 4,052,015.03 4,046,102.37 0.538 0.531--------- Subtotal and Average 21,274,869.63 24,446,352.12 24,482,076.13 24,446,352.12 0.531 San Diego County Pool SO COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County 07101/2004 16,986,744.37 16,973,000.00 16,986,744.37 0.698 0.688--------- Subtotal and Average 16,972,416.22 16,986,744.37 16,973,000.00 16,986,744.37 0.688 Total and Average 105,989,145.58 103,884,204.49 103,947,153.12 103,883,095.06 0.851 408 Run Date:02117/2011 -16:30 Portfolio OTAY AP PM (PRF]M2)7.3.0 DTAY Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Cash January 31,2011 Page 3 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment#Issuer Balance Date ParValue Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 360 Maturity Union Bank UNION MONEY 9002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0710112004 24,985.07 24,985.07 24,985.07 0.005 0.005 PETTY CASH 9003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0710112004 2,950.00 2,950.00 2,950.00 0.000 UNION OPERATING 9004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0710112004 1,178,860.04 1,178,860.04 1,178,860.04 0,138 0,136 PAYROLL 9005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0710112004 23,684.71 23,684.71 23,684.71 0,000 RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0412012010 8,383,59 8,383.59 8,383,59 0,001 0,001 RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04120/2010 20,642.94 20,642,94 20,642.94 0,001 0,001 UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/20/2010 51.89 51.89 51,89 0.147 0,145 UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 01/01/2011 38,393,08 38,393,08 38,393,08 0,000 Average Balance 0.00 Total Cash and Investments 105,989,145.58 105,182,155.81 105,245,104.44 105,181,046.38 0.851 408 Run Date:02117/2011 -16:30 Portfolio OTAY AP PM (PRF]M2)7.3.0 OTAY Activity Report Sorted By Issuer July 1,2010 -January 31,2011 CUSIP Investment#Issuer Percent of Portfolio .ParValue Beginning Balance Current Transaction Rate Date Purchases or Deposits Par Value Redemptions or Withdrawals Ending Balance Issuer:Berkshire Hathaway Fin Corporate Notes 084664AF8 2094 Berkshire Hathaway Fin Subtotal and Balance 2,000,000.00 4.200 12/15/2010 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 Issuer Subtotal 0.000%2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 Issuer:STATE OF CALIFORNIA Union Bank Subtotal and Balance IssuerSubtotal 24.476% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 24,446,352.12 25,744,303.44 ....1.,297,9.51..3.2..... . 0.005 119,711,651.89 119,696,676.81 150.00 0.00 0.138 4,561,271.58 4,427,123.53 1,370,925.04 1,372,217.59 0.001 7,692.83 0.00 0.001 20,217.93 0.00 0.147 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 50,000.00 11,606.92 1,083,666.90 135,721,909.27 135,507,624.85 0.538 56,245,764.02 54,350,463.98 0.538 46,345.00 12,000,242.63 34,504,949.71 56,292,109.02 66,350,706.61 35,588,616.61 192,014,018.29 201,858,331.46 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA Subtotal and Balance 9002 9003 9004 9005 9010 9011 9013 9014 UNION MONEY PETTY CASH UNION OPERATING PAYROLL RESERVE-10 COPS RESERVE-10 BABS UBNA-2010 BOND UBNA-FLEX ACCT Issuer:California Bank &Trust Certificates of Deposit -Bank Subtotal and Balance 79,108.00 79,108.00 Issuer Subtotal 0.075%79,108.00 0.00 0.00 79,108.00 Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:44 Portfolio DlAY AP DA (PRF_DA)7.2.0 Report Ver.7.3.2 OTAY Activity Report Page 2 July 1,2010 -January 31,2011 Par Value ParValue Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending CUSIP Investment#Issuer ofPortfolio Balance Rate Date Deposits Withdrawals Balance Issuer:Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Agency Issues-Callable 31331GZ36 2155 Federal Farm CreditBank 1.550 07/16/2010 4,000,000.00 0.00 31331GZ36 2155 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/19/2010 0.00 4,000,000.00 31331JYF4 2161 Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.900 08/19/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 31331JYF4 2161 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/19/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 31331JZV8 2164 Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.950 09/03/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 31331JM75 2170 Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.900 10/12/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotaland Balance 0.00 10,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 IssuerSubtotal 3.803%0.00 10,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 Issuer:Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3133XXK22 2124 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.250 07/08/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 3133XY2C8 2130 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.800 07/26/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 3133XY5H4 2131 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.450 07/30/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 3133XTAS4 2133 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.600 08/06/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 3133XY004 2138 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.700 08/13/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 3133XYCTO 2139 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.500 08/13/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 3133XYFP5 2142 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.020 08/25/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 3133XYXR1 2150 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.250 07/14/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 3133XYXR1 2150 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/14/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 313370B09 2156 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.800 07/27/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313370B09 2156 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/27/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 313370NF1 2160 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.800 08/20/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313370NF1 2160 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/20/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 313370P77 2162 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.850 08/25/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313370JRO 2163 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.850 08/27/2010 2,875,000.00 0.00 313370JRO 2163 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/27/2010 0.00 2,875,000.00 313370UP1 2165 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.875 09/13/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313370VGO 2166 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.800 09/21/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313370VGO 2166 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/21/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 313371LKO 2173 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.700 11/16/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313371MR4 2174 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.700 11/22/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313371RA6 2175 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.700 12107/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 313371U20 2176 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.000 12/03/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 Portfolio OTAY AP Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:44 DA (PRF_DA)7.2.0 Report Ver.7.3.2 OTAY Activity Report July 1,2010 -January 31,2011 Page 3 CUSIP Investment#Issuer Percent ofPortfolio ParValue Beginning Balance Current Transaction Rate Date Purchases or Deposits Par Value Redemptions or Withdrawals Ending Balance Issuer:Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Agency Issues-Callable 313372B45 2181 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.375 01/05/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotaland Balance 20,000,000.00 24,875,000.00 24,875,000.00 20,000,000.00 Issuer Subtotal 19.015%20,000,000.00 24,875,000.00 24,875,000.00 20,000,000.00 Issuer:Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Agency Issues-Callable 1.300 08/10/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.650 11/19/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.300 09108/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 07/20/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 01/20/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.100 07/22/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 1.000 08/11/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.800 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.900 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.850 12/20/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 1.000 12/28/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 1.000 01/07/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00 11,737,000.00 16,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 19,737,000.00 11,737,000.00 16,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 19,737,000.0018.765%IssuerSubtotal Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage-------- Subtotal and Balance 2134 2140 2144 2151 2151 2153 2158 2167 2169 2177 2179 2180 3134G1AW4 3134G1DE1 3134G1EH3 3134G1KZ6 3134G1KZ6 3134G1MD3 3134G1PK4 3134GHU8 3134G1UR3 3134G1C69 3134G1G32 3134G1P81 Issuer:Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Agency Issues-Callable 31398AC91 3136FJR45 3136FJ4T5 31398AH88 3136FMJF2 31398AQ47 3136FMRG1 31398AS78 31398AW65 31398AW65 2117 2118 2120 2123 2129 2135 2137 2143 2152 2152 Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National MortageAssoc Federal National MortageAssoc 1.500 07/20/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 2.750 01/25/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.500 08/16/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.500 09/24/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.250 01/14/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.600 11105/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.300 11110/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.400 08/25/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 07/27/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 10/27/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 Run Date'02/17/2011 -16:44 Portfolio OTAY AP DA (PRF_DA)7.2.0 Report Ver.7.3.2 OTAY Activity Report July 1,2010 -January 31,2011 Page 4 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Percent ofPortfolio ParValue Beginning Balance Current Transaction Rate Date Purchases or Deposits ParValue Redemptions or Withdrawals Ending Balance Issuer:Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.000 07/26/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 01/26/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 08/11/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 1.000 08/19/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 11/19/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.875 09/21/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.850 10/26/2010 635,000.00 0.00 0.675 10/29/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 1.000 12/27/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.860 01/28/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00 22,000,000.00 16,635,000.00 22,000,000.00 16,635,000.00 22,000,000.00 16,635,000.00 22,000,000.00 16,635,000.0015.815% Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc------ IssuerSubtotal Subtotal and Balance Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3136FMX82 2154 3136FMX82 2154 3136FM4N1 2157 3136FM6A7 2159 3136FM6A7 2159 3136FPHU4 2168 3136FPQG5 2171 3136FPSK4 2172 3136FPL47 2178 3136FP5X1 2182 Issuer:General Electric Capital Corporate Notes 36962G2S2 2044 General ElectricCapital Subtotal and Balance 2,000,000.00 5.000 12/01/2010 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 IssuerSubtotal 0.000%2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 Issuer:Neighborhood National Bank Certificates ofDeposit -Bank 3,000,000,00 1008995288 2119 Neighborhood National Bank _ Subtotal and Balance 1.400 12/09/2010 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 IssuerSubtotal 1.901%3,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 Issuer:San Diego County San Diego County Pool SO COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County Subtotal and Balance 18,878,241.73 0.698 121,259.40 121,259.40 2,012,756.76 2,012,756.76 16,986,744.37 IssuerSubtotal 16.150%18,878,241.73 121,259.40 2,012,756.76 16,986,744.37 Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:44 Portfolio OTAY AP DA(PRF_DA)7.20 Report Ver.7.3.2 DTAY Activity Report July 1,2010 -January 31,2011 Page 5 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Percent ofPortfolio Par Value Beginning Balance Current Transaction Rate Date Purchases or Deposits Par Value Redemptions or Withdrawals Ending Balance Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:44 Total 100.000%115,282,966.34 259,645,277.69 269,746,088.22 105,182,155.81 Portfolio DTAY AP DA (PRF_DA)7.2.0 Report Ver.7.3.2 OTAY GASS 31 Compliance Detail Sorted by Fund -Fund July 1,2010 -January 31,2011 Adjustment inValue Investment Maturity Beginning Purchase Addition Redemption Amortization Change in Ending CUSIP Investment#Fund Class Date Invested Value ofPrincipal to Principal of Principal Adjustment MarketValue Invested Value Fund:Treasury Fund LAIF 9001 99 Fair Value 18,535,367.70 0.00 56,245,764.02 54,350,463.98 0.00 -606.64 20,430,061.10 UNION MONEY 9002 99 Amortized 10,009.99 0.00 119,711,651.89 119,696,676.81 0.00 0.00 24,985.07 PETTY CASH 9003 99 Amortized 2,800.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,950.00 UNION OPERATING 9004 99 Amortized 1,044,711.99 0.00 4,561,271.58 4,427,123.53 0.00 0.00 1,178,860.04 PAYROLL 9005 99 Amortized 24,977.26 0.00 1,370,925.04 1,372,217.59 0.00 0.00 23,684.71 SO COUNTY POOL 9007 99 Fair Value 18,851,000.00 0.00 121,259.40 2,012,756.76 0.00 13,497.36 16,973,000.00 36962G2S2 2044 99 Fair Value 12/01/2010 2,032,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -32,000.00 0.00 084664AF8 2094 99 FairValue 12/15/2010 2,030,740.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -30,740.00 0.00 31398AC91 2117 99 FairValue 01/20/2012 2,000,620.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -620.00 0.00 3136FJR45 2118 99 FairValue 01/25/2013 2,005,620.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -5,620.00 0.00 1008995288 2119 99 Amortized 12/09/2010 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3136FJ4T5 2120 99 FairValue 08/16/2012 2,002,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,500.00 0.00 2050003183-4 2121 99 Amortized 01/22/2012 79,108.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79,108.00 31398AH88 2123 99 Fair Value 09/24/2012 2,004,380.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -4,380.00 0.00 3133XXK22 2124 99 FairVa[ue 06/25/2012 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1006200563-2 2126 99 Amortized 02/04/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 3136FMFRO 2127 99 Fair Value 10/05/2012 2,012,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8,660.00 2,003,840.00 3133XXRW9 2128 99 Fair Value 06/29/2012 2,012,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -9,260.00 2,003,240.00 3136FMJF2 2129 99 Fair Value 05/14/2012 2,009,380.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -9,380.00 0.00 3133XY2C8 2130 99 FairValue 01/29/2013 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00 3133XY5H4 2131 99 FairValue 07/30/2012 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00 3136FMPB4 2132 99 FairValue 10/29/2012 2,010,620.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5,820.00 2,004,800.00 3134G1AW4 2134 99 FairValue 05/10/2012 2,001,920.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,920.00 0.00 31398AQ47 2135 99 FairValue 11/05/2012 2,007,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -7,500.00 0.00 3136FMRH9 2136 99 Fair Value 10/29/2012 2,014,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8,640.00 2,005,740.00 3136FMRG1 2137 99 FairValue 05/10/2012 2,005,620.00 0.00 0.00 2.000,000.00 0.00 -5,620.00 0.00 3133XYOO4 2138 99 FairValue 11/13/2012 2,002,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,500.00 0.00 3133XYCTO 2139 99 FairValue 08/13/2012 2,002,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,500.00 0.00 3134G1DE1 2140 99 FairValue 11/19/2012 2,008,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -8,000.00 0.00 RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 99 Amortized 690.76 0.00 7,692.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,383.59 RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 99 Amortized 425.01 0.00 20,217.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,642.94 3133XYFP5 2142 99 Fair Value 11/25/2011 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00 Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:44 Portfolio OTAY AP GO (PRF_GO)7.1.1 ReportVer.7.3.2 OTAY GASS 31 Compliance Detail Page 2 Sorted by Fund -Fund Adjustment in Value Investment Maturity Beginning Purchase Addition Redemption Amortization Change in Ending CUSIP Investment#Fund Class Date Invested Value of Principal to Principal of Principal Adjustment MarketValue Invested Value Fund:Treasury Fund 31398AS78 2143 99 Fair Value OS/25/2012 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00 3134G1EH3 2144 99 Fair Value 06/08/2012 2,002,540.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,540.00 0.00 LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 Fair Value 16,026,300.42 0.00 46,345.00 12,000,242.63 0.00 -20,387.75 4,052,015.03 UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 99 Amortized 51.89 0.00 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 51.89 3133XYNSO 2145 99 Fair Value 12/10/2012 2,009,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2,620.00 2,006,760.00 3137EACK3 2146 99 Fair Value 07/27/2012 2,014,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,560.00 2,018,940.00 3133XYSH9 2147 99 FairValue 09/21/2012 2,010,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,080.00 2,006,920.00 3137EACK3A 2148 99 FairValue 07/27/2012 1,037,405.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,348.40 1,039,754.10 3137EACK3B 2149 99 FairValue 07/27/2012 2,726,463.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,171.96 2,732,635.29 3133XYXR1 2150 99 FairValue 01/14/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3134G1KZ6 2151 99 FairValue 07/20/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31398AW65 2152 99 FairValue 07/27/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3134G1M03 2153 99 FairValue 07/22/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,460.00 2,006,460.00 3136FMX82 2154 99 FairValue 10/26/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 313370B09 2156 99 FairValue 04/27/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3136FM4N1 2157 99 FairValue 02/11/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 380.00 2,000,380.00 3134G1PK4 2158 99 FairValue 02/11/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,720.00 2,006,720.00 313370NF1 2160 99 FairValue 11/20/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31331JYF4 2161 99 FairValue 02/19/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 313370P77 2162 99 FairValue 02/25/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 660.00 2,000,660.00 313370JRO 2163 99 FairValue 08/27/2012 0.00 2,875,000.00 0.00 2,875,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31331JZV8 2164 99 FairValue 05/03/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160.00 2,000,160.00 313370UP1 2165 99 FairValue 03/13/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 2,000,120.00 313370VGO 2166 99 FairValue 09/21/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3134G1TU8 2167 99 FairValue 09/28/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,400.00 2,001,400.00 3136FPHU4 2168 99 FairValue 03/21/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,400.00 2,001,400.00 3134G1UR3 2169 99 FairValue 03/28/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,360.00 2,001,360.00 31331JM75 2170 99 FairValue 04/12/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,780.00 1,996,220.00 3136FPQG5 2171 99 FairValue 07/26/2013 0.00 635,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,200.40 631,799.60 3136FPSK4 2172 99 FairValue 04/29/2013 0.00 1,999,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8,880.00 1,990,620.00 3133XTAS4 2133 99 FairValue 11/06/2012 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00 313371LKO 2173 99 FairValue 11/16/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6,820.00 1,993,180.00 313371MR4 2174 99 FairValue OS/22/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -15,560.00 1,984,440.00 313371RA6 2175 99 FairValue 12/07/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6,120.00 1,993,880.00 313371U20 2176 99 FairValue 06/03/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7,780.00 1,992,220.00 31331GZ36 2155 99 FairValue 07/19/2012 0.00 4,012,400.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 -12,400.00 0.00 3134G1C69 2177 99 FairValue 06/20/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5,200.00 1,994,800.00 Portfolio OTAY AP Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:44 GO (PRF_GD)7.1.1 ReportVer.7.3.2 OTAY GASS 31 Compliance Detail Page 3 Sorted by Fund -Fund Adjustment in Value Investment Maturity Beginning Purchase Addition Redemption Amortization Change in Ending CUSIP Investment#Fund Class Date InvestedValue ofPrincipal to Principal of Principal Adjustment MarketValue Invested Value Fund:Treasury Fund 3136FPL47 2178 99 Fair Value 0612712013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6,840.00 1,993,160.00 3134G1G32 2179 99 Fair Value 0312812013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -180.00 1,999,820.00 3134G1P81 2180 99 Fair Value 0110712013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,360.00 2,001,360.00 3136FM6A7 2159 99 Fair Value 1111912012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 313372B45 2181 99 Fair Value 0710512013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,740.00 2,001,740.00 3136FP5X1 2182 99 Fair Value 0112812013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1,560.00 1,998,440.00 UBNA-FLEXACCT 9014 99 Amortized 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 11,606.92 0.00 0.00 38,393.08 Subtotal 115,548,292.05 67,571,900.00 192,085,277.69 269,746,088.22 0.00 -214,277.07 105,245,104.44 Total 115,548,292.05 67,571,900.00 192,085,277.69 269,746,088.22 0.00 -214,277.07 105,245,104.44 Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:44 Portfolio OTAY AP GO (PRF_GD)7.1.1 Report Ver.7.3.2 OTAY Duration Report Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type Through 01/31/2011 Security 10 Investment#Fund Issuer Investment Class Book Value Par Value Market Current Value Rate YTM 360 Current Yield Maturityl Modified Call Date Duration 3134G1C69 3137EACK3 3134G1UR3 3137EACK3A 3134G1PK4 3137EACK3B 3134G1P81 3134G1G32 3134G1TU8 3134G1MD3 3136FP5X1 3136FPQG5 3136FPL47 3136FPHU4 3136FM4N1 3136FMPB4 3136FPSK4 3136FMFRO 3136FMRH9 3133XXRW9 313372B45 3133XYSH9 313371MR4 313371RA6 3133XYNSO 313370P77 313371U20 313371LKO 313370UP1 31331JM75 2177 2146 2169 2148 2158 2149 2180 2179 2167 2153 2182 2171 2178 2168 2157 2132 2172 2127 2136 2128 2181 2147 2174 2175 2145 2162 2176 2173 2165 2170 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal National MortageAssoc Federal National MortageAssoc Federal National MortageAssoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair 2,000,000.00 1,999,339.46 2,000,000.00 1,030,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,707,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 635,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,999,551.11 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,030,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,707,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 635,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,994,800.00 .8500000 2,018,940.00 1.147196 2,001,360.00 .9000000 1,039,754.10 1.125000 2,006,720.00 1.000000 2,732,635.29 1.125000 2,001,360.00 1.000000 1,999,820.00 1.000000 2,001,400.00 .8000000 2,006,460.00 1.100000 1,998,440.00 .8600000 631,799.60 .8500830 1,993,160.00 1.000000 2,001,400.00 .8750000 2,000,380.00 1.000000 2,004,800.00 1.480000 1,990,620.00 .6750000 2,003,840.00 1.500000 2,005,740.00 1.550000 2,003,240.00 1.250000 2,001,740.00 1.375000 2,006,920.00 1.125178 1,984,440.00 .7000000 1,993,880.00 .7000000 2,006,760.00 1.280000 2,000,660.00 .8500000 1,992,220.00 1.000000 1,993,180.00 .7000000 2,000,120.00 .8750000 1,996,220.00 .9000000 0.838 1.154 0.888 1.109 0.986 1.109 0.986 0.986 0.789 1.085 0.848 0.837 0.986 0.863 0.986 1.460 0.676 1.479 1.529 1.233 1.356 1.110 0.690 0.690 1.262 0.838 0.986 0.690 0.863 0.888 0.961 0.508 0.868 0.486 0.833 0.486 0.964 1.004 0.758 0.453 0.900 1.056 1.145 0.842 0.991 1.341 0.887 1.384 1.383 1.134 1.339 0.912 1.042 0.867 1.096 0.834 1.169 0.892 0.872 0.987 06/20/2013 07/27/2012 03/28/2013 07/27/2012 02/11/2013 07/27/2012 01/07/2013 03/28/2013 09/28/2012 07/22/2011 01/28/2013 07/26/2013 06/27/2013 03/21/2013 02/11/2013 10/29/2012 04/29/2013 10/05/2012 10/29/2012 06/29/2012 07/05/2013 09/21/2012 05/22/2013 12/07/2012 12/10/2012 02/25/2013 06/03/2013 11/16/2012 03/13/2013 04/12/2013 2.354 1.476 2.127 1.473 1.995 1.473 1.909 2.127 1.640 0.468 1.967 2.451 2.366 2.108 1.993 1.711 2.217 1.658 1.709 1.393 2.377 1.619 2.278 1.831 1.829 2.037 2.301 1.773 2.085 2.163 Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:45 Page 1 Portfolio OTAY AP DU (PRF_DU)7.1.1 Report Ver.7.3.2 OTAY Duration Report Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type Through 01/31/2011 Investment Book Par Market Current YTM Current Maturityl Modified Security 10 Investment#Fund Issuer Class Value Value Value Rate 360 Yield Call Date Duration 31331JZV8 2164 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,160.00 .9500950 0.937 0.947 05103/2013 2.221 2050003183-4 2121 99 California Bank &Trust Amort 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 1.380000 1.380 1.380 01/22/2012 0.966 t 1006200563-2 2126 99 Neighborhood National Bank Arnort 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1.400000 1.400 1.400 02/04/2011 0.008 t LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 4,046,102.37 4,046,102.37 4,052,015.03 .5380000 0.531 0.538 0.000 LAIF 9001 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 20,400,249.75 20,400,249.75 20,430,061.10 .5380000 0.531 0.538 0.000 LAIF COPS07 9009 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.530000 1.509 1.530 0.000 SO COUNTY 9007 99 San Diego County Fair 16,986,744.37 16,986,744.37 16,973,000.00 .6980000 0.688 0.698 0.000 ReportTotal 103,883,095.06 103,884,204.49 103,947,153.12 0.818 1.102t t =Duration can not be calculated on these investments due to incomplete Market price data. Run Date:02/17/2011 -16:45 Page 2 Portfolio DTAY AP DU (PRF_DU)7.1.1 ReportVer.7.3.2 TYPE MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: STAFF REPORT Regular Board ~MEETINGDATE: Sean Prendergast,Finance Zf W.O.lG.F.NO: Supervisor,Payroll &AP APPROVED BY:Joseph Beachem,Chief Financial Officer(Chief) APPROVEDB~German Alvarez,Assistant General Manager (Ass!.GM): SUBJECT:Accounts Payable Demand List PURPOSE: March 2,2011 D1V.NO. Attached is the list of demands for the Board's information. FISCAL IMPACT: SUMMARY CHECKS (2027275-2027681) VOID CHECKS (3) TOTAL CHECKS WIRE TO: CALPERS -OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS CITY TREASURER -RECLAIMED WATER PURCHASE JP MORGAN -REMARKETING FEE LANDESBANK -CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER CAP FEES SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER WATER DELIVERIES SPECIAL DIST RISK MGMT AUTH -INSURANCE PREMIUM UNION BANK -CERT OF PARTICIPATION 2004 UNION BANK -CERT OF PARTICIPATION 2007 UNION BANK -CERT OF PARTICIPATION 2010 UNION BANK -PAYROLL TAXES TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Board receive the attached list of demands. Jb/Attachment NET DEMANDS $1,934,799.16 $(672.67) $1,934,126.49 $28,900.00 $140,695.24 $2,563.40 $2,680.27 $524,664.00 $2,007,993.70 $219,342.94 $188,894.38 $819,728.76 $1,059,625.97 $320,582.34 $7,249,797.49 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027323 02102/11 11798 A D HINSHAW ASSOCIATES 3565 01/07/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 990.62 990.62 2027324 02/02/11 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 2531 01/11/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 9,435.00 9,435.00 2027325 02102/11 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 37081821 01/12/11 ENGINEERING SERVICES 9,412.92 9,412.92 2027326 02/02/11 01498 ALEXANDER HAMILTON INSTITUTE 36884088 11109/10 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 138.72 138.72 2027327 02/02/11 02966 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 127112 12/20/10 CLEANING PRODUCTS 873.18 873.18 2027328 02102/11 00107 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN 7000307992 01/31/11 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 28.00 28.00 2027329 02102/11 03492 AQUA-METRIC SALES COMPANY 00360031N 01/12/11 RETROFIT METERS 14,467.72 14,467.72 2027330 02102/11 05758 AT&T 33784130450111 01/07/11 PHONE SERVICE (HI HEAD P/S-SCADA)31.46 31.46 2027331 02102/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI064338 01/10/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 643.28 BPI064337 01/10/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 521.09 BPI062583 01/03/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 506.10 1,670.47 2027332 02/02/11 00192 CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT 81680111 01/31/11 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 132.00 132.00 2027333 02/02/11 01243 CALIFORNIA-NEVADA SECTION 019840111 01/31/11 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 80.00 80.00 2027334 02/02/11 12632 CITRIX ONLINE LLC 1200109365 10/19/10 ANNUAL LICENSE 4,536.00 4,536.00 2027335 02102/11 12631 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 002695 01/12/11 PLANNING DIVISION FEE 8,115.00 8,115.00 2027336 02102/11 08387 COUNTY OF SO-LANDFILL MGMNT 201101 01/03/11 MICROTURBINEPOWER GENERATION 7,950.03 7,950.03 2027337 02102/11 12627 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES 002693 01/25/11 COMPUTER LOAN 1,052.98 1,052.98 2027338 02/02/11 03417 DIRECTV 1431310264 01/19/11 SATELLITE TV 513.88 513.88 2027339 02/02/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 1010147 01/10/11 LABORATORYSERVICES 565.00 565.00 2027340 02102/11 00645 FEDEX 736774124 01/21/11 MAIL SERVICES 8.63 8.63 2027341 02/02/11 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 0366810 01/13/11 INVENTORY 4,776.30 4,776.30 2027342 02/02/11 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES -SD 108805 01/13/11 COFFEE SUPPLIES 451.29 451.29 2027343 02/02/11 11962 FLEETWASH INC 3470010 01/07/11 VEHICLE WASH 444.72 444.72 2027344 02/02/11 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2411633 02/03/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 75.00 75.00 2027345 02/02/11 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2411629 02/03/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 150.00 150.00 Page 1 of 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027346 02102/11 05981 FROME,TERRY 002699 01/18/11 COMPUTER LOAN 2,740.33 2,740.33 2027347 02/02/11 12628 GIS CERTIFICATION INSTITUTE 9000005382 01/27/11 GIS APPLICATION FEE 250.00 250.00 2027348 02/02/11 10291 GOIN,JEFF 002690 01/31/11 SAFETY BOOTS 150.00 150.00 2027349 02102/11 00101 GRAINGER INC 9417348696 01/13/11 VISE 1,128.50 9432942291 01107/11 PANDUIT TAPS 239.13 9432768316 01/07/11 SUMP PUMP 202.36 9435438677 01/12/11 PANDUIT TAPS 6.93 1,576.92 2027350 02/02/11 08968 GURROLA,MICHAEL 002692 01/31/11 LICENSE RENEWAL 39.00 39.00 2027351 02/02/11 12626 GUTIERREZ,DANA 002688 01/31/11 COMPUTER LOAN 2,199.31 2.199.31 2027352 02/02/11 00174 HACH COMPANY 7059144 01/07/11 ANALYZER 2,174.50 2,174.50 2027353 02/02/11 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 260588H 01/10/11 TEMPORARY LABOR 3,325.00 3,325.00 2027354 02/02/11 01649 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 248525396 01/12/11 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 3,590.10 3,590.10 2027355 02/02/11 02290 JAMES,KENNETH 002691 01/31/11 SAFETY BOOTS 150.00 150.00 2027356 02/02/11 12630 KENNETH SANTIAGO 002697 01/20/11 LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 512.00 512.00 2027357 02/02/11 03607 LEE &RO INC 84702 01/07/11 INTERCONNECTION 64,203.11 64,203.11 2027358 02/02/11 10512 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC OWD6674 11/29/10 NCOA SERVICE 634.67 634.67 2027359 02/02/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 74485902 01/10/11 SPILL KITS 1,602.04 1,602.04 2027360 02/02/11 11876 MICHAEL D KEAGY REAL ESTATE 161 01/10/11 APPRAISAL SERVICES 12,000.00 12,000.00 2027361 02/02/11 00386 MURCAL INC 17860 01/11/11 REPAIR PART 138.03 138.03 2027362 02/02/11 03623 MWH AMERICAS INC 1378514 01104/11 RWCWRF UPGRADE 80,729.48 1362140 10/28/10 RWCWRF UPGRADE 25,002.90 105,732.38 2027363 02102/11 02293 MWH SOFT INC 11827AM 01/03/11 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 3,600.00 3,600.00 2027364 02102/11 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2411621 02103/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 11,042.94 11,042.94 2027365 02102/11 01477 NEW PIG CORPORATION 450047700 01/11/11 DRAIN COVERS 229.72 229.72 2027366 02/02/11 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 548100821001 01/13/11 SCANNERS 602.89 546904815001 01/07/11 SHREDDER 434.99 547682413001 01/10/11 FRAMES 215.33 547488667001 01/07/11 INKJET CARTRIDGES 146.46 Page 2 of 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 548105347001 01/13/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 66.60 1,466.27 2027367 02102/11 03149 ON SITE LASER LLC 45234 01/10/11 PRINTER 134.25 134.25 2027368 02/02/11 03101 OTAYWATER DISTRICT Ben2411623 02103/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION -ASSN DUES 735.00 735.00 2027369 02102/11 09984 PADRE DAM'S SANTEE LAKES 002696 01/24/11 SUMMER PICNIC 175.00 175.00 2027370 02/02/11 03308 PBS&J 1099761 01/12/11 HYDRAULIC MODELING 2,145.00 2,145.00 2027371 02/02/11 00137 PETTYCASH CUSTODIAN 002700 01/31/11 PETTY CASH 1,228.00 1,228.00 2027372 02/02/11 07860 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO PL08388120111 01110111 LIFE INSURANCE 1,218.88 1,218.88 2027373 02102/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30154673 01/13/11 UNIFORMS 316.22 30154672 01/13/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 171.78 30154674 01/13111 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 142.20 30154026 01/11/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91 30154675 01/13/11 UNIFORMS 55.33 30154025 01/11/11 UNIFORMS 48.31 837.75 2027374 02/02/11 12017 RICK ALEXANDER COMPANY,THE 002686 10/31/10 CONSULTING SERVICES 2,103.00 002687 12/31/10 CONSULTING SERVICES 2,063.25 4,166.25 2027375 02/02/11 01700 RUBALCAVA,GILBERT 167880111 01/31/11 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 60.00 60.00 2027376 02/02/11 03687 SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC 52928493 01/13/11 TANK SERVICE 199.92 199.92 2027377 02102/11 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 7805 12/14/10 WELDING 1,360.00 7819 01/07/11 WELDING 535.58 1,895.58 2027378 02/02/11 00247 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 227648 01105/11 BID ADVERTISEMENT 55.90 227980 01107/11 BID ADVERTISEMENT 130.30 227647 01/05/11 BID ADVERTISEMENT 55.90 242.10 2027379 02102/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 002675 01/19/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 52.17 52.17 2027380 02/02/11 12410 SEPARATION PROCESSES INC 5994 01/11/11 FEASIBILITY STUDY 2,333.25 2,333.25 2027381 02/02/11 03103 SOUTHCOAST HEATING &C45198 01/13/11 AC MAINTENANCE 1,068.00 1,068.00 2027382 02/02/11 04404 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER 002702 02101/11 MEMBERSHIP DUES 25.00 25.00 2027383 02/02/11 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 865576 12/17/10 TOILET RENTAL 117.51 865577 12/17/10 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 865575 12/17/10 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 277.63 2027384 02/02/11 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 14806 12/21/10 SECURITY MONITORING 1,472.50 Page 3 of 21 OTAYWATERDISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 21212011 TO 212312011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 14772 12113110 SECURITY MONITORING 91.53 1,564.03 2027385 02102111 00214 STAR NEWS,THE 1940111 01119111 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 35.00 35.00 2027386 02102111 06281 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2411637 02103111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 264.00 264.00 2027387 02102111 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2411627 02103111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69 2027388 02102111 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2411631 02103111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 696.46 696.46 2027389 02102111 02261 STATE STREET BANK &TRUST CO Ben2411619 02103111 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 6,178.31 6,178.31 2027390 02102111 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 2279 01110111 FACTORYLINK LICENSES 15,674.47 15,674.47 2027391 02102111 12629 TIARAAT RANCHO DEL REY HOA 002698 01120111 LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 4,600.00 4,600.00 2027392 02102111 08262 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC 91624541001 01112111 CONCRETE 179.44 91642645001 01113111 CONCRETE 140.29 91567569001 01107111 CONCRETE 140.29 91628577001 01112111 CONCRETE 44.86 504.88 2027393 02102111 05417 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ben2411635 02103111 PAYROLLDEDUCTION 100.00 100.00 2027394 02102111 07674 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT 002689 01124111 DISTRICTEXPENSES 204.06 204.06 2027395 02102111 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2411625 02103111 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 7,364.00 7,364.00 2027396 02102111 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2411615 02103111 401A PLAN 14,398.52 14,398.52 2027397 02102111 02230 WILLIAMSON,KELLI 002694 01125111 COMPUTER LOAN 1,573.67 1,573.67 2027275 02102111 12583 ALICIA TAPIA Ref002411525 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000072179 62.66 62.66 2027276 02102111 12607 AMERICAN EAGLE REAL ESTATE Ref002411549 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000168448 26.08 26.08 2027277 02102111 12604 ANDREW MIRAMONTES Ref002411546 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000162382 9.17 9.17 2027278 02102111 12622 ASCENT REAL ESTATE INC Ref002411565 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000172895 63.61 63.61 2027279 02102111 12589 ASHLEY BONINE Ref002411531 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000144653 48.92 48.92 2027280 02102111 12597 ASTRYD LUGO Ref002411539 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000158736 24.65 24.65 2027281 02102111 12619 BAC FIELD SERVICES CORP Ref002411562 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000172446 9.79 9.79 2027282 02102111 12605 BRENDA NAVARRO Ref002411547 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000162786 98.11 98.11 2027283 02102111 12584 CARLOS PEREZ Ref002411526 01131111 UB Refund Cst #0000091817 13.69 13.69 Page 4 of 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 21212011 TO 212312011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027284 02102111 12600 CECILIA OSRIGHT Ref002411542 01131111 US Refund Cst #0000159792 26.58 26.58 2027285 02102111 12588 CLAUDIA RODRIGUEZ Ref002411530 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000144291 20.83 20.83 2027286 02102/11 12623 CORD LUSY Ref002411566 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000172969 35.46 35.46 2027287 02/02/11 12617 DALEY CORPORATION Ref002411560 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000172286 1,929.13 1,929.13 2027288 02102/11 12579 DAVID WEAVER Ref002411521 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000001300 35.67 35.67 2027289 02/02/11 12621 DHIINC Ref002411564 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000172868 851.38 851.38 2027290 02/02/11 12618 ERIN RALSTON Ref002411561 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000172317 47.75 47.75 2027291 02102/11 12615 FANNIE MAE Ref002411558 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000172066 24.35 24.35 2027292 02/02/11 12613 GREGG PHILLIPSON Ref002411555 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000169972 83.55 83.55 2027293 02/02/11 12611 HOME REPO TOUR Ref002411553 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000169779 8.22 8.22 2027294 02/02/11 12612 HOME REPO TOUR Ref002411554 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000169931 82.19 82.19 2027295 02/02/11 12586 HOWARD OLPIN Ref002411528 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000125017 227.46 227.46 2027296 02/02/11 12585 JEFFSMITH Ref002411527 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000121993 28.38 28.38 2027297 02/02/11 12592 JESSICA LECKRONE Ref002411534 01/31/11 US Refund Cst#0000153678 50.89 50.89 2027298 02102/11 12598 JOHN HAMMERSLA Ref002411540 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000158763 44.92 44.92 2027299 02/02/11 12594 KATHRYN GONZALEZ Ref002411536 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000154163 263.50 263.50 2027300 02102/11 12608 L S CIVIL CONSTRUCTION INC Ref002411550 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000169286 1,893.23 1,893.23 2027301 02/02/11 12458 LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES Ref002411556 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000170215 24.39 24.39 2027302 02/02/11 12593 LETICIA ASCENCIO Ref002411535 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000153979 34.28 34.28 2027303 02102/11 12590 MELINA OJEDA Ref002411532 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000144842 5.99 5.99 2027304 02102/11 12620 MICHEAL CONTRERAS Ref002411563 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000172839 28.61 28.61 2027305 02/02/11 12616 NEVEN SPRALJA Ref002411559 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000172188 17.81 17.81 2027306 02/02/11 12603 OAKWOOD DEVELOPMENT Ref002411545 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000161518 1,955.10 1,955.10 2027307 02/02/11 12581 PETE PETERS Ref002411523 01/31/11 US Refund Cst #0000007532 205.95 205.95 Page 5 of 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027308 02102/11 12595 RANCHO BUENA VISTA REAL ESTATE Ref002411537 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000155901 36.63 36.63 2027309 02102/11 12609 REAL SOLUTION Ref002411551 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000169430 49.91 49.91 2027310 02/02/11 12614 RICHARD MCCOWN Ref002411557 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000171934 33.24 33.24 2027311 02/02/11 12591 RUTH URIAS Ref002411533 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000146266 8.18 8.18 2027312 02/02/11 12606 SAN DIEGO REALTY INC Ref002411548 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000163044 75.00 75.00 2027313 02/02/11 12625 SAN DIEGO REALTY INC Ref002411568 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000173327 53.60 53.60 2027314 02/02/11 12596 SCOTT LARZALERE Ref002411538 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000157702 43.54 43.54 2027315 02102/11 12599 SHANNON LEE-PERFINSKI Ref002411541 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000159281 62.85 62.85 2027316 02/02/11 12587 SUNCOR AMBIANCE LLC Ref002411529 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst #0000139269 702.23 702.23 2027317 02/02/11 12602 SVSC HOLDINGS LP Ref002411544 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst#0000160720 24.35 24.35 2027318 02/02/11 12580 THE EASTLAKE COMPANY Ref002411522 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst#0000001559 107.13 107.13 2027319 02/02/11 12582 TYLER MACDONALD Ref002411524 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst#0000062574 10.57 10.57 2027320 02102/11 12624 VIKIS REALTY SERVICES Ref002411567 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst#0000173252 16.21 16.21 2027321 02102/11 12610 VIVIANA TAPIA Ref002411552 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst#0000169499 21.17 21.17 2027322 02/02/11 12601 WELLS FARGO Ref002411543 01/31/11 UB Refund Cst#0000160415 104.19 104.19 2027398 02109/11 08967 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS EAP 40938 01/24/11 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 368.00 368.00 2027399 02/09/11 03492 AQUA-METRIC SALES COMPANY 00360691N 01/19/11 RETROFIT METERS 3,915.00 3,915.00 2027400 02/09/11 05758 AT&T 082164572801251101/25/11 INTERNET BANDWIDTH 2,328.48 2,328.48 2027401 02/09/11 05758 AT&T 61942256050111 01/20/11 PHONE SVC (INTERAGENCYWTR MTR CONN)33.37 33.37 2027402 02109/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI 01/18/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,337.29 BPI066054 01/18/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 658.27 BPI058726 12/15/10 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 132.58 2,128.14 2027403 02/09/11 01232 BRODING'S BATTERY 25356 01/19/11 BATTERIES 282.94 25310 01/18/11 BATTERIES 141.32 424.26 2027404 02109/11 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 38391 01/20/11 CRUSHED ROCK 326.43 326.43 Page 6 of 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027405 02109/11 12636 CA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS AND 912001401REF 02/08/11 CUSTOMER REFUND 5,731.15 5,731.15 2027406 02/09/11 00192 CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT 002706 02/02111 REGISTRATION FEES 660.00 660.00 2027407 02/09/11 01243 CALIFORNIA-NEVADA SECTION 002705 02/01/11 REGISTRATION FEES 1,030.00 1,030.00 2027408 02/09/11 03376 CAREERTRACK 12317709 02/08/11 REGISTRATION FEE 399.00 399.00 2027409 02/09/11 04204 CASA DEL MAR 28564 01/20/11 RECOGNITION SHIRTS 5,459.18 5,459.18 2027410 02/09/11 00446 CITY OF CHULAVISTA 002703 02/01/11 PLAN CHECK 4,380.23 4,380.23 2027411 02/09/11 11520 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 911911 12/21/10 LAB ANALYSIS 1,415.00 911912 12/22/10 LAB ANALYSIS 98.00 1,513.00 2027412 02/09/11 11510 CONFERENCE CALL.COM 2670486501 01/31/11 CONFERENCE CALL 64.05 64.05 2027413 02/09/11 07680 DELTA HEALTH SYSTEMS P110106 01/08111 HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 1,677.75 1,677.75 2027414 02/09/11 07861 ELMORE,JIMMY 002704 02/01/11 TUITION 191.95 191.95 2027415 02/09/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1010368 01/17/11 LABORATORY SERVICES 470.00 1010367 01/17/11 LABORATORY SERVICES 335.00 805.00 2027416 02109/11 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 0367907 01/18/11 INVENTORY 1,998.46 0367174 01/10/11 30"&20"BLIND FLG 1,581.23 0367379 01/20/11 CLAMP 690.78 0368244 01/20/11 INSTATITE COUPLING 536.95 0367176 01/19/11 30"&20"BLIND FLG 370.74 5,178.16 2027417 02/09/11 11962 FLEETWASH INC 3472849 01/14/11 VEHICLE WASH 196.20 3472845 01114/11 VEHICLE WASH 54.50 250.70 2027418 02/09/11 03094 FULLCOURT PRESS 21930 01/19/11 PIPELINE NEWSLETTER 4,355.91 4,355.91 2027419 02109/11 06291 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP 4470 01/11/11 LEGAL SERVICES 34,711.44 34,711.44 2027420 02/09/11 00101 GRAINGER INC 9440049949 01/18/11 REBUILD KITS 638.73 9439589558 01/17/11 HAMMERS 34.89 9437819544 01/14/11 HAMMERS 30.05 703.67 2027421 02/09/11 02629 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 637327 01/20/11 AGGREGATES 130.46 130.46 2027422 02/09/11 04472 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO 71 01/31/11 CONSULTANT SERVICES 3,600.00 3,600.00 2027423 02/09/11 00713 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 48854578 01/18/11 HARD DRIVES 10,754.68 10,754.68 2027424 02/09/11 06843 HI-TECH AIR CONDITIONING 22395 01/17/11 AC MAINTENANCE 668.21 668.21 Page 7 of 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027425 02/09/11 01649 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 248625832 01/17/11 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 166.17 166.17 2027426 02109/11 03250 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MGMT 002718 02107/11 REGISTRATION FEE 25.00 25.00 2027427 02/09/11 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 496129 CREDIT MEMO (3,000.00) 496063 02/02/11 CHLORINE 4,801.80 1,801.80 2027428 02/09/11 06497 LAKESIDE LAND COMPANY 245308 01/10/11 ASPHALT 39.96 39.96 2027429 02/09/11 01464 MAG SYSTEMS INC 177385203 01/11/11 AGM TOTALIZER 217.95 217.95 2027430 02/09/11 12469 MASTER SHINE WINDOW WASHING 002713 01/26/11 WINDOW CLEANING 4,344.99 4,344.99 2027431 02109/11 02882 MAYERREPROGRAPHICS INC 00606681N 01/18/11 REPROGRAPHICS SVCS 2,168.35 2,168.35 2027432 02/09/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 75152424 01/18/11 DRILL BATTERIES 453.85 453.85 2027433 02/09/11 01577 MINARIK CORPORATION 1081301300 CREDIT MEMO (1,867.13) 1082591100 01/20/11 PLC MODULES 973.21 1082382700 01/12/11 PLC MODULES 973.21 79.29 2027434 02109/11 00237 MISSION JANITORIAL &ABRASIVE 23998800 01/14/11 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 1,666.09 1,666.09 2027435 02/09/11 02619 MITCHELL1 RL41755370111 01/11/11 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 1,608.00 1,608.00 2027436 02109/11 10202 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC 1374520 12/06/10 TEMPORARY LABOR SERVICES 700.00 1380427 01/14/11 TEMPORARY LABOR SERVICES 350.00 1,050.00 2027437 02/09/11 02764 MYRON L COMPANY 320174 01/18/11 LABORATORY REPAIR 833.54 833.54 2027438 02/09/11 03215 O'DONNELL,MICHAEL 002707 02/01/11 TUITION 265.00 265.00 2027439 02/09/11 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 548900728001 01/19/11 SUPPLIES 94.67 548101162001 01/12/11 SCANNERS 73.24 167.91 2027440 02/09/11 03149 ON SITE LASER LLC 45283 01/20/11 PRINTER REPAIR 285.41 285.41 2027441 02109/11 12635 OREGON IPMA-HR 002712 02103/11 REGISTRATION FEE 300.00 300.00 2027442 02/09/11 08891 PACIFIC METER SERVICES INC 250 01/18/11 METER REPLACEMENT 45,941.14 45,941.14 2027443 02/09/11 03790 PENHALL COMPANY 26918 01/19/11 CUTTING SERVICES 475.00 475.00 2027444 02/09/11 00053 PITNEY BOWES INC 2000713170 01/19/11 CHECK PRINTER MAINTENANCE 356.72 356.72 2027445 02/09/11 05499 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 38646266 01/20/11 BOTTLE RENTAL 530.70 38491923 12/30/10 WELDING SUPPLIES 312.68 843.38 Page 8 of 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027446 02109/11 02476 PROGRESSIVE BUS PUBLICATIONS 4818103010211 02/01/11 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 432.00 432.00 2027447 02/09/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30156215 01/20/11 UNIFORMS 320.22 30156214 01/20/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 171.78 30156216 01/20/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 142.20 30155586 01/18/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91 30156217 01/20/11 UNIFORMS 68.75 30155585 01/18/11 UNIFORMS 56.25 863.11 2027448 02109/11 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Ben2411617 02103/11 PERS CONTRIBUTION 141,055.90 141,055.90 2027449 02/09/11 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 28343900 12/30110 SAFETY SUPPLIES 1,075.10 28343901 01/19/11 SAFETYSUPPLIES 459.75 1,534.85 2027450 02/09/11 00021 RCP BLOCK&BRICK INC 4345962 01/20/11 CONCRETE 868.59 868.59 2027451 02109/11 12638 REBECA SOTURA NICKERSON 006 01/28/11 SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION 500.00 500.00 2027452 02/09/11 01890 RECON 42617 01/18/11 P1253 -PREPARATION OF THE SUBAREA PLAN 15,076.53 15,076.53 2027453 02109/11 12637 ROBERTCROSBY 002719 02103/11 LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 1,590.00 1,590.00 2027454 02109/11 00217 RW LITTLE CO INC 100691 01/18/11 POWDERCOAT 180.00 180.00 2027455 02/09/11 05130 SAFARI MICRO INC 195800 01/12/11 SOFTWARE 564.41 564.41 2027456 02/09/11 03687 SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC 53094531 01/18/11 OIL DISPOSAL 50.00 50.00 2027457 02/09/11 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 7831 01/18111 GENERAL WELDING 4,750.00 4,750.00 2027458 02/09/11 03752 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S 002711 02/04/11 ACCIDENT REPORTS 40.00 40.00 2027459 02109/11 00247 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 229309 01/17/11 BID ADVERTISEMENT 83.80 83.80 2027460 02/09/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 002716 01/28/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 2,719.73 002683 01/25/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 582.16 002685 01/27/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 37,398.03 002684 01/26/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 19,969.28 002682 01/20/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 17,119.82 77,789.02 2027461 02/09/11 12576 SANSONE COMPANY INC Ref002411226 01/11/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172376 1,892.03 1,892.03 2027462 02/09/11 01691 SKILLPATH SEMINARS 10143958 02/04/11 CANCELLATION FEE 25.00 25.00 2027463 02/09/11 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 865836 12/20/10 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 868887 01/14/11 TOILETRENTAL 80.06 868888 01/14/11 TOILETRENTAL 80.06 Page 9 of 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 868889 01/14/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 868957 01/17/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 400.30 2027464 02109/11 00274 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 295860211 02108/11 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 125.00 125.00 2027465 02/09/11 00274 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 82050211 02108/11 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 125.00 125.00 2027466 02/09/11 11749 STEPHEN V MCCUE ESQ 002720 02/01/11 LEGAL SERVICES 24,780.00 24,780.00 2027467 02/09/11 06841 SUPERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL 1101036 01/18/11 CLEANING SERVICES 725.00 725.00 2027468 02109/11 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 356824 01/12/11 UNLEADED FUEL 17,472.85 356826 01/12/11 DIESEL FUEL 8,335.08 356825 01/12/11 DIESEL FUEL 7,118.26 32,926.19 2027469 02/09/11 09221 TACKETT,ZACHARY 002710 02/03/11 SAFETY BOOTS 138.24 138.24 2027470 02/09/11 02799 TARULLI TIRE INC -SAN DIEGO 20045883 01/06/11 TIRE SERVICE 576.98 20045902 01/10/11 TIRE SERVICE 241.08 20045929 01/13/11 TIRE SERVICE 183.00 20045964 01/17/11 TIRE SERVICE 21.53 1,022.59 2027471 02109/11 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 2287 01/14/11 SCADA SUPPORT 5,954.00 5,954.00 2027472 02/09/11 11289 TLC STAFFING IVC050000044753 01/28/11 CWA INTERN 540.00 540.00 2027473 02/09/11 08262 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC 91658302001 01/14/11 CONCRETE 224.30 91662419001 01/14/11 CONCRETE 224.30 448.60 2027474 02/09/11 07674 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT 002708 01/24/11 DISTRICT EXPENSES 415.44 002717 01/24/10 DISTRICT EXPENSES 71.59 487.03 2027475 02/09/11 04345 US CONCRETE PRECAST GROUP 01459911N 01/18/11 INVENTORY 3,948.41 3,948.41 2027476 02/09/11 03329 VERIZON WIRELESS 0943990839 01/21/11 WIRELESS SERVICES 9,808.77 9,808.77 2027477 02/09/11 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL 65704 12/17/10 PEST CONTROL 115.00 115.00 2027478 02/09/11 09932 WILLOW GLEN PLAZA LP 002709 02/03/11 REFUND DEPOSIT 4,626.00 4,626.00 2027479 02109/11 03283 WILSON BOHANNAN PADLOCK CO 00758471N 01/20/11 AIR-VAC LOCKS 1,776.67 1,776.67 2027515 02/16/11 11466 A&G INSTRUMENT SERVICE AND 30797 01/25/11 FLOWMETER CALIBRATION 1,184.00 1,184.00 2027516 02/16/11 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 2556 01/25/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 9,605.00 2559 01/27/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 5,625.00 15,230.00 2027517 02/16/11 03317 ADVANCED CALL PROCESSING INC 20112126 02/09/11 PBX UPGRADE 115,777.99 115,777.99 Page 10 of 21 ------------------------------------ OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027518 02/16/11 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #509 0509004253899 01/25/11 TRASH SERVICES 815.63 0509004255166 01/25/11 CONTAINER RENTAL 211.99 0509004255844 01/25/11 TRASH SERVICES TP 153.68 1,181.30 2027519 02/16/11 06166 AMERICAN MESSAGING L1109570LB 02/01/11 PAGER SERVICES 145.87 145.87 2027520 02/16/11 03470 BONITA BUSINESS &PROFESSIONAL 002726 11/18110 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 350.00 350.00 2027521 02/16/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI068278 01/25/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 3,066.55 BPI067960 01/24111 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 850.81 BPI067959 01/24/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 583.34 BPI067568 01/21/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 184.45 4,685.15 2027522 02/16/11 01232 BRODING'S BATTERY 25409 01/21/11 BATTERIES 560.86 560.86 2027523 02/16/11 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 38452 01/27/11 CRUSHED ROCK 337.33 38401 01/21/11 CRUSHED ROCK 332.29 38441 01/26/11 CRUSHED ROCK 226.94 38428 01/25/11 CRUSHED ROCK 121.27 1,017.83 2027524 02/16/11 01243 CALIFORNIA-NEVADA SECTION 002722 02/09111 CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 160.00 160.00 2027525 02/16/11 01004 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY 078734 01/21/11 SENSORS &NFPA 410.38 410.38 2027526 02/16/11 03232 CDW GOVERNMENT INC WFG5939 01/19/11 SWITCH COMPONENTS 21,943.80 WFW7143 01/24/11 SWITCH COMPONENTS 1,259.17 WFN5775 01/20/11 SWITCH COMPONENTS 126.15 23,329.12 2027527 02/16/11 02593 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 071060PU0040211 02/08/11 UTILITY PERMITS 2,100.00 2,100.00 2027528 02/16/11 11520 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 912439 01/24/11 LAB ANALYSIS 294.00 294.00 2027529 02/16/11 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE C12533630 CREDIT MEMO (163.79) 12337711 12/13/10 FIRE FILES 7,007.76 12601400 01/21/11 TONERS 1,597.54 12488180 12/22/10 FIRE FILE 1,141.75 12337710 12/06/10 FIRE FILES 750.00 10,333.26 2027530 02/16/11 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEH110330D11 01/26/11 SHUT DOWN TEST 1,278.00 DEH110331D11 01/26/11 SHUT DOWN TEST 781.00 2,059.00 2027531 02/16/11 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DPW 137554 01/31/11 EXCAVATION PERMITS 330.00 330.00 2027532 02/16/11 00319 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 002732 02115111 APPLICATION FEE 100.00 100.00 2027533 02/16/11 08495 DIAZ,JENNY 002731 02/15/11 COMPUTER LOAN 1,088.11 1,088.11 Page 11 of 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027534 02/16/11 03417 DIRECTV 1442596139 02105/11 SATELLITE TV 518.88 518.88 2027535 02/16/11 05134 DYCHITAN,MARISSA 002724 02/10/11 TUITION 1,450.00 1,450.00 2027536 02/16/11 12640 EL CAJON CITIZEN OF THE YEAR 002725 02/09/11 REGISTRATION FEE 24.00 24.00 2027537 02/16/11 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0051741IN 01/31/11 ADMINISTRATION FEES 562.50 562.50 2027538 02/16/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1010475 01/24/11 LABORATORY SERVICES 605.00 0120410 12/27/10 LABORATORY SERVICES 180.00 785.00 2027539 02/16/11 11287 ESCONDIDO LIVE SCAN 11160111 01/31/11 LIVE SCAN SERVICES 20.00 20.00 2027540 02/16/11 03757 FANDEL ENTERPRISES INC 1432 01/24/11 TELECOM SERVICES 4,470.00 4,470.00 2027541 02/16/11 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 0363949 01/25/11 BUTTERFLY VALVE 4,078.13 0367177 01/25/11 6"AIRVAC 2,077.13 0368435 01/25/11 INVENTORY 768.32 0368439 01/24/11 INVENTORY 354.29 0368325 01/24/11 REDI CLAMP 250.97 0368308 01/25/11 REDI CLAMP 244.69 0367317 01/25/11 VALVE EXT 119.63 7,893.16 2027542 02/16/11 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES -SD 111158 01/27/11 COFFEE SUPPLIES 303.98 303.98 2027543 02/16/11 11962 FLEETWASH INC 3477210 01/21/11 VEHICLE WASH 163.50 163.50 2027544 02/16111 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2412022 02/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 75.00 75.00 2027545 02/16/11 02344 FRANCHISE TAXBOARD Ben2412018 02/17111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 150.00 150.00 2027546 02/16/11 08332 GLOBAL WATER INSTRUMENTATION 0000080167 01/26/11 PRESSURE RECORDERS 1,095.42 1,095.42 2027547 02/16/11 12673 GONZALEZ,DAVID 17961210 12/31/10 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 120.00 120.00 2027548 02/16/11 00101 GRAINGER INC 9446084080 01/25/11 WAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 701.27 9448824137 01/27/11 VALVES &GAUGES 577.97 9445680375 01/25/11 CAT6 MODULAR 50.28 9444000070 01/21/11 POWER STRIP 30.50 1,360.02 2027549 02/16/11 01576 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 952063534 01/21/11 CABLE 672.74 672.74 2027550 02/16/11 00174 HACH COMPANY 7085701 01/25/11 EFFLUENT SAMPLER 2,748.25 2,748.25 2027551 02/16/11 02629 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 637470 01/21/11 AGGREGATES 122.46 637635 01/24/11 AGGREGATES 118.47 240.93 2027552 02/16/11 00062 HELIX WATER DISTRICT 174639860211 02108/11 WATER BILL -RUSSELL SO 42.46 Page 120f 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 178540010211 02108/11 WATER BILL -AVOCADO BLVD 40.10 82.56 2027553 02/16/11 00713 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 48883960 01/24/11 HARD DRIVES 2,343.52 48902097 01/26/11 HARD DRIVES 2,138.70 4,482.22 2027554 02116111 03172 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0076170 01114111 P1253 SAN MIGUEL HABITAT MANAGEMENTARE 24,808.79 0076167 01114111 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 21,127.75 0076168 01114111 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3,200.00 49,136.54 2027555 02116111 00056 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES A337702 CREDIT MEMO (59.15) 0439294 01121111 COUPLING PARTS 141.57 82.42 2027556 02116111 00491 LIGHTHOUSE INC,THE 0082664 01125111 SHOP SUPPLIES 282.10 282.10 2027557 02116111 00628 MANHATTAN NATIONAL LIFE 002721 02111111 VOLUNTARY LIFE INSURANCE 314.98 314.98 2027558 02/16111 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 76070702 01127111 UNISTRUTE PARTS 631.80 631.80 2027559 02/16/11 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2412010 02117111 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 10,435.71 10,435.71 2027560 02116111 09884 NATIONAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE INC 48504 01131111 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 968.93 968.93 2027561 02116111 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 547496553001 01107111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 141.42 548006184001 01112111 OFFICESUPPLIES 99.31 549979402001 01127111 OFFICESUPPLIES 82.77 549365829001 01124111 BLANK CDIDVD 71.74 549365878001 01124111 BLANK CDIDVD 46.16 441.40 2027562 02116/11 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2412012 02117111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION -ASSN DUES 742.00 742.00 2027563 02116/11 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 144150 01121111 INVENTORY 866.52 866.52 2027564 02116/11 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 002727 02115111 PETTY CASH 471.99 471.99 2027565 02116111 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30157773 01127111 UNIFORMS 320.22 30157772 01/27111 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 171.78 30157774 01127111 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 142.20 30157131 01125111 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91 30149272 12121110 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 102.73 30157775 01127111 UNIFORMS 59.33 30157130 01125111 UNIFORMS 52.25 30149271 12121110 UNIFORMS 50.31 1,002.73 2027566 02116111 10294 OWIKPRINTS 11321510 02101111 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 40.00 40.00 2027567 02116111 02041 RBF CONSULTING 10090074 01/07111 CIP P2009 -36 INCH PIPELINE 49,590.00 10100088 01107111 CIP P2009 -36 INCH PIPELINE 40,595.00 10110013 01107111 CIP P2009 -36 INCH PIPELINE 16,990.00 107,175.00 Page 13 of 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027568 02/16/11 04552 REA &PARKER RESEARCH OWD104 12/20/10 CUSTOMER SURVEYS 7,425.00 002701 01/21/11 CUSTOMER SURVEYS 7,000.00 14,425.00 2027569 02/16/11 09993 REPROHAUS CORP 0000135729 01/26/11 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 37.71 37.71 2027570 02/16/11 10930 SAGE DESIGNS INC 1101046 01/26/11 FIRETIDE RADIO 4,555.76 4,555.76 2027571 02/16/11 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 7844 01/25/11 WELDING 850.00 850.00 2027572 02/16/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 002714 02/04/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 55,587.76 002715 01/26/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 12,810.57 68,398.33 2027573 02/16/11 12080 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC 0010473528 01/14/11 BID ADVERTISEMENT 413.75 0010470436 01/06/11 BID ADVERTISEMENT 342.80 756.55 2027574 02/16/11 07783 SCRIPPS CENTER FOR EXECUTIVE 20287 02/14/11 EXECUTIVE PHYSICAL 1,477.50 1,477.50 2027575 02/16/11 05983 SIEMENS WATERTECHNOLOGIES 3273029 01/10/11 CL2GAS REGULATORS 1,707.80 1,707.80 2027576 02/16/11 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 869833 01/26/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 80.06 2027577 02/16/11 00590 SPECIALTY SEALS &ACCESSORIES 28805 01/21/11 SEAL PUMP 2/3 917.14 917.14 2027578 02/16/11 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 14909 01/27/11 SECURITY SYSTEM 1,472.50 1,472.50 2027579 02/16/11 06281 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412026 02/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 264.00 264.00 2027580 02/16/11 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412016 02/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69 2027581 02/16/11 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412020 02/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 696.46 696.46 2027582 02/16/11 02261 STATE STREET BANK &TRUST CO Ben2412008 02/17/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 6,489.31 6,489.31 2027583 02/16/11 07678 STREAMLINE FORMS &GRAPHICS 36605 01/21/11 TAGS 122.89 122.89 2027584 02/16/11 02799 TARULLI TIRE INC -SAN DIEGO 20046019 01/21/11 TIRE SERVICE 433.38 433.38 2027585 02/16/11 11289 TLC STAFFING IVC050000044822 02104/11 CWAINTERN 540.00 540.00 2027586 02/16/11 04977 T-MOBILE 4150860450211 02105/11 CELL PHONE SERVICES 121.35 121.35 2027587 02/16/11 04560 TONY LIPKA OTAY1101 02108/11 REQUIRED TRAINING 500.00 500.00 2027588 02/16/11 03563 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INC 017183 01/21/11 WATER METER BOX CLEANOUT MAINTENANCE 2,018.25 2,018.25 2027589 02/16/11 05417 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ben2412024 02/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 100.00 100.00 Page 14of 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027590 02/16/11 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 104339510211 02/10/11 REIMBURSE POSTAGE MACHINE 2,100.00 2,100.00 2027591 02/16/11 07662 UNITEDHEALTHCARE SPECIALTY 110470000032 02/16/11 BASIC L1FE/AD&D &SUPP LIFE INS 5,681.71 5,681.71 2027592 02/16/11 03212 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE Ben2412002 02/17/11 CONTRIBUTION TO LTO 5,890.60 5,890.60 2027593 02/16/11 07674 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT 002723 01/24/11 DISTRICT EXPENSES 6,881.80 6,881.80 2027594 02/16/11 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2412014 02/17/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 7,358.74 7,358.74 2027595 02/16/11 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2412004 02/17111 401A PLAN 12,393.83 12,393.83 2027596 02/16/11 03335 VORTEX INDUSTRIES INC 115780341 01/27/11 DOOR REPAIR 288.98 288.98 2027597 02/16/11 12027 WALTCOMM 201012150TWa 01/24/11 SECURITY UPGRADES 358.37 358.37 2027598 02/16/11 00517 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 416018 01/26/11 SECURITY ENHANCEMENT 985.55 414336 01/21/11 SECURITY ENHANCEMENT 743.69 414339 01/21/11 SECURITY ENHANCEMENT 50.19 416016 01/26/11 SECURITY ENHANCEMENT 38.99 1,818.42 2027599 02/16/11 00125 WESTERN PUMP INC 00969581N 01/25/11 APCD TESTING 400.00 400.00 2027480 02/16/11 12670 447700 FIELD ASSET SERVICES Ref002411998 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000172999 80.16 80.16 2027481 02/16/11 12671 447700 FIELD ASSET SERVICES Ref002411999 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000173021 129.50 129.50 2027482 02/16/11 12661 AMERICAN EAGLE REAL ESTATE Ref002411989 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000170179 21.94 21.94 2027483 02/16/11 12655 AMY BLUME Ref002411983 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000162159 9.79 9.79 2027484 02/16/11 12642 ANNA LINDQUIST Ref002411967 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000020792 25.85 25.85 2027485 02/16/11 12649 CESAR GARZA Ref002411975 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000147263 49.56 49.56 2027486 02/16/11 12650 CONSUELO ESTRADA Ref002411976 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000155544 28.00 28.00 2027487 02/16/11 12645 CW MCGRATH Ref002411970 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000121899 765.03 765.03 2027488 02/16/11 12648 DAVIS TRUCKING Ref002411974 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000146714 761.34 761.34 2027489 02/16/11 12644 DENISE MOHLER Ref002411969 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000092949 13.84 13.84 2027490 02/16/11 12667 ELISABETH SCHWEMBERGER-ELIAS Ref002411995 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172406 59.79 59.79 2027491 02/16/11 12653 EMMA GARCIA Ref002411981 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000160942 56.50 56.50 2027492 02/16/11 12665 ERIN RALSTON Ref002411993 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172193 33.01 33.01 Page 15 of 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027493 02/16/11 12641 JEFF PAYNE Ref002411966 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000017956 18.85 18.85 2027494 02/16/11 12585 JEFF SMITH Ref002411971 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000121993 40.74 40.74 2027495 02/16111 12652 JEFFREY DAVIS Ref002411980 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000160530 69.18 69.18 2027496 02/16/11 12663 JINENE PEREZ Ref002411991 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000171587 5.87 5.87 2027497 02/16/11 12660 JOE SOUTHWICK Ref002411988 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000170127 55.44 55.44 2027498 02/16/11 12668 JOSE GARCIA Ref002411996 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172421 7.87 7.87 2027499 02/16/11 12647 MICHAEL ARNEY Ref002411973 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000143688 62.28 62.28 2027500 02/16/11 12646 MILDRED RAMORES Ref002411972 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000139424 45.93 45.93 2027501 02/16/11 12666 MITHCELL COMPTON Ref002411994 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000172208 66.56 66.56 2027502 02/16/11 12657 RANCHO BUENA VISTA REAL ESTATE Ref002411985 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000163108 40.22 40.22 2027503 02/16/11 12669 RANCHO BUENAVISTA REAL ESTATE Ref002411997 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000172631 57.36 57.36 2027504 02/16/11 12658 REALHOME SERVICES &SOLUTIONS Ref002411986 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000169681 9.79 9.79 2027505 02/16/11 12659 REALHOME SERVICES &SOLUTIONS Ref002411987 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000169980 121.41 121.41 2027506 02/16/11 12651 ROBERT HINOJOS Ref002411978 02115/11 UB Refund Cst#0000160287 42.26 42.26 2027507 02/16/11 12654 ROBERTO BASURTO Ref002411982 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000161018 8.38 8.38 2027508 02/16/11 12662 SAN DIEGO REALTY INC Ref002411990 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000171540 53.25 53.25 2027509 02/16/11 12545 SO COASTLINE LP Ref002411977 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000159864 40.03 40.03 2027510 02/16/11 12664 SONYA FLORES Ref002411992 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst#0000171834 45.41 45.41 2027511 02/16/11 12672 SOUTH BAYFAMILYYMCA Ref002412000 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000173859 1,961.03 1,961.03 2027512 02/16/11 12601 WELLS FARGO Ref002411979 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000160415 69.46 69.46 2027513 02/16/11 12643 YULlYA CHEREDNICHENKO Ref002411968 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000089209 402.88 402.88 2027514 02/16/11 12656 ZEPHYR PARTNERS Ref002411984 02/15/11 UB Refund Cst #0000162179 71.41 71.41 2027600 02/23/11 11798 A 0 HINSHAW ASSOCIATES 3569 02/03/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 317.50 317.50 2027601 02/23/11 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1102 02/03/11 DEVELOPER PLANCHECKS 9,799.46 Page 16of 21 OTAYWATERDISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FORCHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check#Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 1015 02/03/11 PLAN CHECKING 8,146.65 17,946.11 2027602 02/23/11 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131185310 01/28/11 AQUA AMMONIA 1,737.06 131185311 01/28/11 AQUA AMMONIA 1,717.17 3,454.23 2027603 02/23/11 00132 AIRGAS WEST INC 103116490 01/31/11 BREATHING AIR 28.85 28.85 2027604 02/23/11 00002 ANSWER INC 4559 02/22/11 ANSWERING SERVICES 1,000.00 1,000.00 2027605 02/23/11 07785 AT&T 000002053853 02/02/11 PHONE SERVICES 5,873.75 5,873.75 2027606 02/23/11 08330 AT&T INTERNETSERVICES 8547826250111 01/22/11 INTERNET BANDWIDTH 1,200.00 1,200.00 2027607 02/23/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI070646 02/02/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,972.51 BP1069972 01/31/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,250.83 BPI070971 02103/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,129.78 BPI070970 02103/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 685.94 BPI069971 01/31/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 649.06 5,688.12 2027608 02/23/11 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 38512 02103111 CRUSHED ROCK 546.04 38465 01/28/11 CRUSHED ROCK 101.70 647.74 2027609 02/23/11 00693 CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS 002733 02/15/11 QUARTERLY MEETING 39.00 39.00 2027610 02/23/11 04071 CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC 23673 01/31/11 ELECTRONIC FILING FEE 45.00 45.00 2027611 02/23/11 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 7284 02/01/11 RECORDS ASSISTANCE 2,082.72 7283a 02/01/11 SCANNING SERVICES 861.44 7282 02/01/11 RECORDS STORAGE 461.20 7283 02/01/11 SCANNING SERVICES 327.84 3,733.20 2027612 02/23/11 09801 CENTERBEAMINC 128369 01/01/11 NETWORK MONITORING 1,697.00 14462 01/30/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 150.00 1,847.00 2027613 02/23/11 11600 CHULA VISTA POLICE FOUNDATION 002734 02/14/11 ADVERTISEMENT 500.00 500.00 2027614 02/23111 07600 CISION US INC 3962287046 01/31/11 MEDIA MONITORING 10.88 10.88 2027615 02/23/11 04119 CLARKSON LAB &SUPPLY INC 54154 01/31/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 462.00 54157 01/31/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 462.00 54159 01/31/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 462.00 54156 01/31/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 362.00 54155 01/31/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 262.00 54158 01/31/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 262.00 53921 01/31/11 BACTERIOLOGICALSERVICES 250.00 2,522.00 2027616 02/23/11 12282 CORELOGIC INFORMATION 80114450 01/31/11 REALQUEST BUNDLE 241.67 241.67 Page 170f 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027617 02/23111 02965 DIPIETRO,BRANDON 002737 02116111 TUITION 3,000.00 3,000.00 2027618 02123111 00331 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 925023840211 02108111 UNEMPLOYMENTINSURANCE 21,202.54 21,202.54 2027619 02123111 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1010615 01131111 LABORATORYSERVICES 425.00 425.00 2027620 02123111 07596 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS INC 1000234702 02102111 LABORATORYSUPPLIES 730.18 1000234428 01128111 LABORATORYSUPPLIES 137.97 868.15 2027621 02123111 10818 F S BRAINARD &COMPANY 13989 12108110 PARTSIREPAIRS 276.29 276.29 2027622 02123111 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 0368437 01128111 INVENTORY 3,088.94 0367904 01128111 INVENTORY 910.02 0370479 02118111 SURVEY TOOLS 345.84 4,344.80 2027623 02/23111 12187 FIRSTAMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 90034011 01131111 ONLINE MAPS 162.27 162.27 2027624 02/23111 02591 FITNESS TECH 7050 02101111 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 125.00 125.00 2027625 02123111 11962 FLEETWASH INC 3481927 01128111 VEHICLE WASH 281.22 281.22 2027626 02123111 01327 FRANK &SON PAVING INC 0553 02102111 ANNUAL PAVING 6,504.50 6,504.50 2027627 02123111 00101 GRAINGER INC 9456445387 CREDIT MEMO (2,363.61) 9440369131 01118111 TOOL REPLACEMENT 5,298.51 9443012084 01121111 TOOL REPLACEMENT 42.63 2,977.53 2027628 02123111 01576 GRAYBARELECTRICCO INC 952251046 02102111 BACK PANEL 68.34 952246208 02102111 BACK PANEL 24.64 92.98 2027629 02123111 02187 GREENSCAPE 2573 01101111 LANDSCAPINGSERVICES 6,090.00 6,090.00 2027630 02123111 03773 GTC SYSTEMS INC 31212 01131111 CITIRX SUPPORT 46.29 46.29 2027631 02123111 00174 HACH COMPANY 7094052 01131111 LABORATORYSUPPLIES 1,399.67 7091330 01128111 REAGENTS CL-17 551.67 7096165 02101111 LABORATORYSUPPLIES 33.91 1,985.25 2027632 02123111 02629 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 638175 01128111 AGGREGATES 506.62 506.62 2027633 02123111 06843 HI-TECH AIR CONDITIONING 22438 01118111 AC MAINTENANCE 657.97 657.97 2027634 02123111 03743 HYDROTEX 588656 02103111 OIL 5,488.57 588501 01128111 OIL 252.84 5,741.41 2027635 02123111 03507 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1818171 01131111 TRAINING TABLES 3,574.55 3,574.55 2027636 02123111 08969 INFOSEND INC 48335 01131111 POSTAGE 13,300.29 Page 180f 21 OTAY WATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FORCHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES 2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 48334 01/31/11 BILL PRINTING SERVICES 5,605.49 48422 02/02/11 INFOSEND EBPP 3,408.20 48445 01/31/11 BILL INSERTS 113.10 22,427.08 2027637 02/23/11 02372 INTERIOR PLANTSERVICE INC 36996 01/31/11 PLANT SERVICES 186.00 186.00 2027638 02/23/11 03077 JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA INC SDOO1110209 01/01/11 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,062.84 1,062.84 2027639 02/23/11 00056 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES E918169 01/28/11 COUPLING PARTS 141.57 141.57 2027640 02/23/11 12679 KENNETH A GUNDLER 002738 02/17/11 LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 2,780.00 2,780.00 2027641 02/23/11 12680 KIRBY BEYER 002739 02/17/11 LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 315.00 315.00 2027642 02/23/11 04996 KNOX ATTORNEY SERVICE INC 600236 01/31/11 DELIVERYSERVICES 177.00 177.00 2027643 02/23/11 12276 KONECRANES INC SDG00554899 02/03/11 CRANE INSPECTIONS 360.00 360.00 2027644 02/23/11 00491 LIGHTHOUSE INC,THE 0085931 02/02/11 LED LIGHTS 33.17 33.17 2027645 02/23/11 05220 LOGICALIS INTEGRATION SOLUTION IN059641 01/31/11 VMWAREIVSPHERE ENTERPRISE 12,397.50 IN059640 01/31/11 VMWAREIVSPHERE SUPPORT 3,828.94 16,226.44 2027646 02/23/11 02902 MARSTON+MARSTONINC 20112 02/01/11 PUBLIC RELATIONS 6,335.00 6,335.00 2027647 02/23/11 05329 MASTER METER INC 01801531N 01/31/11 INVENTORY 71,641.24 71,641.24 2027648 02/23/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 76512867 02/01/11 48"LOUVER 454.23 76238929 01/28/11 REPAIR PART 329.50 76677121 02/03/11 REPAIR PART 118.42 902.15 2027649 02/23/11 02835 MIL-RAM TECHNOLOGY INC 984436 02/03/11 AMMONIA SENSORS 667.50 984437 02103/11 CL2 SENSOR 565.00 1,232.50 2027650 02/23/11 00386 MURCAL INC 18141 01/31/11 REPAIR 73.03 73.03 2027651 02/23/11 03605 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN 26366240211 02/15/11 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 124.06 124.06 2027652 02/23/11 00459 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION 0159675750211 02/15/11 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 52.00 0150884160211 02/15/11 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 52.00 104.00 2027653 02/23/11 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 550593320001 02/01/11 SUPPLIES 46.59 550840311001 02/03/11 SUPPLIES 40.67 550510044001 02/01/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 27.18 547496800001 02102/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.55 547496802001 01/15/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.82 132.81 2027654 02/23/11 08891 PACIFIC METER SERVICES INC 251 01/29/11 METER REPLACEMENT 42,478.24 42,478.24 Page 19 of 21 OTAYWATERDISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323 THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check#Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027655 02/23/11 05497 PAYPAL INC 10409333 01/31/11 PAYMENTSERVICES 54.10 54.10 2027656 02/23/11 06419 PLANT SOUP INC 715 12/28/10 WRITING SERVICES 900.00 900.00 2027657 02/23/11 10662 PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE 79653 01/01/11 JANITORIAL SERVICES 2,675.00 2,675.00 2027658 02/23/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30159355 02/03/11 UNIFORMS 314.22 30159354 02/03/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 176.83 30159356 02/03/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 158.90 30158694 02/01/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91 30159357 02/03/11 UNIFORMS 55.33 30158693 02/01/11 UNIFORMS 48.25 857.44 2027659 02/23/11 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Ben2412006 02/17/11 PERS CONTRIBUTION 141,868.80 141,868.80 2027660 02/23/11 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 28343902 02/02/11 SAFETY SUPPLIES 103.31 103.31 2027661 02/23/11 00766 RANROY PRINTING COMPANY 012965 01/31/11 POSTCARDS 319.73 319.73 2027662 02/23/11 04552 REA &PARKER RESEARCH OWD112 02/02/11 CUSTOMER SURVEYS 7,000.00 7,000.00 2027663 02/23/11 12017 RICKALEXANDER COMPANY,THE 002729 01/31/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 1,708.08 1,708.08 2027664 02/23/11 00362 RYAN HERCO PRODUCTS CORP 7031071 02/02/11 PVCICPVC FITTINGS 1,542.36 7035040 01/28/11 ROTOMETER 169.51 1,711.87 2027665 02/23/11 02683 SAFECHECKSINC 0515038 01/28/11 CHECK STOCK 815.12 0515047 01/28/11 CHECK STOCK 213.38 1,028.50 2027666 02/23/11 07676 SAN MIGUEL FIRE PROTECTION 002728 02103111 TEMPORARY LABOR 6,493.73 6,493.73 2027667 02/23/11 12333 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION 8102795406 01/01/11 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 430.00 430.00 2027668 02/23/11 00419 SHAPE PRODUCTS 149421 01/27/11 DISTRIBUTION SUPPLIES 2,106.21 2,106.21 2027669 02/23/11 06537 SOUTHLAND TECHNOLOGY SI39870 02102/11 PROJECTOR SERVICE 315.00 315.00 2027670 02/23111 00590 SPECIALTYSEALS &ACCESSORIES 28780 01/12/11 SEALREFURBISH 609.76 609.76 2027671 02/23/11 06524 STANLEY ACCESS TECH LLC 901232940 01/31/11 DOOR MAINTENANCE 62.01 62.01 2027672 02/23/11 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 357600 02/01/11 DYED DIESEL FUEL 11,664.16 11,664.16 2027673 02/23/11 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 120110460 02/01/11 UNDERGROUND ALERTS 322.50 322.50 2027674 02/23/11 07674 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT 002785 01/24111 DISTRICT EXPENSES 1,023.48 002736 01/24/11 DISTRICT EXPENSES 31.37 1,054.85 Page 20 of 21 OTAYWATER DISTRICT CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS 2027323THROUGH 2027681 RUN DATES2/2/2011 TO 2/23/2011 Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2027675 02/23/11 11606 USA BLUE BOOK 324433 02/02/11 POLYMER EDUCTOR 76.24 76.24 2027676 02/23/11 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMEN-SD100111 01/31/11 INSPECTION SERVICES 4,930.00 4,930.00 2027677 02/23/11 03588 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 44535060 01/28/11 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 804.74 44535063 01/28/11 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 48.56 853.30 2027678 02/23/11 02700 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN 10 01/31/11 GARDEN TOURS 1,240.00 1,240.00 2027679 02/23/11 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL 66286 01/31/11 PEST CONTROL 115.00 115.00 2027680 02/23/11 00517 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 416982 01/28/11 SECURITY ENHANCEMENT 201.19 416980 01/28/11 SECURITY ENHANCEMENT 71.61 272.80 2027681 02/23/11 11692 WEST COAST IND COATINGS INC 10 02/01/11 RESERVOIR COATING 87,291.00 87,291.00 GRAND TOTAL 1,934,799.16 1,934,799.16 Page 21 of 21