HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-11 Board Packet (Part 1)OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
January 5,2011
3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1.ROLL CALL
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4.OATH OF OFFICE CEREMONY
GARY CROUCHER
DAVID GONZALEZ
5.RECESS FOR RECEPTION
6.RECONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
7.PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION PLAQUE TO BOARD PRESIDENT
8.ELECTION OF BOARD PRESIDENT
As per Chapter 2,Section 1.03.B,Procedure for Election,of the District's Code of
Ordinances,the General Manager shall chair the proceedings for election of the
President.The newly-elected President shall assume office immediately and shall
chair the proceedings for the election of the Vice President and Treasurer.
9.ELECTION OF BOARD VICE PRESIDENT
10.ELECTION OF BOARD TREASURER
11.CONVENE OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING
12.ELECTION OF OFFICERS
a)PRESIDENT
b)VICE-PRESIDENT
c)TREASURER
1
13.APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
a)EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
b)CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
c)SECRETARY
14.ADJOURN OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING
15.CONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEET-
ING
16.ELECTION OF OFFICERS
d)PRESIDENT
e)VICE-PRESIDENT
f)TREASURER
17.APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
d)EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
e)CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
f)SECRETARY
18.ADJOURN OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING
19.RECONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
20.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
21.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 17,2010
CONSENT CALENDAR
22.ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION,UNLESS A REQUEST IS
MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PAR-
TICULAR ITEM:
a)AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BLASTCO,INC.FOR THE
657-1 AND 657-2 RESERVOIR EXTERIOR/INTERIOR COATING AND UP-
GRADES PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $632,500
b)AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO L.H.WOODS &SONS,INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $379,000 FOR THE DEL RIO ROAD AND GILLISPIE
DRIVE EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTIONS PROJECT
2
c)APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED
$176,805 FOR THE RANCHO DEL REY GROUNDWATER WELL DEVEL-
OPMENT PROJECT
d)APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH
RBF CONSULTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPEC-
TION SERVICES FOR THE 36-INCH PIPELINE,SDCWA OTAY FCF NO.
14 TO THE REGULATORY SITE PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-
EXCEED $101,075
e)APPROVE CREDIT CHANGE ORDER NO.3 TO THE EXISTING CON-
STRUCTION CONTRACT WITH CCL CONTRACTING,INC.FOR THE JA-
MACHA ROAD 36-INCH POTABLE WATER PIPELINE AND 12-INCH PO-
TABLE WATER PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT
OF <$1,474,033.22>
f)APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR
PHASE 2 OF THE RANCHO DEL REY WELL PROJECT WHICH WILL IN-
CLUDE EQUIPPING THE WELL AND DESIGNING A WELLHEAD TREAT-
MENT FACILITY
g)DECLARE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SURPLUS TO THE DISTRICTS
NEEDS
h)APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 2011 EXPENDITURES FOR BANKING SER-
VICES WITH UNION BANK IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED THE
BUDGETED TOTAL OF $149,700
i)APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO SUMMIT
TRUCK BODIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,797.81 FOR THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1)CLASS 8 SERVICE LINE TRUCK
j)APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO MIRAMAR
TRUCK CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,925 FOR THE PURCHASE OF
ONE (1)NEW CLASS 8 DUMP TRUCK
ACTION ITEMS
23.ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS
a)APPROVE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENTS AND VERIFICATION RE-
PORTS,AS REQUIRED BY SENATE BILLS 610 AND 221,FOR THE OTAY
RANCH VILLAGE EIGHT WEST AND OTAY RANCH VILLAGE NINE PRO-
JECTS (KENNEDY)
24.BOARD
a)DISCUSSION OF 2011 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
3
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
25.THIS ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY.NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS:
a)REPORT ON DIRECTOR'S EXPENSES FOR THE 1st QUARTER OF FIS-
CAL YEAR 2011 (PRENDERGAST)
b)INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE PROPOSED NEW BILL PRINT FOR-
MAT AND ENHANCEMENTS (CAREY)
REPORTS
26.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
a)SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
27.DIRECTORS'REPORTS/REQUESTS
28.PRESIDENT'S REPORT
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
29.CLOSED SESSION
a.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -PENDING LITIGATION [GOV-
ERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)]
(I)MULTIPLE CASES RELATED TO THE FENTON BUSINESS CEN-
TER AND FILED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED UNDER CASE NO.37-2007-
00077024-CU-BC-SC
(II)INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORP.v.OTAY WATER DIS-
TRICT,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,SUPERIOR COURT,CASE NO.
37-2008-00093876-CU-BC-CTL
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
30.REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
31.ADJOURNMENT
4
All items appearing on this agenda,whether or not expressly listed for action,may be de-
liberated and may be subject to action by the Board.
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 670-2280 at least 24 hours
prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on December 30,2010,I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near
the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District,said time being
at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government
Code Section §54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley,California on December 30,2010.
5
AGENDA ITEM 21
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
June 17,2010
1.The meeting was called to order by President Bonilla at 11 :35 a.m.
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.ROLL CALL
Directors Present:Bonilla,Breitfelder,Croucher,Lopez and Robak
Staff Present:General Manager Mark Watton,Asst.GM Administration
and Finance German Alvarez,Asst.GM Engineering and
Water Operations Manny Magana,General Counsel Yuri
Calderon,Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem,Chief of
Engineering Rod Posada,Accounting Manager Rita Bell,
Engineering Manager Jim Peasley,Engineering Manager
Ron Ripperger and District Secretary Susan Cruz and
others per attached list.
4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Director Breitfelder,seconded by Director Croucher and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla,Breitfelder,Lopez and Robak
None
None
None
to approve the agenda.
5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
No one wished to be heard.
6.ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION TENDERED BY DIRECTOR LARRY
BREITFELDER
Director Breitfelder indicated that in the last forty-eight hours he has been
hearing from many people through email,telephone calls and blogs asking him to
reconsider resigning from his seat on the Otay Water District board.He stated
that they have presented some very good arguments,however,he felt very
strongly that the public and the members of the board deserve someone who can
give their undivided attention to the duties of this office.He stated that it is with a
1
heavy heart that he tenders his resignation and he trusts that the members of the
board will appoint,in the interim,an individual to fill his seat who will make good
decisions in the publics'interest until a replacement can be elected in November.
Director Croucher indicated that he appreciated the time he served on the board
with Director Breitfelder and that he has learned from him.He stated that it has
been a pleasure working together as a group and focusing on the right things for
the District and he felt that Director Breitfelder would do the same for the City.
Director Lopez indicated that he has seen Director Breitfelder's political growth
and development.He indicated that he felt that the experience he has received
at the District has prepared him for a seat on the City of Chula Vista's Council.
He stated that the board has always been able to work together as a team and
doing what was best for the District and he felt that Director Breitfelder would do
the same as a member of the City's Council.He wished Director Breitfelder good
luck in the elections in November.
Director Robak congratulated Director Breitfelder on his primary victory and
wished him success in the November elections.He indicated that he appreciated
his focus as a member of the Otay board and wished him success with the
broader perspective of the City of Chula Vista.
President Bonilla indicated that he was sorry to see Director Breitfelder go.He
indicated that he has seen his growth and he has shown maturity and the ability
to be impartial and a team player.Through his experience with the District,he
has developed a confidence that he can be helpful to the City of Chula Vista on a
larger scale and that he appreciated the work he did for the District He indicated
that Director Breitfelder had his personal support in his campaign for a Council
seat and congratulated him for his success in the primaries.
A motion was made by Director Bonilla,seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla,Breitfelder,Croucher,Lopez and Robak
None
None
None
to accept Director Breitfelder's resignation from the District's Board of Directors.
General Manager Watton invited Larry Breitfelder to the July 7,2010 board
meeting for a reception in his honor to thank him for his service to the District.
7.DISCUSSION ON APPOINTMENT TO VACANCY ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS,DIVISION 1
General Counsel Yuri Calderon indicated that he had prepared a brief
presentation for the Division 1 seat appointment process.He indicated that the
District has three options under California statute:
2
1.Appoint a new director to serve the remaining time of the Division 1 seat
term.
2.The District can call a special election.
a.He noted that in this case this option would not be appropriate as
the regular election is coming up in a very short period of time.
3.If the District does not take action within 60 days of the vacancy,the
County Board of Supervisors will either appoint an individual on behalf of
the District or order a special election.The seat cannot sit vacant for more
than 60 days.
General Counsel Calderon indicated that when a vacancy occurs,the District
must notify the County elections officer,the Voter of Registrar,and the clerk of
the San Diego County Board of Supervisors within 15 days of the vacancy that
the District intends to make an appointment to fill the seat.He stated that he has
prepared a letter and will send it immediately.
He stated that the appointment must be made within 60 days of the date the
District received notice of the vacancy or the effective date of the vacancy,
whichever is later.He indicated that in this situation,it is the same date,June
17,2010.He stated that before the District can make an appointment,it must
post a Notice of Vacancy in three places within the District for at least 15 days.
He stated a copy of the notice has been placed on the dias for each member to
review.The District will also distribute press releases indicating the vacancy on
the District's board.
He indicated that after an appointment is made,the District must notify:
•Secretary of State within 10 days
•County Registrar of Voters within 15 days
•County Clerk within 15 days
•Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within 15 days
He presented the proposed timeline to fill the vacancy:
June 17:Effective date of resignation;Board accepts resignation and
approves process;notifies agencies;posts notice.
July 2:Deadline to submit applications;qualify candidates.
July 5-7:Ad Hoc Committee of the Board screens written applications and
interview applicants for vacancy.
July 7:Ad Hoc Committee presents finalists for the vacancy.Board
interviews and makes appointment at Board meeting.
July 17:Deadline to notify Secretary of State.
3
July 22:Deadline to notify County Registrar of Voters,County Clerk (within
15 days),and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
General Counsel Calderon stated that candidates must be at least 18 years of
age,registered to vote,a U.S.citizen and resident of the State and Division 1.
He stated that if there are few candidates,the candidates would be moved
forward to the full board to be interviewed.If there are a large number of
candidates that will require interviews and screening,the District could implement
an Ad Hoc Committee to handle the screening and narrow the pool that will be
interviewed by the full board.The board could make an appointment at the
beginning of the July 7,2010 board meeting,which would allow the District to
have a full board at that meeting.He stated that the board could also hold a
special meeting to appoint the candidate.He noted that this is a suggested
timeline for the board's consideration and was a happy to answer questions or
comments on modifications to the timeline.
President Bonilla indicated that should there be a large number of candidates,he
would like to propose that an Ad Hoc Committee prescreen the candidates.He
noted that with Larry Breitfelder's resignation,there will be vacancies in the
committee and organizational appointments and he would be contacting each of
the Directors to discuss appointments along with appointments to the Ad Hoc
Committee to screen candidates for the Division 1 seat.
Director Croucher indicated that he was supportive of the timeline and process
proposed by Counsel.Director Lopez stated that he also concurred.Director
Robak indicated that if there was a lack of candidates,he would like to keep the
option open to allow more time to make the appointment so more candidates can
be gathered.Counsel noted that the schedule proposed would provide the board
the option to gather additional candidates if needed.The District's deadline to
make an appointment is August 16,so there is time in the proposed schedule to
further publicize the vacancy.It was also noted that a map showing the
boundaries of Division 1 will be attached to the notice.
A motion was made by Director Croucher,seconded by Director Lopez and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla,Breitfelder,Croucher,Lopez and Robak
None
None
None
to approve the proposed timeline and review process for the appointment to the
Division 1 seat.
8.ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board,President Bonilla adjourned
the meeting at 12:03 p.m.
4
ATTEST:
District Secretary
5
President
AGENDA ITEM 22a
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:January 5,2011TYPEMEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITIED BY:Kevin Cameron ~e.,.
Assistant Civil Engineer I
PROJECTI
SUBPROJECT:
P2505-001103
P2506-001103
DIV.NO.3
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~o~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana~~
Assistant Generalc:rnager,Engineering and Operations
Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades
Project
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
award a construction contract to Blastco,Inc.(Blastco)and
authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Blastco
for the 657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades Project in an amount not to exceed $632,500 (see Exhibit A
for project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into
a construction contract with Blastco for the 657-1 &657-2 Reservoir
Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades Project in an amount not to
exceed $632,500.
ANALYSIS:
The District's corrosion consultant,Schiff Associates (Schiff),
completed a Corrosion Control Program (CCP)in June 2009 that
addressed the installation,maintenance,and monitoring of corrosion
protection systems for the District's steel reservoirs and buried
metallic piping.The CCP included a reservoir maintenance schedule
that showed the 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoirs to be re-coated and
updated to current code.The maintenance requirements include
replacing anodes for the cathodic protection system,removing the
existing exterior and interior coatings,and applying a new coating
to the exterior and interior of each reservoir.
In addition to replacing the anodes and re-coating the reservoirs,
structural upgrades are necessary to comply with the American Water
Works Association (AWWA)and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)standards.An internal and external
inspection of each reservoir was completed in August 2008 by Utility
Services Company.The recommended structural upgrades,developed
with input from engineering and operations staff,are as follows:
new exterior ladder,new level indicators,new fall prevention
devices on the interior ladders,additional manways for access,new
anode access ports,new roof vents,new lanyard cables,and
miscellaneous tank penetrations for chlorination and sampling.
These upgrades will ensure compliance with AWWA and OSHA
requirements as well as provide better access for Operations staff
to maintain these facilities.
On October 27,2010,Schiff performed an interior inspection on the
657-1 and 657-2 Reservoirs to assess the condition of the roof
structure,analyze the coating condition,and reveal any changed
conditions from the previous inspections.Schiff's inspection
report found extensive corrosion on the rafters,and a leak in the
elbow of the overflow pipe in the 657-1 Reservoir.These items were
included in the contract documents.
Staff developed the contract documents and the project was
advertised for bid on November 3,2010 on the District's website and
several other publications including the San Diego Union Tribune and
San Diego Daily Transcript.
One (1)addendum was sent out to all bidders and planhouses to
address questions and clarifications to the contract documents
during the bidding period.
Bids were publicly opened on November 30,2010,with the following
results:
2
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID CORRECTED BID
AMOUNT AMOUNT
1 Blastco,Inc.$632,500 -
2 Muehlan Marine,Inc.$633,500 -
3 Western Industrial,Inc.$638,645 $638,780
4 RPI Coating,Inc.$685,000 -
5 Olympus and Associates Inc.*$786,582 -
6 Techno Coatings,Inc.$1,064,700 -
*Bid opened on December 1,2010.
The Engineer's Estimate is $807,000.
Staff reviewed the bids submitted for conformance with the contract
requirements and determined that Blastco was the lowest responsive
and responsible bidder.Blastco holds both a Class A and Class C-33
Contractor's License which expires on Oct.31,2011.Overall,the
reference checks indicated a good performance record on similar
projects.Staff has verified that the bid bond provided by Blastco
is valid.Staff will also verify that Blastco's Performance Bond is
valid prior to execution of the contract.
The bid for Olympus and Associates Inc.was delivered to the
District on time,but was not received by the Project Manager prior
to the bid opening.Legal Counsel directed Staff to contact all
bidders and invite them to witness the opening of Olympus'bid on
December 1,2010 at 3:00 p.m at District headquarters.The
contractors elected to have the Project Manager call them with the
bid results rather than attend the second bid opening.
FISCAL IMPACT:..~'"':"~
1 "Funding for the overall projects comes from two CIP projects,P2505,
the 657-1 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades,and
P2506,the 657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades.
The total budget for CIP P2505,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $375,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $375,000.See Attachment B-1 for budget detail.
The total budget for CIP P2506,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $375,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $375,000.See Attachment B-2 for budget detail.
Staff included allowances in the bid sheet list for structural
modifications and cell site equipment relocation for a total amount
of $50,000.
3
Based on a review of the financial budgets,the Project Manager has
determined that each budget is sufficient to support the projects.
Finance has determined that 100%of the funding is available from
the Replacement Fund for both ClP P2505 and P2506.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the Operations Department Mission statement,
"To provide all operations and maintenance services in the highest
possible professional,efficient,safe,and cost effective manner to
all internal and external customers,and to strive to continually
improve the level of service this department provides."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
P:\t'lORKING\CIP P250S &2506 657-1&2 Reservoir Coating\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,65-/1&2 Coatings Bid AHard.doc
KC/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B-1 -Budget Detail for ClP P2505
Attachment B-2 -Budget Detail for ClP P2506
Exhibit A -Location Map
4
~IIR I JEeT:
P2505-001103
P2506-001103
ATTACHMENT A
Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on December 7,2010 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board of Directors award a
construction contract to Blastco,Inc.(Blastco)and authorize
the General Manager to execute an agreement with Blastco for
the 657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades Project (Project)in an amount not to exceed $632,500.
•The 657-1 and 657-2 reservoirs are due to be re-coated in FY
2011 per the District's Corrosion Control Program.During the
re-coating process,the reservoirs will also require structural
upgrades to bring them up to current American Water Works
Association (AWWA)and Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)standards.
•It was indicated that on November 3,2010,bids were publicly
opened.Staff stated that on November 16,2010,a pre-bid
meeting was held and that sixteen (16)contractors attended.
During the bidding process,one (1)addendum was sent out in
response to questions and clarifications to the contract
documents.
•Staff stated that the District received six (6)proposals,
which staff reviewed and determined that Blastco was the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder.Staff also indicated that
Blastco received an overall good response from its reference
checks.
•Staff stated that there are sufficient funds for the two CIP
projects which will be funded by the District's CIP budget:
1)CIP P2505,the 657-1 Reservoir Exterior/Interior Coating and
Upgrades;and 2)CIP P2506,the 657-2 Reservoir
Exterior/Interior Coating and Upgrades.
•Legal Counsel reported that during the bidding process,the
District received a bid protest from the second lowest bidder,
Muehlhan Marine,Inc.with regard to the bid item for specialty
inspection.The Contract Documents,Instructions to
Bidders,require that bidders list any sub-contractors and sub-
consultants if they will perform work under the contract in
excess of one-half (0.5)of one (1)percent of the total
contract value.The lowest bidder,Blastco,Inc.,had not
listed the consultant for specialty inspection,but did include
the specialty inspection's cost within their bid total.
Muehland Marine,Inc.'s protest claims that Blastco did not
comply with the bid requirements as they did not list their
sub-consultant.Staff consulted with District's legal counsel
regarding the protest and the requirement was waived as a minor
irregularity as the mis-listing did not impact the overall
bid.Staff discussed this with Muehlhan Marine,Inc.and they
withdrew their bid protest.
•In response to a question from the Committee,staff stated that
Blastco's Class A and Class C-33 Contractor's License were
mentioned in the staff report to indicate that they are
licensed for engineering and coating services,respectively.
•The Committee inquired as to why staff is recommending Blastco
for the project.It was indicated that Blastco has provided
services to other agencies,including water districts.Blastco
has never worked for the District,however their reference
checks indicated an overall good performance on similar
projects.
•The Committee inquired when the project would be completed.
Staff stated that it is anticipated that it would be about five
months from the time construction physically begins onsite to
complete the project.It was noted that staff's goal is to
begin re-coating and upgrading the reservoirs during the winter
(January 2011)as it would be better to take the reservoirs out
of service while there is a low demand for water.Staff is
anticipating to have the project completed by the summer (June
2011)to meet the higher demand for water.
6
•It was indicated that outreach services will be provided to the
surrounding neighbors to notify them of the upcoming project.
In addition,staff indicated that landscaping will be added to
the project scope where feasible.
•The Committee inquired about the public outreach effort that
was performed on recent reservoir coating projects.Staff
stated that the most recent similar project where public
outreach was used was the 1296-1,2 Reservoirs coating.Staff
indicated that the surrounding neighbors appreciated the
notifications and updates of the project and that they were
very impressed with the landscaping design surrounding the
project's site.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
7
ATTACHMENT B-1
·····SUSJECTiPR6JECT:,Award of a Construction
P2505-001103 ',.657-1 &657-2 ReservoirP2506-001103
.....!~I?9Ee:tc:lE::~?EC?j~c::~
Otay Water District
P2505 -657-1 ReservoirInterior/Exterior Coating
Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
Exterior/Interior Coating and
Date Updated:November 30,2010
Outstanding ProjectedFinalBudgetCommiffedExpendituresCommitment&Cost Vendor/Comments
375,000 Forecast
Planning
Labor 822 822 822
Total Planning 822 822 822
Design
Labor 13,508 13,508 13,508
Service Contracts 143 143 143 SAN DIEGO UNION·TRIBUNE LLC
38 38 -38 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Total Design 13,688 13,688 .13,688
Construction
Labor 20,000 519 19,481 20,000
Construction Contract 320,500 -320,500 320,500 Blastco,Inc.
CM Contract 14,990 -14,990 14,990 As-Needed CM
Project Closeout 5,000 -5,000 5,000
Total Construction 360,490 519 359,971 360,490
Grand Total 375,000 15.030 359,971 375,000
ATTACHMENT B-2
SUBJECT/PROJECT:--;·----·····--········----,Award of a Construction
P2505-001103 I,657-1 &657-2 ReservoirP2506-001103
' _.._._,~E9Ec:lc:l~??E(?j~c::~_.
Olay Water District
P2506 -657-2 Reservoir Interior/ExteriorCoating
Contract to Blastco,Inc.for the
Exterior/Interior Coating and
j
......................................1
Date Updated:November30,2010
Outstanding ProjBctf!fdFins/Budgst CommltirJd Expendltuf9s Commitment&VendorlComments
375,000 FOrBC8St Cost
Planning
Labor 569 569 569
Total Planning 569 569 569
Design
Labor 12,933 12,933 12,933
ServiceContracts 143 143 -143 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
38 38 38 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Total Design 13,114 13,114 -13,114
Construction
Labor 25,000 614 24,386 25,000
Construction Contract 312.000 -312.000 312.000 Blastco.Inc.
CM Contract 19,317 -19,317 19,317 As-Needed CM
Project Closeout 5,000 -5,000 5.000
r-rotal Construction 361,317 14,727 346,590 361,317
Grand Total 375,000 28,410 346,590 375,000
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
657-1 (1.0 MG)&657-2 (0.87 MG)RESERVOIRS
EXTERIOR/INTERIOR COATINGS &UPGRADES
SPRING VALLEY,CA CIP #P2505 &P2506
EXHIBIT A
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Award of a Construction Contract to Blastco,Inc.
for the 657-1 &657-2 Reservoir Exterior/Interior
Coating and Upgrades Project
Project No.:P2505-001103
P2506-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
Kevin Cameron
Date
QA Reviewer:
Printed Name
1kI;'/e/\~Dat~V;>;/I'
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Manager:~~Ignature
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 22b
STAFF REPORT
3
January 5,2011
DIV.
NO.
P2488/
P2489-
001103
MEETING DATE:
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:Engineer
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineerin~anager
Rod posada~~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~
Assistant General ~nager,Engineering and Operations
Award a Construction Contract to L.H.Woods &Sons,Inc.for
the Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive Emergency Interconnections
Project
Regular Board
Daniel Kay O~
Associate Civil
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITIED BY:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
award a construction contract to L.H.Woods &Sons Inc.(L.H.Woods)
in the amount of $379,000 for the Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive
Emergency Interconnections Project (see Exhibits A &B for project
locations).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into
a construction contract with L.H.Woods for the Del Rio Road and
Gillispie Drive Emergency Interconnection Project in an amount not
to exceed $379,000.
ANALYSIS:
The District has identified an opportunity and a beneficial need for
the construction of two interconnections with Helix Water District
(Helix).
The proposed interconnections are located on Del Rio Road and
Gillispie Drive in Spring Valley.The project will consist of
installing a vault,bi-directional meter,blow-offs,new telemetry,
and new SCADA equipment at each location.The interconnections will
benefit both Helix and the District by allowing water to be
transferred interchangeably between each system in the event of an
emergency situation.In previous outages and emergencies,similar
interconnections have proven to provide increased reliability and
flexibility.
The Board approved an agreement between Helix and the District at
the April 7,2010 Board meeting.Since the interconnections will
benefit both Districts,the agreement states that Helix and the
District will share equally the cost for design,construction,
operation,and maintenance of the facilities.The District is the
lead agency for the planning,design and construction of the
interconnections.
The design for this project was performed in-house by District staff
with an electrical consultant,Engineering Partners,Inc.,providing
the electrical and instrumentation drawings and specifications.
The project was advertised for bid on November 3,2010 on the
District's website and several other publications including the
Union Tribune and San Diego Daily Transcript.
A non-mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting was held on November 16,2010.A
presentation was given by District staff to explain the project and
discuss any questions or concerns from the contractors.There was
one (1)contractor that attended the meeting and meeting minutes
were published.
Subsequently,one (1)addendum was sent out to all bidders and
planhouses to address questions and clarifications to the contract
documents during the bidding period.Bids were publicly opened on
November 30,2010 with the following results:
TOTAL BIDCONTRACTORAMOUNT
l.L.H.Woods &Sons Inc.$379,000.00
2 .Arrieta Construction $428,748.38
The Englneer's Estimate is $192,000.
The evaluation process included reviewing all bids submitted for
conformance to the contract documents.The lowest bidder,L.H.
Woods,submitted a responsible bid and holds a Class A Contractor's
2
license which expires on May 31,2011.References were checked and
L.H.Woods was found to be a highly rated company.Staff has
verified that the bid bond provided by L.H.Woods is valid.Once
L.H.Woods signs the contract,they will furnish the performance
bond.Staff will verify the performance bond before the District
executes the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total budget for eIP P2488,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $150,000.00.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments
and forecast,are $139,036.See Attachment B-1 for budget detail.
The total budget for eIP P2489,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $150,000.00.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments
and forecast,are $136,257.See Attachment B-2 for budget detail.
Including the agreed upon 50%reimbursement from Helix for design
and construction costs,the District's share will be within the
existing FY 2011 budget.Based on a review of the financial budgets,
the Project Manager has determined that each budget is sufficient to
support the project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from the
Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is from the Betterment Fund
for both eIP P2488 and P2489.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater service to the customers of
the Otay Water District in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner,"as well as the General Manager's vision,"...prepared for the
future..."by guaranteeing the District will always be able to meet
future water supply obligations and plan,design,and construct new
facilities.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
3
MwtfS
Generkl Manager
P:\NORKING\CIP P2488 Del Rio Rd Interconnection\Staff Reports\BD Ol-O~-11,Staff Report,Helix Interconnection,(DK-RR).doc
DK/RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B-1 -Budget Detail for CIP P2488
Attachment B-2 -Budget Detail for CIP P2489
Exhibit A -Location Map for CIP 2488
Exhibit B -Location Map for CIP 2489
4
C::IIR IwJECT:
P2488/P2489-001103
ATTACHMENT A
Award a Construction Contract to L.H.Woods &Sons,Inc.
for the Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive Emergency
Interconnections
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on December 7,2010 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board of Directors award a
construction contract to L.H.Woods &Sons Inc.(L.H.Woods)in
the amount of $379,000 for the Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive
Emergency Interconnections Project.
•Staff stated that on April 7,2010,the Board approved an
agreement between Helix and the District to share equally the
cost for design,construction,operation,and maintenance of
the facilities.It was indicated that the Otay Water District
would be the lead agency for the Project.
•It was indicated that Helix and the District will benefit from
the interconnections,in emergency situations,by allowing
water to be transferred interchangeably between each system.
•Staff indicated that both interconnections will consist of
installing a vault,bi-directional meter,blow-offs,new
telemetry,and will have SCADA capabilities.
•Staff stated that the Project was advertised for bid on
November 3,2010 and that a non-mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting was
held on November 16,2010 which one (1)contractor (L.H.Woods)
attended the meeting.Staff indicated that bids were publicly
opened on November 30,2010 and the two (2)proposals were
submitted to the District:1)L.H.Woods &Sons,Inc.
($379,000);and 2)Arrieta Construction ($428,748.38).
•It was indicated that staff reviewed all bids and concluded
that L.H.Woods was the lowest and most responsible bid.It
was noted that staff conducted reference checks and indicated
that L.H.Woods was found to be a highly rated company.
•Staff noted that the District's Engineer's Estimate was
$192,000 off budget because it did not include the
reimbursement by the Helix Water District,and that there is
sufficient funds to cover the Project.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
6
ATTACHMENT B-1
Otay Water District
P2488 -Del Rio Road Helix&OtayAgency Interconnection
Date Updated:November 23.2010
Outstanding ProjectBdFinalBudgBtCommittBdExpf1l1dituresCommitmBnt&Cost VBndor/Comments
150.000 Forecast
Planning
Labor 1,314 1,314 1,314
Total Planning 1,314 1,314 ·1,314
Design
Labor 36,915 36,915 ·36,915
Consultant Contracts 5,950 5,950 ·5,950 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
500 500 -500 STEWARTTITLE OF CAINC
2,805 2,805 ·2,805 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC,THE
ServiceContracts 331 331 ·331 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
Contracted Services 665 665 -665 KIRK PAVING INC
Infrastructure Equipment&Materials 558 558 -558 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DPW
Reimbursement by Helix (23,863)-(23,863)(23,863)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Total Design 23,862 47,725 ·47,725
Construction
Labor 20,000 2.149 17,851 20,000
Service Contracts 11,795 11,795 ·11,795 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC
Construction Contract 185,925 .185,925 185,925 L.H.WOODS &SONS
Reimbursement by Helix (113,860)-(113,860)(113,860)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Closeout 10,000 .10,000 10,000
Total Construction 113,860 13,944 99,916 113,860
Grand Total 139,036 62,962 76,053 139,036
ATTACHMENT B-2
Olay Water District
P2489•Gillespie DriveHelix &OlayAgency Interconnection
DaleUpdated:November23.2010
Outstanding Proj6Cfed FinalBudgetCommittedExpendituresCommitment&Vendor/Comments
150,000 CostFOfBCBSt
Planning
Labor 189 189 189
Regulatory Agency Fees 100 100 100 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Total Planning 289 289 -289
Design
Labor 33,690 33,690 ·33,690
Consultant Contracts 4,200 4,200 ·4,200 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
2.805 2,805 ·2,805 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC.THE
Construction Contracts 6,820 6.820 -6,820 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Professional Legal Fees 374 374 ·374 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
Reibursement by Helix (23,945)-(23,945)(23,945)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Total Design 23,945 47,889 ·47,889
Construction
Labor 20,000 1,926 18,074 20,000
Service Contracts 972 972 ·972 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC
Construction Contract 193,075 -193,075 193,075 L.H.WOODS &SONS
Reibursement by Helix (112,024)-(112,024)(112,024)HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Closeout 10,000 -10,000 10,000
TotalConstruction 112,023 2.898 109.125 112.023
GrandTotal 136.257 51.076 85.181 136.257
VICINITY MAP
INTERCONNECTION
WIHELlXWD
CAPACITY =800 GPM
DETAIL 1
(OWD DWG 10-1-20,28-1-20)
(HWD DWG WO 9067)~C-<i,
O\s",-<i,~~
'(\'i:.\..\"'f..-.r-l
DETAIL 1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
DEL RIO ROAD
INTERCONNECTION
WITH HELIX WATER DISTRICT
EXHIBIT A
P2488
L
P2489
DETAIL 1
WDBDRY
6"ACPCL200
14"ACP CL 200
~~D\S'\~~~
I~
p'\~'I
'-FF~EDERICK STF~EEll,
\\I I I 1
VICINITY MAP
14"ACP CL 200i
!
IIIII
I w
!~
J ~I ~ro
110--------.------------1IaTAYWATERDISTRICT
I GILLISPIE DRIVEiINTERCONNECTION
WITH HELIX WATER DISTRICTI:~----L....-.-----I
EXHIBIT 8
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Su~ect:Award a Construction Contract to
L.H.Woods &Sons,Inc.for the
Del Rio Road &Gillispie Drive
Emergency Interconnections
Project No.:P2488-001103
P2489-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
Daniel Kay
/2-/2-//0
Date
QA Reviewer:
Printed Name
~--D-a~~/ro
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Manager:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 22c
STAFF REPORT
2DIV.No.P2434-
001101
January 5,2011
PROJECT No.
MEETING DATE:Regular Board
f,'J'~m-James Peasley \\
Engineering Ma ager
Rod posad~~~
Chief,Engineering
.....
Manny Magafia~~
Assistant General~nager,Engineering and Operations
Change Order No.1 to the Professional Engineering Services
Contract with AECOM Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
TYPE MEETING:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors
(Board)approve Change Order No.1 to the existing contract with
AECOM Technical Services,Inc.(AECOM)in an amount not-to-exceed
$176,805 for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development
(RDR Groundwater Well)Project (see Exhibit A for project
location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
Change Order No.1 (see Exhibit B)to the existing contract with
AECOM in an amount not-to-exceed $176,805 for the RDR
Groundwater Well Project.
ANALYSIS:
The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater
supply projects by the District has been resurrected in response
to the regional water supply issues that have impacted water
supply conditions,such as the court rulings regarding the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the spiraling retail water
pricing pressures.Local ground water supply projects will
allow for less reliance upon imported water,achieve a level of
independence from regional wholesale water agencies,and
diversify the District's water supply portfolio consistent with
the District's March 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan.
As a result,and in recognition of the need to develop
sufficient alternative water supplies,the District took the
next step towards development of a groundwater production well
at the Rancho del Rey site.The Board awarded a professional
engineering contract to AEeOM for the RDR Groundwater Well
Project on January 6,2010 in the amount of $1,561,625.
The purpose of the RDR Groundwater Well Project scope of work is
to firmly establish the feasibility of developing a groundwater
resource production system,including determining sustainable
well yield,groundwater quality,and assessing any limitations
or constraints that may arise.These items were accomplished
with construction and testing of a full-scale production well
and a multiple level monitoring well.
The RDR Groundwater Well Project scope of work accomplished the
following:
•Regulatory and agency coordination,compliance,and
permitting.
•Groundwater well water and brine disposal discharge
analysis.
•Multiple level groundwater monitoring well installation.
•Planning,design,construction,and testing of a production
well.
•Monitoring well and production well completion report.
The primary outcome of the RDR Groundwater Well Project is that
the groundwater well is physically feasible and capable as a
long-term (i.e.,approximately 30 years)production system,with
a maximum sustainable yield of about 700 acre-feet per year.
The approximately 700 acre-feet per year of well yield can be
used as feed water to a reverse osmosis treatment system to
obtain a local potable water resource of about 500 to 600 acre-
feet per year.
2
In response to the community concerns about noise and vibration
levels,the District chose to modify the contract terms to:
1.Limit the days of work and work hours per day during the
drilling and other operations at the project site.
2.Increase sound mitigation measures.
3.Extend the contract duration.
As a result of the reduced work schedule,the duration that the
drilling subcontractor,AECOM,and equipment were on site
increased.These changes resulted in a cost increase of
$302,213.
There were also cost savings that included reduced well casing
size,reduced drill cuttings hauling and disposal,and conductor
casing material type revision.These three items totaled a cost
reduction of $161,700.
In addition,there were other increased costs including labor to
overcome sewer discharge permit obstacles,laboratory analyses
for additional constituents,some new landscaping,and enhanced
site erosion control totaling $36,292.
District staff and AECOM worked with the drilling contractor to
reduce their fees.For example,we were able to obtain a
reduced fee for standby charges related to noise and vibration
issues.AECOM also provided a discount on a portion of their
labor costs.
Combining the increased costs for the drilling,laboratory,and
other expenses along with the reductions,the net increase for
this Change Order is $176,805 or an 11.3%increase over the
original contract amou~nt~
FISCAL IMPACT:~~t '
The total budget for CIP Project P2434,Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well Development,as part of the approved FY 2011
CIP budget,is $4,250,000.Expenditures to date are $2,023,099.
Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments,including this
contract,totals $2,550,223.See Attachment B for budget
detail.
The Project Manager anticipates that,based on the attached
financial analysis,the CIP budget for P2434 will be sufficient
to support the anticipated expenses payable to AECOM,including
the requested change order.
3
It is important to note that the Project Manager has determined
that the budget is not sufficient to cover the second phase of
this CIP t the construction of a reverse osmosis treatment
facility.This anticipated shortfall is being addressed in the
staff report requesting authorization to issue a RFP for design
of the second phase of the Rancho del Rey Well Project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from
the Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The RDR Groundwater Well Development Project supports the
Districtts Mission statement t "To provide the best quality of
water and wastewater service to the customers of the Otay Water
District t in a professional t effective t and efficient manner"
and the Otay strategic goal t in planning for infrastructure and
supply to meet current and future potable water demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
denerai'Manager
P:\WORKING\CIP P2434\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,Change Order No.1 with
AECOM for RDR Well,(JP-RP).doc
JP/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A -Location Map
Exhibit B -Change Order No.1
4
~[IR I .~JECT:
P2434-001101
ATTACHMENT A
Change Order No.1 to the Professional Engineering Services
Contract with AECOM Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on December 7,
2010 and the following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Otay Water District (District)
Board of Directors (Board)approve Change Order No.1 to
the existing contract with AECOM Technical Services,
Inc.(AECOM)in an amount not-to-exceed $1 7 6,805 for the
Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development (RDR
Groundwater Well)Project.
•On January 6,2010,the Board awarded a professional
engineering contract to AECOM for the RDR Groundwater Well
Project in the amount of $1,561,625.Staff discussed
AECOM's scope of work and indicated that the primary
outcome of the RDR Groundwater Well Project is that the
groundwater well is physically feasible and capable as a
long-term (i.e.approximately 30 years)production system.
•Staff discussed some of the challenges that the Project
encountered,which caused a delay in its progress.Staff
stated that one of the challenges encountered was in
response to the community's concerns about noise and
vibration levels,in which the District chose to modify
AECOM's contract terms to:
o Limit the days of work and work hours per day during
the drilling and other operations at the project
site.
o Increase sound mitigation measures.
o Extend the contract duration.
•It was noted that District staff was able to negotiate with
the consultant where both AECOM and WDC the well driller
lowered their per diem rates.
•Staff stated that as a result of the contract modification,
combining the increased costs for the drilling,laboratory,
and other expenses along with the reductions,the net
increase for the Change Order is $176,805.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent
item.
6
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2434-001101
Change Order No.1 to the Professional Engineering Services
Contract with AECOM Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
Date Updated:November29,2010
Budget
4,250,000
CommHted ExpendHures
Outstanding
CommHment&
Forecast
ProjectedFinal
Cost Vendor/Comments
Planning
Labor 308,719 3o;c;8cc'7oc1-;c9-1------+-----cc3o;c-a"-'ij-g---------------------1
-La-n-d----326,092 326,092 --3;:-;2~6C-O,OCO:9~2-1-----------
·~P-e-r-m-ci:t-s----------I-----'-::12;c;5:+---125 125 CITY OF CHULA VISTA-DEPT.OF
Materials 1,348 1,34~8--1------+---·--1,348 VARIOUS
--'R-en-Cta--CI----------II------'-1cc5"'9+--··-····-········-:1Sifl------+----159 ;::P:E:ccN:~H-;-A:-:L-;-L-;C:c::O;:-;Mc-:pocAc:-NccY:--------
Construction Costs 26,154 1,------;2"'6-;,1C:5-:-4+---------;2:0;6-;,1~54C+-C;::;H-:;lccLD;::;T;::;I;:-;MC::E-;CO:-Hccl'LC:D'C:CARE,INC.
Professional Legal Fees -'---'-4)329'1 4,829 4,829 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLc:po------1
Consultant Contracts 19,48'I'T---19,481 19,481 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES·IHC5.=__-.~-=-=
13,825 I 13,825 13,825 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
__.I -_·-_1c'--,-~1iJ~-iJ-j!----1,1OO~I------_+--1,1 00 SOUTHWESTERNC6CCEG-E~----...-_-._-=--_-_-1
3,0651 3,065 3,065 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
15,000 15,000 15,000 SEPARATION PROCESSES INC
1-------------I-----c6'-c,9cc-30'·-1--6,930 6,930 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGB,iE-N-T--
-------1:56i~25T--1~,2;:-;3--c1'-c,4-c06c+---~33ccO-;,2--c1-9c--1,561,625 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC
-Ciia~ge-or;jer-N(;:j----------I---.:.1-;7-c6'-c,8cc-05-+----'---'--+---176,8cc-05~1-----'-1-;7-c6,'c-8-=-05+-A-;E;:-;CccOccMcc-T=E=C;c;H~:N-cI-;cCAL SERVICES iNC,C.0.#1
Service Contracts 5,100 5,100 5,100 S R BRADLEY &ASSOCIATES INC1-------------1------'-1~86:-186 186 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
624 624 624 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING C·O,----I
------3-9-9+----~39~9+---399 REPROHAUS CORP
--·---·-·-------1-----44-0+-440 I ·-------;4-4cO~I--cU-;R;:-;B~IN~A-;,-cS~M-cA-;S=T=E~R-;S~W-;E=E=P=1N-;G~-:INC----
------·---··-··-·-----1-----~6+-----ifl----------I----6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
-1-------;13~4-+-------;1-c34-c-r--134 COURIER EXPRESS,INC.
1--------------205 205 205 USA SIGN CO.·--·-------1
3,226 3,226 3,226 QUA-UTY ASSURAN-C"'=E~LAccBocO;:-;RocAc;:Tc::O-:::R-;Y---
.......···-·-·--------I-----=7-c,1=08::+-7:108 7,108 MULTI WATER SYSTEMS
1,955 I 1,955 1,955 --::B-cA-:::R=R=ET=T~C=O-;N=S~UL-;T=INc:-G~GCO:Rc;:O=U=P:--
----------------1--------5::-:,665-1.5,665 5,665 EARTH TECH -----1
3,344 3,344 3,344 CITY OF CHULA VISTA
16,714 16,714 16,714 BOYLEENGiNEERTNG:::-C':c::O:c::R~P~Oc;:R:c::Ac::T:c::IO;:-;N-c---1
------1-------;1-;-120:+-112 112 MONTGOMERY WATSON LABORATORIES
1------------------·-2,500 2,500 2,500 AN[lRE\jiTA.SMITH COMPANY
2,000 2,000 2,000 ENARTEC ENGINEERING PLANNING
--·-----+----;03=5,-;c2·0;;c0 35,200 35,200 ALCEM FENCE COMPANY INC:-.----
Regula-to--ry·-A-ge-n-c-y=F-ee-s------50 50 ----+----50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN-------+----------_..._--
Total Planning 2,550,223 i 2,023,099 527,124 2,550,223
Grand Total 2,550,223 2,023,099 527,124 2,550,223
I
NOT TO SCALE
o
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,
INC
LOT 108
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO..9-5
MAP NO.12720
(96.11')
(N87'37'44"E)
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
RANCHO DEL WAY PARKWAY,CHULA VISTA,CA
RANCHO DEL REY GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT
CIP P2434
U'BlIAL
EEACH
...III0..
:I0..
~,:::
NN
05~~N
'"•."]
0..
lJiii..."t:D~0..
I
iEtj;c
J
I;itII<:::.s~..!?:>Jl'...I.!lB-Ii1;
.!!.cQ,e~~...~
•!!.~CIi
Ii:
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.1
PROJECTIITEM:Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
CONTRACTORIVENDOR:AECOM Technical Services,Inc.REF.CIP No.:P2434-001101
APPROVED BY:Board REF.P.O.No:713180 DATE:01-05-11
DESCRIPTION:
There are five items as part of this change order:
1)Increased cost due to shorten work days and hours per day.
2)Increased cost due to permits and analysis required.
3)Decrease in cost due to reduced hauling and disposal fees and other savings.
4)Decrease in cost due to reduced well casing size and conductor casing material change.
5)Increase contract duration by three months.
REASON:
1)The contract terms were modified to accommodate the community concerns about noise and vibration
levels.In order to accommodate the concerns,work days and hours were limited during the operation at
the site.Also,sound mitigation measures were increased.The cost increase for modification to the
contract is $302,213.
2)Other costs,including labor to overcome sewer discharge permit obstacles,constituents'laboratory
analysis,new landscaping,and enhanced site erosion control.The cost increase for these items is
$36,292.
3)A cost savings,which included reduced well casing size,reduced drill cuttings hauling and disposal,and
conductor casing material type revision.These items totaled a cost savings of $161 ,700.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
Revise contract to add $176,805 for a total contract amount of $1 ,738,430.00.
Revise contract to extend contract duration by three months to March 31,2011.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACT/P.O.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$1,561,625.00
$0.00
$176,805.00
$1,738,430.00
12/31/10
90 days
03/31/11
IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS,THAT THE CONTRACTOR/VENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES.IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND
COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O.ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONTRACT/P.O.REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
CONTRACTORIVENDOR:
SIGNATURE:_
STAFF APPROVALS:
PROJ.MGR:Sr Eng (InlL-DATE:_
NAME:_
TITLE:DATE :_
DIV.MGR:_
CHIEF:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
ADDRESS:ASST.GM:_
----------------
_______________DISTRICT APPROVAL:
GEN.MANAGER:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
COPIES:0 FILE (Orig.),0 CONTRACTORNENDOR,0 CHIEF-FINANCE,0 INSPECTION,0 ENGR.SECRETARY,0 PROJECT BINDER
P:IWORKINGICIP P24341PlanninglChange OrderslChange Order#1.doc
CHANGE ORDER LOG
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
Consultant:AECOM Technical Services,Inc.
Project:P2434
Subproject:001101
APPROVED
C.O.AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O.
1 $176,805.00 Board Increase due to work days shortened,additional permits and Owneranalysisrequired,and extend completion date.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Total C.O.'s To Date:
Original Contract Amount:
Current Contract Amount:
Change Order Breakdown for the Month:
Month Net C.O.$Limit Authorization
$176,805.00
$1,561,625.00
$1,738,430.00
11.3%
C.O.%
$2,000
$10,000
$20,000
$25,000
$35,000
$50,000
Insp
PM/Supervisor
Manager
Chief
AGM
GM
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
A:COM
November 17,2010
AECOM
3995 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach,CA 90810
562.420.2933 tel
562.420.2915 fax
Mr.Jim Peasley
Engineering Manager
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,California 91978-2004
Subject:Rancho del Rey Change Order
Dear Mr.Peasley,
We appreciate the opportunity to meet with Mr.Posada and you this week regarding the Rancho del
Rey well.Although there were several challenges to drilling and constructing the production well
and monitoring well,the effort was successful.The wells have and will continue to provide important
information into this valuable local water resource.The production well was completed deeper than
originally planned and demonstrate the viability of producing water from the volcanic rock in addition
to the overlying sediments.This letter explains the change order related to alterations which
occurred during the course of the project.The change order covers the drilling and consulting fees.
The major changes are summarized below:.
Major Cost Increases
•Increased Time -Prior to the commencement of work (post-bid)Otay Water District
decided to adjust the anticipated work schedule in an effort to address potential community
relations concerns about noise.The City of Chula Vista allows for work to occur from 7am
to 10pm Monday through Friday and 8am to 10pm on weekends before needing to invoke
more stringent noise actions.The District made the decision to eliminate the weekend work
schedule (except during well construction)and to reduce the number of hours onsite during
the week so that all work would be completed by 7pm.In addition,the District also had
concerns about large delivery vehicles moving around in the parking lot of the ChildTime
daycare center during peak pick-up and drop-off periods.Accordingly,there were no
deliveries made to the site before 9am or between the hours of 2pm to 6pm.The reduced
work schedule increased the duration the drilling contractor and AECOM were onsite.
This resulted in additional costs for items like:
o Sound mitigation -$142,213
o Labor -$57,000
o Per Diem -$49,000
o Prevailing wage surcharge -$43,000
o Equipment rental (forklift,air-compressor,etc)-$11,000
AECOM
Malor Cost Savings
•Casing Size -Following the construction of the monitoring well,we were able to evaluate
and thus reduce the casing size of the production well from 18-inches in diameter to 12-
inches.
o This casing reduction resulted in a net savings of $87,000
2
•Waste Disposal -Drill cuttings were originally intended to be disposed of by hauling them
to a non-hazardous waste facility.The District was able to provide an nearby District-owned
property to place the non-hazardous drill cuttings.This eliminated hauling the cuttings to a
disposal site.
o Net savings to the District -$45,800
•Casing Materials -The bid package listed the conductor casing for the well to be stainless
steel.However,because the casing is fully encapsulated in cement,it is well protected
from corrosion.Therefore it was decided to use mild-steel casing for this section.
o Net savings to the District --$28,900
Smaller additions and reductions occurred throughout the project including additional time acquiring
the sewer discharge permit,additional laboratory expenses (increased number of constituents
required for analysis),etc.
We have worked with the drilling contractor to reduce some of their fees.For example,we were
able to obtain a reduced fee for standby issues due to noise issues.In addition,AECOM is
providing a discount on the October invoice as a goodwill gesture.
Combining the increased costs for the drilling,laboratory and other expenses along with the
reductions such as those discussed above,the net requested increase for this change order is
$176,805.
Yours sincerely,
Ronald Sorensen
Program Manager,Sr.Hydrogeologist
ronald.sorensen@aecom.com
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Change Order NO.1 to the Professional
Engineering Services Contract with AECOM
Technical Services,Inc.for the Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well Development Project
Project No.:P2434-001101
Document Description:Staff Report for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
James Peasley
Printed Name
~
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
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.
AGENDA ITEM 22d
5TAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:January 5,2011
5DIV.
NO.P2009-
001102
PROJECT!
SUBPROJECT:Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~~~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~
Assistant General~nager,Engineering and Operations
Change Order No.2 to the Construction Management Services
Contract with RBF Consulting for the 36-Inch Pipeline,SDCWA
Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTED BY:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
approves Change Order No.2 to the existing contract with RBF
Consulting (RBF)for construction management and inspection services
for the 36-Inch Pipeline,SDCWA Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory
Site Project in an amount not to exceed $101,075 (see Exhibit A for
project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
Change Order No.2 (see Exhibit B)to the contract with RBF in an
amount not to exceed $101,075.
ANALYSIS:
On January 16,2008,the Board awarded a contract to RBF,to provide
construction management and inspection services.RBF's scope of work
initially included pre-construction support such as constructability
reviews,public relations support,bidding support and construction
management over a 24-month period.RBF's pre-construction efforts
were increased due to the District's replacement of the design
consultant.Based on staff's recommendation,the General Manager
executed Change Order No.1 on June 15,2010 in the amount of $46,995
to provide funding for the additional scope of work.
After Change Order No.1 was executed,it became necessary to extend
the construction contract duration with CCL due to a variety of
factors including coordination with their subcontractor to perform
additional paving,modifications to the sampling system at the
Regulatory Site Vault 7,and a longer timeframe than anticipated for
flushing and completing bacteriological testing of the new pipeline.
Change Order No.2 documents the concentrated effort that was
required by RBF staff to oversee CCL's final work items and to ensure
the project was completed to the District's satisfaction.The
contract was completed at the end of November and the project is
ready to be accepted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total budget for CIP P2009,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,is
$21,000,000.RBF's original contact amount is $1,088,785;with the
approval of Change Order No.2 their new contract amount will be
$1,236,855.Total CIP expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,including this Change Order,are approximately $19,522,797.
The Project Manager anticipates that,based on the attached financial
analysis,the CIP budget for P2009 will be sufficient to support this
project.See Attachment B for details.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from the
Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund for CIP P2009.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,liTo provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of
Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner."This project fulfills the two of the District's Strategic
Goals,No.1 -Community and Governance and No.5 -Potable Water,by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders,and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
2
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Genera1/@g uJ1JO
P:\WORKING\CIP P2009 36-inch PL -FCF 14 to Reg Site\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,RBF CO#2,
(RR-RP).doc
RR/RP:jf
Attachments Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A Project Location Map
Exhibit B -Change Order No.2
3
~IIR ,I .~JECT
P2009-001l02
ATTACHMENT A
Change Order No.2 to the Construction Management Services
Contract with RBF Consulting for the 36-Inch Pipeline,
SDCWA Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on December 7,2010 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Otay Water District (District)
Board of Directors (Board)approves Change Order No.2 to the
existing contract with RBF Consulting (RBF)for construction
management and inspection services for the 36-Inch Pipeline,
SDCWA Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project (Project)
In an amount not-to-exceed $101,075.
•On January 26,2008,the Board awarded a construction management
contract to RBF for a 24-month duration to oversee the Project.
During RBF's contract period,the District replaced the
Project's design consultant.Because of this action,RBF's pre-
construction efforts were increased due to the extended time
required to complete the Project's design and to bid out the
project for construction.Staff noted that Change Order No.1
to RBF's contract provided funding for the added scope of work.
•Staff stated that additional time was needed to complete the
Project's final items such as paving,work at the Regulatory
Site's Vault No.7,and for flushing and completing
bacteriological testing of the new pipeline.RBF was retained
to oversee the completion of these items.
•Staff indicated that Change Order NO.2 to RBF's contract will
document the extended effort that was required by RBF staff to
oversee final work items and to ensure that the Project was
completed to the District's satisfaction.
•Staff stated that the Project was completed in November 2010 and
is currently in the process of being accepted by the District.
Staff is recommending that the Board approve Change Order No.2
to RBF's existing contract and indicated that it would increase
RBF's contract amount by $101,075,for a revised contract amount
of $1,236,855.
•In response to a question from the Committee,staff stated that
RBF was the consultant who helped oversee and resolve issues
with regard to the 640 Reservoir project and also on other past
projects.It was indicated that the 36-Inch Pipeline project
has been challenging and RBF was very instrumental,as with past
projects,in moving the project forward for a successful result.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
5
P2009-001102
ATTACHMENT B
rsusJECyjpRoJECT:-T cha;g~--Orde~N~~---2"'t~the Construction Managerr{e'~t"'-Services
Contract with RBF for the 36-Inch Pipeline,SDCWA Otay FCF
No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
ClayWater District
P2009-36-lnchPipeline from SDCWAotay FCF No.14tothe RegulatorySite
Date Updated:NovemberOS,2010
Outstanding ProjBctedFinalBudgetCommittedExpenditurescommitment&Vendor/Comments
21,000,000 CostFof8C8st
Planning
labor 285,782 285,782 285,782
Printing 993 993 -993 OCB REPROGRAPHICS
596 596 -596 MAll MANAGEMENTGROUP INC
Business Meetings 110 110 -110 PEOny CASHCUSTODIAN
84 84 "84 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Postage 341 341 -341 US POSTMASTER
Professional legal Fees 5,595 5,595 -5,595 BURKE WilliAMS &SORENSEN llP
187,474 187,474 -187,474 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ llP
Other legal Expenses 4,948 4,948 ·4,948 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ llP
(10,290)(10,290)-(10,290)WOODRUFF,SPRADLIN &SMART
RegulatoryAgency Fees 1,927 1,927 ·1,927 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
100 100 ·100 US FISH &WilDLIFE SERVICE
Consultant Contracts 1,080,288 1,080,288 ·1,080,288 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING.-""J6NES-&ST"OKESASSOCIATES INC25,684 25,684 -25.684
1,100 1,100 -1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COllEGE (COC)
Service Contracts 398 398 ·398 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
957 957 -957 SAN DIEGO DAilY TRANSCRIPT
350 350 -350 RYAN BETHKE
705 705 ·705 Olll BROS
Total Planning 1,587,141 1,587,142 -1,587,142
Design
labOr 691,627 691,627 691,627
Mileage Reimbursement 69 69 -69 PETIYCASH CUSTODIAN
Mealsand Incidentals 63 63 "63 PETIYCASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 46 46 ·46 PETIYCASH CUSTODIAN
215 215 -215 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional legalFees 67,883 67,883 "67,883 STEPHENV MCCUE ESQ
79,098 79,098 ·79,098 GARCIACALDERON &RUIZ llP
153 153 ·153 RWBECK
Other legal Expenses 5,581 5,581 ·5,581 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ llP
17,071 .-I--RWBECK17,071 ·17,071
1,671 1,671 -1,671 SHELBURNE SHERR COURT
Regulatory Agency Fees 271 271 -271 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DPW
OtherAgency Fees 12,830 12,830 ·12,830 CITY OF El CAJON1--,PETIY CASH CUSTODIANConsultantContracts9999"99
2,915 2,915 ·2,915 lEE &RO (As-Needed Design)
3,656 3,656 ·3,656 RBF (As-Needed Drafting)
1,050 1,050 -1,050 SOUTHLAND TITLE
1,640 1,640 -1,640 CALTRANS
527,826 527,826 ·527,826 lEE&RO INC
61,629 61,629 -61,629 C.O.#l
13,440 13,440 13,440 SWINERTON MANAGEMENT
4,744 4,744 -4,744 WRA&ASSOCIATES INC
41,513 41,513 41,513 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
36,750 36,750 36,750 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
4,900 4,900 -4,900 KEN DAROIS
Miscellaneous Contracts 87 87 -87 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT
93,000 93,000 -93,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
107,138 101,801 5,337 107,138 HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
28 28 -28 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
5,700 5,700 -5,700 BELLATERRA HOA
700 700 -700 SUZETTE C SWANGER
3,000 3,000 -3,000 RAYMOND KEITH HANNA
229,800 229,800 -229,800 GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY
Service Contracts 7,500 7,500 -7,500 KEAGY REAL ESTATE
91 91 91 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
244 244 -244 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
349 349 349 MCGRAW-HILLCOMPANIES
6,912 6,912 -6,912 REPROHAUS CORP
Special Projects 48 48 -48 SEDONA STAFFING SERVICES
Total Design 2,031,334 2,025,996 5,337 2,031,334
Construction
Labor 325,000 288,181 36,819 325,000
Mileage Reimbursement 119 119 -119 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 83 83 -83 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 150 150 -150 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Postage 1,606 1,606 -1,606 US POSTMASTER
Printing 2,814 1,139 1,675 2,814 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
141 141 -141 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Regulatory Agency Fees 17,375 17,375 17,375 SAN DIEGO COUNTYWATER
11,641 11,641 -11,641 CITY OF EL CAJON
88,279 5,100 83,178 88,279 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
OtherAgencyFees 1,172 1,172 -1,172 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
68,725 -68,725 68,725 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
9,625 9,625 -9,625 CITY OF EL CAJON
Consultant Contracts 1,088,785 1,088,785 -1,088,785 RBF CONSULTING (CM)
46,995 46,995 46,995 C.O.#1
101,075 77,534 23,541 101,075 C.O.#2
13,128 13,128 13,128 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
30,000 29,171 829 30,000 MARSTON+MARSTONINC
52,357 34,865 17,492 52,357 LEE &RO INC (Constr.PhaseServices)
252 252 252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD
Construction Contracts 527,000 527,000 -527,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
12,869 12,869 12,869 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIASOIL
27,850 27,850 27,850 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
13,680,525 12,439,847 1,240,678 13,680,525 CCL CONTRACTING
(243,847)(243,847)(243,847)C.O.#1
(63,418)(63,418)(63,418)C.O.#2
(1,474,033)-(1,474,033)(1,474,033)C.O.#3
1,485,918 1,233,364 252,554 1,485,918 CALIFORNIABANK &TRUST
49,901 49,901 49,901 COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO-DPW
5,998 5,998 5,998 CLARKSON LAB &SUPPLY INC
----HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
Professional Legal Fees 83 83 -83 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
Service Contracts 1,311 1,311 -1,311 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHINGCO
266 266 -266 MCGRAW-HILLCOMPANIES
450 450 -450 REEL 'EM IN INC
252 252 -252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWS
1,769 1,769 -1,769 MAIL MANAGEMENTGROUP INC
121 121 -121 SD DAILYTRANSCRIPT
Infrastructure Equipment&Mate 16,375 1,626 14,750 16,375 MESALABORATORIES INC
Backfill 14,000 14,000 -14,000 TC CONSTRUCTION INC
InlineValve 1,609 1,609 -1,609 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082
Total Construction 15,904,322 15,638,114 266,208 15,904,322
Grand Total 19,522,797 19,251,252 271,545 19,522.797
6
Boy
"""~
"
1!.f'EAlAL
BEACH
§~lil
/ELCAJON -a
~~
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
PIPELINE 36-INCH,
SDCWA FCF NO.14 TO REGULATORY SITE
EXHIBIT A
CIP P2009
EXHIBIT B
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.02
PROJECT/ITEM:Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 36-inch Pipeline from
SDCWA No.14 to Regulatory Site
CONTRACTORNENDOR:RBF Consulting REF.CIP No.:P2009
APPROVED BY:Board REF.P.O.No:707935 DATE:10-Nov-10
DESCRIPTION:
Increase Contract value for additional services per the attached request for contract amendment dated
November 8,2010.
REASON:
Resulting from added scope performed as a result of extending the duration of the construction contract
additional services are necessary to provide required construction management and inspection services to
complete.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
Revise contract to add $101,075.00 for a total contract amount of $1,236,855.00.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACT/P.O.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$1,088,785.00
$1,135,780.00
$101,075.00
$1,236,855.00
01/31/10
No
03/01/11
IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS,THAT THE CONTRACTORIVENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES.IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND
COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O.ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONTRACT/P.O.REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
DATE:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
STAFF APPROVALS:CONTRACTO~RIVND~
SIGNATURE:_~~~<---_
NAME:Wave Papae
PROJ.MGR:_
DIV.MGR:_
TITLE:Vi~I~ce'_'P_"re""s""id""en_'_'_t DATE:I/~/0-10 CHIEF:_
ADDRESS:9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd ASST.GM :_----------------DATE:_
_~S~a:.:..n.::;Di:.::;89",,0,,-,C""'A'-'-=92:..:.1=-24=----________DISTRICT APPROVAL:
GEN.MANAGER:_DATE:_
COPIES:0 FILE (Orig.),0 CONTRACTORIVENDOR,0 CHIEF-ENGINEERING,0 CHIEF-FINANCE,0 ENGR.MGR.o ACCTS PAYABLE,0 INSPECTION,0 PROJ.MGR.,0 ENGR.SECRETARY,0 PURCHASING,0 PROJECT BINDER
H:IPDATA125103069\Admlnlconlract\Change Order No.2.doc
CHANGE ORDER LOG
Construction Managementand Inspection Services for the 36-
inch Pipeline from SDCWA No.14 to Regulatory Site
Consultant/Contractor RBF Consulting
Project:P2009
Subproject:
APPROVED
c.o.AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O.
1 $46,995.00 GM 6/15/2010 Compensation forAdditional Services during Pre-Construction OWner
2 $101,075.00 Board Compensation forAdditional Services as part of construction Ownercontractextension
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Total C.O.'s To Date:
Original Contract Amount:
Current Contract Amount:
Change Order Breakdown for the Month:
Month Net C.O.S Limit Authorization
11/10 $0.00 $1.000 Insp
$5,000 PM/Supervisor
510,000 Manager
$15.000 Chief
$20.000 AGM
S50,OOO GM
$148,070,00
$1,088,785.00
$1,236.855.00
13.6%
C.O.%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
• ••
CONSULTING
November 8,2010
Otay Water District·
Attn:Ron Ripperger,PE,Project Manager
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,CA 91978
tllAY WATER DISTRICTRfC'-l\/ED
2OiO NOV -9 Ali (0:55
Re:Request for Contract Amendment
Construction Management and Inspection Services for the 36-inch Pipeline from
SDCWA No.14 to Regulatory Site (P-2009)
Dear Mr.Ripperger:
When our contract was issued in February of 2008,it was anticipated that construction operations
would be complete in December of 2009.Due to changes in the engineering firm of record,delays
were encountered resulting in a anticipated construction contract completion date of August 24,
2010 for which Contract Change Order NO.1 was issued.Due to Project requirements the actual
construction completion was October 31,2010,and formal administrative close-out shall be
complete by November 30,2010.
Our original negotiated budget for pre-construction support anticipated 7 months of services
encompassing constructability reviews,public relations support and bidding support for a total of
$83,144.00.Resulting from extenuating circumstances surrounding the replacement ofthe original
design firm our pre-construction efforts were increased to a total of 18 months with a total cost of
$272,191.25 resulting in a delta of $189,047.25.
We have worked with District staff throughout the construction process to minimize costs,where
possible,in an effort to mitigate the impacts ofthe additional pre-construction support.Our Change.
Order No.01 compensated us up to and including August 31,2010,however,the Contractor did not
complete the field work until October 31,2010,and there remain continued administrative close-out
activities and a small amount of field work to be completed by the end of November.In order to
complete the remaining activities and recover costs from September 1,2010 through completion
and final deliverables please process a Contract Change Order for the following:
Task 1-Construction Inspection -James Bassett
Task 2 -Construction Management -Wayne Papac
Task 2 -Construction Management -Douglas Cook
Task 2 -Construction Management -Ellen Buensuceso
Task 3 -ODC's
339 hrs @ $145/hr =$49,155.00
5 hrs @ $180/hr =$900.00
232 hrs @ $160/hr =$37,120.00
132 hrs @ $75/hr =$9,900.00
2 mo @$2,000.00 =$4,000.00
----------------------
$101,075.00
PLANNING •DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard.San Diego.CA 92124-1324 •858.614.5000 •Fax 858.614.5001
Offices located throughout California.Arizona &Nevada •www.RBF.com
We respectfully request a contract FINAL amendment to add $101,075.00 to our current contract to
include completion of required services.
-Respectfully submitted,~-
Wayne Papac
Vice President I Project Manager
Authorized Officer
CONSULTING
PLANNING •DESIGN •CDNSTRUCTION
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Change Order No.2 to the Construction
Management Services Contract with RBF
Consulting for the 36-lnch Pipeline,SDCWA
Otay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site Project
Project No.:P2009-00 1102
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Meeting.
Author:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
Date I
QA Reviewer:
Gary Silverman
Printed Name
Manager:
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible,and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 22e
STAFF REPORT
5DIV.
NO.
P2009-
001103
January 51 2011
PROJECT /
SUBPROJECT:
MEETING DATE:Regular Board
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posad~~
Chief l Engineering
Manny Maga~~
Assistant ~~~~~a\j1anagerl Engineering and Operations
Credit Change Order No.3 to the Construction Contract with
CCL Contracting Inc.for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Projects
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT:
TYPE MEETING:
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
GENERAL MANAGERIS RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
approves Credit Change Order No.3 to the existing construction
contract with CCL Contracting Inc.(CCL)for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch
Potable Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Projects in the amount of <$1,474,033.22>(see Exhibit A for project
location.)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
Credit Change Order NO.3 (see Exhibit B)for <$1,474,033.22>to the
construction contract with CCL for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Projects.
ANALYSIS:
At the June 3 1 2009 Board Meeting,CCL was awarded a construction
contract for the 36-Inch Pipeline Project in the amount of
$16,189,243.Project construction began in July 2009 and was
completed in November 2010.
On January 6,2010 the Board approved Credit Change Order No.1 which
provided for a change in installation methods of the 36-inch pipe
under an existing riparian area within the southeasterly portion of
Cuyamaca College due to differing site conditions.The original Bid
Item No.7 in the contract for P2009 included $936,434 for a
traditional tunnel operation.Change Order No.1 modified this item
to a jack and bore operation for a revised cost of $692,587 resulting
in a net change of <$243,847>.
On July 7,2010 the Board approved Credit Change Order No.2 which
provided for a variety of items including an increase in costs due to
revising the location of airvac assemblies,removal of rocks and
boulders encountered during the jack &bore operation within Cuyamaca
College,and changing the specified spacers within the steel casing
to redwood skids.In addition,the pipeline had to be realigned
during construction due to conflicts with the new 12-inch pipe.This
change order also included deletion of an allowance item for
installation of a sound wall within Cuyamaca College of ($200,000).
The total cost for all the additive items was $136,852.Including
the credit for the sound wall allowance,Credit Change Order No.2
provided a net reimbursement amount to the District of <$63,418.11>.
Credit Change Order No.3 is the final change order for the project
essentially closing out the contract with CCL.This change order
includes twenty-two (22)separate items consisting of one increase
(Item No.21)and twenty-one (21)deductions to the contract amount.
In addition,Credit Change Order No.3 extends the contract duration
by fifty-three (53)days.
Item No.21,valued at $11,575.20,provides for the addition of a
sample pump and associated mechanical and electrical work at Vault
No.7 at the Regulatory Site.The remaining twenty-one (21)items
provide credits for various items such as reduced quantity of rock
removal,dewatering to the storm drain,disposal of Class II
regulated waste,reduced quantity of sewer lateral reconstruction,
and other miscellaneous allowances added to the contract based on an
independent risk analysis.The deductive items also include a credit
back for allowances such as unknown utilities and paving.Exhibit B
provides all the detail for this change.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the overall
pipeline installation.
by <$1,474,033.22>.
project comes from CIP P2009,the 36-Inch
This Credit Change Order reduces the contract
2
The total budget for CIP P2009,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,lS
$21,000,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast including this Credit Change Order,are $19,522,797.See
Attachment B for budget detail.
The Project Manager anticipates that,based on the attached financial
analysis,the CIP budget for P2009 will be sufficient to support this
project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from the
Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund for CIP P2009.
SRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater service to the customers of
the Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner."This project fulfills two of the District's Strategic
Goals,No.1 -Community and Governance and No.5 -Potable Water,by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
General Manager
P:\WORKING\CIP P2009 36-inch PL -FCF 14 to Reg Site\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11 ,Staff Report,CCL CO#3,
(RR-RP).doc
RR/RP:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A -Project Location Map
Exhibit B -Credit Change Order No.3
3
P2009-001103
<::IIR I I':::CT:
ATTACHMENT A
Credit Change Order No.3 to the Construction Contract with
CCL Contracting Inc.for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline
Replacement Projects
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on December 7,2010 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Otay Water District (District)
Board of Directors (Board)approves Credit Change Order No.3 to
the existing construction contract with CCL Contracting Inc.
(CCL)for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable Water Pipeline and
12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement Projects in the
amount of <$1,474,033.22>.
•On June 3,2009,the Board awarded a construction contract to
CCL for a 14-month duration.Staff indicated that two (2)Change
Orders were previously approved by the Board,which resulted in
a net overall credit to the District.Credit Change Order No.3
to CCL's existing contract is the final change order for the
project and includes an extension of fifty-three (53)days with
the District's intention to close out the contract once the
Project is completed.
•Staff indicated that the change order consisted of twenty-two
(22)items with a credit of twenty-one (21)deductions to the
contract amount,leaving one (1)item to the change order (Item
21)which was the installation of a sample pump at Vault No.7
at the Regulatory Site.
•Staff stated that the Project was completed in November 2010 and
is currently in the process of being accepted by the District.
Staff is recommending that the Board approve Change Order No.3
to CCL's existing contract and indicated that it would reduce
CCL's contract amount by $1,474,033.22 for a new contract amount
of $14,407,944.
•It was indicated that additional budget detail for the Jamacha
Road 36-Inch Potable Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water
Pipeline Replacement Project is included in Exhibit B.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
2
P2009-001103
SUBJECT/PRoJeCT:
ATTACH ENT B
................................-.-,____.~_P--___-__.......························..···_···1
Credit Change Order No.3 to the Construction Contract with
CCL Contracting Inc.for the Jamacha Road 36-Inch Potable
Water Pipeline and 12-Inch Potable Water Pipeline
,,,,,,,_,",,[Re_~,,~a cement Proj ec t_~""_"_""".,,,,",.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,"""",__"",,_1
otayWater Distrid
P2009 '"36-lnch Pipeline from SDCWAOtay FCF No.14 to the Regulatory Site
Date Updated:November05,2010
Outstanding ProjectedFinatBudgetCommittedExpenditufl1SCommitment&Vendor/Comments
21,000,000 CostForecast
Planning
Labor 285,782 285,782 285,782
Printing 993 993 -993 OCB REPROGRAPHICS
596 596 '"596 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
Business Meetings 110 110 -110 PErry CASH CUSTODIAN
84 84 -84 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Poslage 341 341 -341 US POSTMASTER
Professional Legal Fees 5,595 5,595 -5,595 BURKE WILLIAMS &SORENSEN LLP
187,474 187,474 '"187,474 GARCIA CAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
Other Legal Expenses 4,948 4,948 ·4,948 GARCIA CAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
(10,290)(10,290)-(10,290)WOODRUFF,SPRADLIN &SMART
RegulatoryAgency Fees 1,927 1,927 '"1,927 COUNTY OF SANDIEGO
100 100 -100 US FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
Consultant Contracts 1,080,288 1,080,288 -1,080,288 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
25,684 25,684 -25,684 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
1,100 1,100 -1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE (COC)
Service Contracts 398 398 -398 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
957 957 -957 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
350 350 -350 RYAN BETHKE
705 705 '"705 OLLI BROS
Total Planning 1,587,141 1,587,142 -1,587,142
Design
Labor 691,627 691,627 691,627
Mileage Reimbursement 69 69 ·69 PErryCASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 63 63 -63 PErryCASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 46 46 '"46 PErryCASH CUSTODIAN
"
215 215 -215 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional LegalFees 67,883 67,883 -67,883 STEPHEN V MCCUE ESa
79,098 79,098 '"79,098 GARCIACAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
153 153 '"153 RWBECK
OtherLegal Expenses 5,581 5,581 -5,581 GARCIACAlDERON &RUIZ LLP
17,071 17,071 '"17,071 RWBECK
1,671 1,671 -1,671 SHELBURNE SHERR COURT
Regulatory Agency Fees 271 271 -271 COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO -DPW
otherAgencyFees 12,830 12,830 "12,830 CITY OF ELCAJON
ConsultantContracts 99 99 -99 PErry CASH CUSTODIAN
2,915 2,915 -2,915 LEE&RO (As-Needed Design)
3,656 3,656 '"3,656 RBF (As-Needed Drafting)
1,050 1,050 -1,050 SOUTHlANDTITLE
1,640 1,640 '"1,640 CALTRANS
527,826 527,826 ·527,826 LEE&ROINC
61,629 61,629 -61,629 C.O.#1
13,440 13,440 -13,440 SWINERTON MANAGEMENT
4,744 4,744 -4,744 WRA&ASSOCIATES INC
41,513 41,513 41,513 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIASOIL
36,750 36,750 -36,750 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
4,900 4,900 -4,900 KEN DAROIS
Miscellaneous Contracts 87 87 -87 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
93,000 93,000 93,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
107,138 101,801 5,337 107,138 HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
28 28 -28 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
5,700 5,700 -5,700 BELLATERRA HOA
700 700 -700 SUZETTE C SWANGER
3,000 3,000 -3,000 RAYMOND KEITH HANNA
229,800 229,800 -229,800 GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY
Service Contracts 7,500 7,500 -7,500 KEAGYREAL ESTATE
91 91 -91 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT
244 244 -244 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
349 349 -349 MCGRAW-HILLCOMPANIES
6,912 6,912 -6,912 REPROHAUS CORP
Special Projects 48 48 -48 SEDONA STAFFINGSERVICES
Total Design 2,031,334 2,025,996 5,337 2,031,334
Construction
Labor 325,000 288,181 36,819 325,000
Mileage Reimbursement 119 119 119 PETTYCASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 83 83 83 PETTYCASH CUSTODIAN
BusinessMeetings 150 150 -150 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Postage 1,606 1,606 -1,606 US POSTMASTER
Printing 2,814 1,139 1,675 2,814 MAILMANAGEMENT GROUP INC
141 141 -141 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
RegulatoryAgency Fees 17,375 17,375 -17,375 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
11,641 11,641 -11,641 CITY OF EL CAJON
88,279 5,100 83,178 88,279 HELIXWATER DISTRICT
OtherAgencyFees 1,172 1,172 -1,172 HELIXWATER DISTRICT
68,725 -68,725 68,725 HELIXWATER DISTRICT
9,625 9,625 -9,625 CITY OF EL CAJON
ConsultantContracts 1,088,785 1,088,785 -1,088,785 RBF CONSULTING (CM)
46,995 46,995 -46,995 C.O.#1
101,075 77,534 23,541 101,075 C.O.#2
13,128 13,128 -13,128 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIASOIL
30,000 29,171 829 30,000 MARSTON+MARSTONINC
52,357 34,865 17,492 52,357 LEE &RO INC (Constr.Phase Services)
252 252 252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD
Construction Contracts 527,000 527,000 527,000 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
12,869 12,869 -12,869 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
27,850 27,850 27,850 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
13,680,525 12,439,847 1,240,678 13,680,525 CCL CONTRACTING
(243,847)(243,847)-(243,847)C.O.#1
(63,418)(63,418)-(63,418)C.O.#2
(1,474,033)-(1,474,033)(1,474,033)C.O.#3
1,485,918 1,233,364 252,554 1,485,918 CALIFORNIA BANK&TRUST
49,901 49,901 -49,901 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DPW
5,998 5,998 -5,998 CLARKSON LAB &SUPPLY INC
---HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
Professional Legal Fees 83 83 -83 GARCIACALDERON &RUIZ LLP
Service Contracts 1,311 1,311 -1,311 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
266 266 -266 MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES
450 450 -450 REEL 'EM IN INC
252 252 -252 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWS
1,769 1,769 -1,769 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
121 121 -121 SD DAILYTRANSCRIPT
InfrastructureEquipment &Mate 16,375 1,626 14,750 16,375 MESA LABORATORIES INC
Backfill 14,000 14,000 -14,000 TC CONSTRUCTION INC
InUne Valve 1,609 1,609 -1,609 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082
Total Construction 15,904,322 15,638,114 266,208 15,904,322
Grand Total 19,522,797 19,251,252 271,545 19,522,797
~
Mission
Bay
"~
"~
~
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
PIPELINE 36-INCH,
SDCWA FCF NO.14 TO REGULATORY SITE
EXHIBIT A
CIP P2009
EXHIBIT B
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY.CA.91978.(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.3
PROJECTIITEM:Jamacha Rd 36-lnch Potable Water Pipeline and 12-lnch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
Project
CONTRACTORNENDOR:CCl Contracting REF.CIP No.:P2009/P2038
APPROVED BY:Board REF.P.O.No:710770 REF.W.O.No.:DATE:11/03/2010
DESCRIPTION:
See attached page 2 of 5 for continuation.
REASON:
See attached page 4 of 5 for continuation.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
Revise Contract to deduct $1,474,033.22 and add 53 days time for a total Contract amount of
$14,407,944.27 with a Contract Duration of 493 Calendar Days.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACT/P.O.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$
$
$
$
16,189,243.00
15,881,977.49
(1,474,033.22)
14,407,944.27
Aug 4,2010
53 days
Oct 15,2010
IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS,THAT THE CONTRACTORIVENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES.IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND
COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O.ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONTRACT/P.O.REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
CONTRACTORNENDOR:
!fA!Jf
DATE:
:::::::P~----
DIV.MGR:_
CHIEF:_
DATE:~O
DATE:_
DATE:_
1938 Don Lee Place.Escondido,CA 92029 ASSIST G.M.:_
DISTRICT APPROVAL:
DATE:_
GEN.MANAGER:DATE:,_
COPIES:0 FILE (Ong.).0 CONTRACTORIVENDOR,0 CHIEF.-ENGINEERING.•0 ASST CHIEF.-FINANCE 0 ENGR.MGR.
o ACCTS PAYABLE 0 INSPECTION 0 PROJ MGR 0 ENGR.SECRETARY 0 PURCHASING
H:'.PD;\T;\\25103069',C·i'v/l'iles\Changes\Changc Orders\CO 03·Final-('\oscoutdoc
Contract!P.O.Change Order NO.3
Description of Work
Description
Item NO.1:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 22,Rock
Removal by $133,332.00 to a new authorized amount of $116,268.00.(Delete
4,166.63 CY at $32 /CY)
Item NO.2:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 23,
Dewatering to Sewer System by $40,000.00 to a new authorized amount of
$0.00.(Delete 5,000 LF at $8 /LF)
Item NO.3:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 24,
Dewatering to Storm Drain by $14,364.00 to a new authorized amount of
$12,636.00.(Delete 1,404 LF at $9 /LF)
Item NO.4:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 26,
Unsuitable Soils by $36,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.(Delete
800 CY at $45 /CY)
Item NO.5:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 27,
Regulatory Site Sample Line Allowance by $7,651.24 to a new authorized
amount of $2,348.76.
Item NO.6:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 28,Disposal
of Class I Regulated Waste Material by $25,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 50 TON at $500/TON)
Item NO.7:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 29,Disposal
of Class II Regulated Waste Material by $30,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 100 TON at $300 / TON)
Item NO.8:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 30,Disposal
of Class III Regulated Waste Material by $20,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 200 TON at $100/TON)
Item NO.9:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 31,Additional
Potholing -Utilities No Shown on Drawings by $98,700.00 to a new authorized
amount of $6,300.00.(Delete 141 EA at $700 /EA)
Item No.10:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 32,
Relocate/Reconstruct Sewer Laterals by $84,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 70 EA at $1,200/EA)
Item No.11:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 33,
Relocate/Reconstruct Water Laterals by $16,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.(Delete 40 EA at $400 /EA)
Item No.12:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 34,
Relocation of Pipeline Construction Operation by $84,000.00 to a new
authorized amount of $0.00.(Delete 12 EA at $12,000 /EA)
H:IPDATAI251 030691CM FileslChangeslChange OrderslCO 03 -Final -Closeoutdoc
Increase
page 2 of 5
Decrease
$133,332.00
$40,000.00
$14,364.00
$36,000.00
$7,651.24
$25,000.00
$30,000.00
$20,000.00
$98,700.00
$84,000.00
$16,000.00
$84,000.00
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Contract /P.O.Change Order No.3
Item No.13:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 35,Utility
Under Crossings Not Identified on the Plans Greater Than 4-inches in
Diameter by $25,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.(Delete 100 EA
at $250 /EA)
Item No.14:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 37,Unknown
or Unidentified Utilities Allowance by $291,883.77 to a new authorized amount
of $208,116.23.
Item No.15:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 38,SDCWA
Periodic Shutdowns by $50,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.
(Delete 10 Day at $5,000/Day)
Item No.16:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 39,Grove
Road Pipeline (Caltrans Portion)Allowance by $50,000.00 to a new authorized
amount of $0.00.
Item No.17:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 40,Agency
Inspection and Permit Fees Allowance by $162,307.00 to a new authorized
amount of $37,693.00.
Item No.18:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 41,Additional
Mandatory Night Shift Operations by $100,000.00 to a new authorized amount
of $0.00.(Delete 40 Shifts at $2,500 /Shift)
Item No.19:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 42,
Mobilization and Demobilization of Dewatering Water Treatment System
Allowance by $100,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.
Item No.20:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 43,Additional
Paving Allowance by $62,915.88 to a new authorized amount of $37,084.12.
Item No.21:
This Change Order provides for addition of a sample pump and associated
mechanical and electrical work at Vault 7.
Item No.22:
This Change Order provides for reimbursement for District costs of additional
test/flushing water and bacteriological sampling costs pursuant to Section
15041 of the Contract.
$11,575.20
page 3 of 5
$25,000.00
$291,883.77
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$162,307.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$62,915.88
$54,454.53
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
53
Sub Total Amount $11,575.20 $1,485,608.42 53
Total Net Change Order Amount ($1,474,033.22)
Revisions to:BID SCHEDULE
11_:+n.:__~"J v ,,,,'"
22 Rock Removal 3,633.37 CY $32.00 $116,268.00
23 Dewatering to Sewer System 0 LF $8.00 $0.00
24 Dewatering to Storm Drain 1,404 LF $9.00 $12,636.00
26 Unsuitable Soils 0 CY $45.00 $0.00
27 Regulatory Site Sample Line Allowance 1 LS LS $2,348.76
28 Disposal ofClass I Regulated Waste Material 0 CY $500.00 $0.00
H:IPDATA1251030691CMFileslChangeslChangeOrderslCO03 -Final -Closeout.doc
Contract /P.O.Change Order NO.3 page 4 of5
29 Disposal of Class II Regulated Waste Material 0 CY $300.00 $0.00
30 Disposal of Class III Regulated Waste Material 0 CY $100.00 $0.00
31 Additional Potholing -Utilities Not Shown on Drawings 9 EA $700.00 $6,300.00
32 Relocate/Reconstruct Sewer Laterals 0 EA $1,200.00 $0.00
33 Relocate/Reconstruct Water Laterals 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
34 Relocation of Pipeline Construction Operation 0 EA $12,000.00 $0.00
35 Utility Under Crossings Not Identified on the Plans Greater Than 0 EA $250.00 $0.004-inches in Diameter
37 Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance 1 LS LS $208,116.23
38 SDCWA Periodic Shutdowns 0 Day $5,000.00 $0.00
39 Grove Road Pipeline (Caltrans Portion)1 LS LS $0.00
40 Agency Inspection and Permit Fees 1 LS LS $37,693.00
41 Additional Mandatory Night Shift Operations 0 Shifts $2,500.00 $0.00
42 Mobilization and Demobilization of Dewatering Water Treatment 1 LS LS $0.00System
43 Additional Paving 1 LS LS $37,084.12
Reason:
Item NO.1:
The Contract Bid Item No.22,Rock Removal,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item NO.2:
The Contract Bid Item No.23,Dewatering to Sewer System,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item NO.3:
The Contract Bid Item No.24,Dewatering to Storm Drain,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item NO.4:
The Contract Bid Item No.26,Unsuitable Soils,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item NO.5:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.27,Regulatory Site Sample Line Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical
extent in the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item NO.6:
The Contract Bid Item No.28,Disposal of Class I Regulated Waste Material,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item NO.7:
The Contract Bid Item No.29,Disposal of Class II Regulated Waste Material,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item NO.8:
The Contract Bid Item No.30,Disposal of Class III Regulated Waste Material,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item NO.9:
The Contract Bid Item No.31,Additional Potholing -Utilities Not Shown on Drawings,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No.10:
The Contract Bid Item No.32,Relocate/Reconstruct Sewer Laterals,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item No.11:
The Contract Bid Item No.33,Relocate/Reconstruct Water Laterals,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
H:\PDATA\25103069\CM Files\Changes\Change Orders\CO 03 -Final-Closeout.doc
Contract /P.O.Change Order NO.3 page 5 of 5
Item No.12:
The Contract Bid Item No.34,Relocation of Pipeline Construction Operation,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No.13:
The Contract Bid Item No.35,Utility Under Crossings Not Identified on the Plans Greater Than 4-inches in Diameter,quantity
required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item No.14:
The Contract Bid Item No.37,Unknown or Unidentified Utilities Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the
performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.15:
The Contract Bid Item No.38,SDCWA Periodic Shutdowns,quantity required a decrease due to field conditions.
Item No.16:
The Contract Bid Item No.39,Grove Road Pipeline (Caltrans Portion)Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent
in the performance ofthe contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.17:
The Contract Bid Item No.40,Agency Inspection and Permit Fees Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in
the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.18:
The Contract Bid Item No.41,Additional Mandatory Night Shift Operations,quantity required a decrease due to field
conditions.
Item No.19:
The Contract Bid Item No.42,Mobilization and Demobilization of Dewatering Water Treatment System Allowance,was utilized
to the maximum practical extent in the performance ofthe contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.20:
The Contract Bid Item No.43,Additional Paving Allowance,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the performance of
the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.21:
Incorporation of the Sample Line downstream of the static mixer at Vault 7 installed as part of this project necessitated the
need for an additional sample pump to allow for monitoring of the effectiveness of the new static mixer.This change is
necessary to incorporate the needed additional sample pump and associated piping and electrical modifications at Vault 7.
Item No.22:
The Contractor did not pass bacteriological testing by the second set of tests.Section 15041-3.6 of the Contract states re-
disinfection and re-testing beyond the second set ofsamples shall be at the Contractor's expense.The District incurred costs
for additional flushing/test water from SDCWA and Helix Water District in addition to charges for additional bacteriological
tests.This change is necessary to allow the District to recover the additional expenditures incurred.
H:\PDATA\25103069\CM Files\Changes\Change Orders\CO 03 -Final-Closeout.doc
CHANGE ORDER LOG
Jamacha Rd 36-inch Potable Water Pipeline and 12-lnch Potable Water Pipeline Replacement
CCl Contracting P2009 /P2038
PO NO.710770
APPROVED
C.O.AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O.
1 ($243,847.40)Board 1/6/2010 Differing Site Condition atTunnel·Change Tunnel to Jack &Differing Site ConditionBoreOoeration
Rock Encountered in Jack&Bore,Change Casing Spacer Differing Site Condition
2 ($63,418.11 )Board 7/7/2010 Detail,Conflicting Waterline,Change ManwayDetail,Rain Days and Owner Program
Delete Soundwall Allowance Time associated with field Chanoe
Modifications to Vault 7 at the Regulatory Site.Credit for excess Differing Site Condition
3 ($1,474,033.22)Board test water and bacteriological testing and closeoutofremaining and Owner Program
unsed bid items.Channe
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Total C.O.'s To Date:
Original Contract Amount:
Current Contract Amount:
Change Order Breakdown for the Month:
Month Net C.O.$Limit Authorization
11/10 $1,000 Insp
$5,000 PM/Supervisor
$10,000 Manager
$15.000 Chief
$20,000 AGM
$50,000 GM
($1,781,298.73)
$16,189,243.00
$14,407,944.27
-11,0%
C,O.%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Credit Change Order NO.3 to the Construction
Contract with CCl Contracting Inc.for the
Jamacha Road 36-lnch Potable Water Pipeline
and 12-lnch Potable Water Pipeline
Replacement Projects
Project No.:P2009-001103
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
Signature
Rod Posada
Printed Name
11-'$O-to
Date
/f~~O-(()
Date
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible,and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 22f
STAFF REPORT
January 5,2011TYPEMEETING:
SUBMITIED BY:
Regular Board
Gary Silverman/P~
Senior Civil ~ineer
MEETING DATE:
PROJECTI
SUBPROJECT:
P2434-
001101
DIV.
NO.
2,4
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana~
Assistant General (jfnager,Engineering and Operations
Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of Phase 2 of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
authorize staff to proceed with issuing a RFP for Phase 2 of the
Rancho del Rey Well Project,which would include equipping the well
and designing a wellhead treatment facility (see Exhibit A for
project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for staff to proceed with issuing a
RFP for Phase 2 of the Rancho del Rey Well Project,which would
include equipping the well and designing a wellhead treatment
facility.
ANALYSIS:
In 1997,the District purchased an existing 7-inch well and the
surrounding property on Rancho del Rey Parkway (see Exhibit A)from
the McMillin Company with the intent to develop it as a source of
potable water.A prior study had shown that groundwater in that
location would support long-term pumping of about 390 gpm,but would
require a larger well to achieve that flow.It was also known that
treatment would be required to remove salts and boron,among other
constituents,using reverse osmosis (RO)membranes and perhaps ion
exchange.
In 2000,having received proposals for the design and construction
of an RO treatment facility that far exceeded the allocated budget,
the Board of Directors instructed staff to suspend the project until
such time as it became economically viable.
In 2009,given the rising cost of imported water and the District's
interest in securing its own water source for long-term supply
reliability,the project was revisited.Local ground water supply
projects will allow for less reliance upon imported water,achieve a
level of independence from regional wholesale water agencies,and
diversify the District's water supply portfolio consistent with the
District's March 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan.Toward this
end,in January 2010,the Board authorized Phase 1 of the project,
the drilling and development of the Rancho del Rey Well.
A new 12-inch production well was drilled 900-feet through the
groundwater formation and into fractured bedrock below.It was
screened with slotted,wire-wrapped stainless steel in multiple
intervals to maximize production.Testing completed in September
2010,showed the long-term yield of the new well to be 450 gpm,
higher than previous studies had estimated.
Before proceeding with equipping the well and installing wellhead
treatment,staff contracted with Separation Processes,Inc.(SPI),a
well-known membrane treatment firm,to conduct a detailed economic
analysis.The purpose of the study was to confirm that the
annualized unit cost of the new water source was economically
viable.SPI,in their November 2010 study,estimated the unit cost
of water to be $1,510 per acre foot for the alternative that
utilizes a seawater membrane for treating both salts and boron.The
price includes all spent,committed,and projected future capital
expenditures associated with the well project amortized over a 30-
year useful life,plus anticipated annual operations and maintenance
costs during that period.The Executive Summary of the SPI study is
provided as Exhibit B.
When compared with the current imported treated water rate from San
Diego County Water Authority (CWA),and with the knowledge that this
rate will continually increase as Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
and CWA raise their rates,the Rancho del Rey Well project appears
to be economically viable.Exhibit C is a graph that compares the
2
eWA rate,which is projected to increase by about 10 percent per
year each of the next 5 years,to the annualized cost of the Rancho
del Rey Well,which can be expected to increase by about 2 percent
per year over the same 5 year period.The graph shows that the well
becomes the less costly source of water by FY 2014.Therefore,
staff recommends that the Board authorize the issuance of a RFP to
begin Phase 2 of this project.
In conjunction with the economic feasibility study,staff contracted
with a local architect to prepare renderings of the proposed new
treatment facility to show how it would fit on the site and be
compatible with the neighborhood.The renderings were prepared
based on a preliminary footprint layout prepared by SPI.The
renderings and the layout are provided as Exhibit D and will also be
presented via PowerPoint.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total budget for eIP P2434,as approved in the FY 2011 budget,
is $4,250,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $2,550,223.See Attachment B for budget detail.
Based on the $3.5 million Phase 2 capital expenditure estimate in
the SPI Study,the Project Manager has determined that the existing
eIP budget will be insufficient to support the project once it is
better defined through the design process.An anticipated
supplemental funding of approximately $2.0 million will be requested
as part of the FY 2012 eIP budget.
With the shifting of certain eIP's into later years,Finance has
determined that 40%of the funding is available from the Expansion
Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the Betterment Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers
of Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner."This project fulfills the District's Strategic Goals NO.1
-Community and Governance,and No.5 -Potable Water,by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
3
P:\WORKING\CIP P2434\Staff Reports\BD 01-05-11,Staff Report,fhase 2 of the Rancho del Rey,(GS-RR).doc
GS/RR:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Attachment B -Budget Detail
Exhibit A -Location Map
Exhibit B -SPI Study Executive Summary
Exhibit C CWA vs.RDR Well Unit Cost Comparison
Exhibit D -PowerPoint Presentation of Architectural
Renderings and Building Layout
4
P2434-001101
~11l:!,I/~ROJECT
ATTACHMENT A
Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of Phase 2 of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a Committee Meeting held on December 7,2010 and the
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board of Directors (Board)
authorize staff to proceed with issuing an RFP for Phase 2 of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project (Project),which would include
equipping the well and designing a wellhead treatment facility.
•Staff provided a background of the Project that included the
following:
o In 1997,the District purchased an existing 7-inch well
and the surrounding property on Rancho del Rey Parkway
from the McMillin Company with the intent to develop it as
a source of potable water.Treatment was required to
remove salts and boron,among other constituents,using
reverse osmosis membranes and ion exchange.
o In 2000,having received proposals for the design and
construction of a reverse osmosis treatment facility that
far exceeded the allocated budget,the Board of Directors
instructed staff to suspend the project until such time as
it became economically viable.
o In January 2010,citing the rising cost of imported water
and the District's interest in securing its own water
source for long-term supply reliability,the Board
authorized Phase 1 of this project,the drilling and
development of the Rancho del Rey Well.
•Staff discussed the Project's Phase 1 activities that included
the following:
o A new 12-inch production well was drilled 900 feet through
the groundwater formation and into fractured bedrock.
o In September 2010,testing showed the long-term yield of the
new well to be 450 gpm,higher than previous studies had
estimated.
o Separation Processes,Inc.(SPI),a highly qualified membrane
treatment firm,was hired to conduct a detailed economic
feasibility study to confirm that the annualized unit cost of
the new water source was economically competitive with other
sources.
o The economic study estimated the unit cost of water to be
$1,510 per acre foot for an alternative that utilizes a
seawater membrane for treating both salts and boron.
o When compared with the current imported treated water rate
from San Diego County Water Authority (CWA),and with the
knowledge that this rate will continually increase as
Metropolitan Water District and CWA raise their rates,the
Rancho del Rey Well project appears to be economically
viable.
•Staff stated that based on the results the economic analysis,
it is recommended that the Board authorize the issuance of an
RFP to begin Phase 2 of this project.
•It was noted that based on the $3.5 million Phase 2 capital
expenditure estimate,an anticipated supplemental funding of
approximately $2 million will be requested as part of the
District's FY 2012 CIP budget.
•Staff indicated that a local architect prepared conceptual
renderings of the Project to show how it would fit on the site
and be compatible with the neighborhood.Staff noted that the
next phase includes a design that will feature solar panels on
the roof of the structure to minimize energy costs.Also being
considered is the possible implementation of alternative means
to generate energy within the District's service area,with
credits used at the Rancho del Rey Facility to offset the cost
of electric power.
•In response to a question from the Committee,staff indicated
that a neighborhood outreach event is being planned to share
with concerned resident the plans for the wellhead treatment
facility and to answer questions.The architectural renderings
and other informational materials will be displayed at this
event.The Committee commended staff for their efforts to
inform City of Chula Vista officials and the Rancho del Rey
community about the project's progress and purpose as it helps
gain support towards the successful development of the Project.
•The Committee inquired about
is expected to be completed.
Project will be completed by
the timeline of when the Project
Staff is anticipating that the
the end of FY 2013.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item.
P2434-001101
~IID I IEeT:
ATTACHMENT B
Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of Phase 2 of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
Date Updated:November29,2010
Outstanding ProjectedFinatBUdgetCommit/ed Expenditures Commitment&Cost Vendor/Comments
4,250,000 Forecast
Planning
Labor 308,719 308,719 308,719
Land 326,092 326,092 326,092
Permits 125 125 -125 CITY OF CHULA VISTA-DEPT.OF
Materials 1,348 1,348 -1,348 VARIOUS
Rental 159 159 -159 PENHALL COMPANY
Construction Costs 26,154 26,154 -26,154 CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,INC.
Professional Legal Fees 4,829 4,829 -4,829 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
Consultant Contracts 19,481 19,481 -19,481 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
13,825 13,825 -13,825 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
1,100 1,100 -1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
3,065 3,065 -3,065 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIASOIL
15,000 15,000 15,000 SEPARATION PROCESSES INC
6,930 6,930 -6,930 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
1,561,625 1,231,406 330,219 1,561,625 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC
Change Order No.1 176,805 176,805 176,805 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC,C.O.#l
Service Contracts 5,100 5,100 5,100 S RBRADLEY &ASSOCIATES INC
186 186 -186 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRiPT
624 624 -624 UNIONTRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
399 399 399 REPROHAUS CORP
440 440 440 URBINA'S MASTER SWEEPING INC
6 6 -6 COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO
134 134 134 COURIER EXPRESS,INC.
205 205 -205 USA SIGN CO.
3,226 3,226 3,226 QUALITY ASSURANCE LABORATORY
7,108 7,108 7,108 MULTI WATER SYSTEMS
1,955 1,955 1,955 BARREnCONSULTING GROUP
5,665 5,665 5,665 EARTH TECH
3,344 3,344 3,344 CITY OF CHULA VISTA
16,714 16,714 16,714 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
112 112 112 MONTGOMERYWATSON LABORATORIES
2,500 2,500 2,500 ANDREW A.SMITH COMPANY
2,000 2,000 -2,000 ENARTEC ENGINEERING PLANNING
35,200 35,200 35,200 ALCEM FENCE COMPANY INC.
Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 -50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Total Planning 2,550,223 2,023,099 527,124 2,550,223
Grand Total 2,550,223 2,023,099 527,124 2,550,223
I
NOT TO SCALE
o
o DEL REV WELL
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,
INC
LOT 108
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.89-5
MAP NO.12720
(96.11')
(N8T37'44"£)
VlCNTYMAP
AI~/1 ~/I1\Q.V:,
It I~f1
is/<-;;
t'~n.
I
iE
f
J
I
:::.ll1
&0...~Biii1~""'----"""'------------------------I
9.•OTAY WATER DISTRICT~•.' \RANCHO DEL WAY PARKWAY,CHULA VISTA,CA
;RANCHO DEL REY GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT
CIP P24340:'--.....-'
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT 8
OTAYWATERDISTRICT
RANCHO DEL REY
WELLHEAD TREATMENT PROJEC
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Prepared By:
Kevin L.Alexander,P.E.
Separation Processes,Inc.
3156 Lionshead Ave.,Suite 2
Carlsbad,CA 92010
(760)400-3660
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Rancho del Rey Wellhead Treatment Facility (Project)will introduce a new potable
water source to the Otay Water District's Central System.This project provides the
District with a local source ofwater to augment other available sources ofwater,thereby
increasing water supply reliability and increasing independence from regional wholesale
water agencies.
The original Rancho del Rey Well,drilled in 1991,had an estimated capacity of
approximately 300 gpm and was drilled in a zone of fractured sandstone.The original
well water quality indicated elevated levels of TDS (2,250 mg/l),boron (2.67 mg/l),
chloride (1,200 mg/l)and turbidity (2 NTU),among others.
Recently,a new well was installed on the same site,and the original well was abandoned.
Initial tests indicate that the new well will have a safe yield of 450 gpm.A water quality
analysis performed on water from the well in September 2010 indicates that the water
quality is similar to the 1991 sample.Concentrations of key constituents include TDS
(2,400 mg/1),boron (2.5 mg/l),chloride (1,100 mg/l),and silica,as Si02 (17 mg/I).
Turbidity was reported at 2.7 NTU and the 15 minute silt density index (SDI)was above
5.It is expected that the turbidity level and SDI will decrease with additional pumping.
The final product water quality from the facility must meet the Federal and State
regulatory limits.The presence of boron in the water,a constituent that is relatively
difficult to treat,drives the treatment process development.
This feasibility study considered various treatment alternatives as indicated in Table ES-
1.Each of the alternatives was developed to a level sufficient to understand the
differences in the overall system configuration and cost to construct,operate and
maintain.
TABLE ES-l -Rancho del Rey Wellhead Treatment Alternatives
Final
Boron Boron Blend
Ion Blend Reduction Stabilization Cone.,Flow,
All.Membrane Exchange Source Method Method mg/l gpm
Low NaOH+
1 Pressure No CWA Blend Blend 0.8 1000
Low NaOH +
2a Pressure Yes CWA IX +Blend Blend 0.5 382
Low NaOH +
2b Pressure Yes Desai IX Blend 0.6 400
Membrane NaOH +
3a Seawater No CWA +Blend Blend 0.5 300
NaOH+
3b Seawater No Desai Membrane Blend 0.6 400
Page 2
FIGURE ES-l shows schematically three of the alternative process designs that were
considered.
FIGURE ES-l-Process Diagrams for Treatment Alternatives
Rancho del
Ray Well l/Product Alternative 1
Low Pressure
ROCWAWaler
Rancho del
Ray Well -'~!!!!I!!l!!l!!ml!!
Product
I I
Low Pressure
RO Alternative 28
Boron Select
Ion Exchange
Desalinated Seawater
Rancho del
Ray Well ~l/Product Alternative 38
Seawater RO
Desalinated Seawater
Alternative 1 utilizes a low pressure reverse osmosis (RG)membrane to remove Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS),however,the membrane is not capable of significant boron
removal.Boron removal would be achieved by blending the RO product water with
CWA water from the distribution system,which has a low boron concentration,to
achieve the desired reduction.The blend also provides stabilization for protection from
corrosion.
Alternative 2 utilizes the same low pressure RO membranes to remove TDS and adds an
Ion Exchange (IX)system for removal ofboron.In this alternative,the blend stream for
corrosion stabilization may come from either CWA or from a future desalination facility
in Mexico,which will likely be predominant in the distribution system once on-line.
Page 3
Alternative 3 utilizes seawater membranes with higher salt rejection to remove both TDS
and boron all in one step.This alternative also considers stabilizing for corrosion control
with water from CWA or from the proposed desalination facility.The detailed economic
feasibility study considering both operating and maintenance costs and capital costs to
develop an annualized unit cost ofproducing water from the Rancho del Rey Well.
Table ES-2 shows a breakdown of operations and maintenance costs expressed as an
annual expenditure ($/year),as well as a unit cost ($/AF)for treatment alternatives 1,2B
and 3B.Alternative 3B appears to be the least costly to operate despite the high cost of
power for the high pressure seawater membrane,because it pumps a smaller blend stream
than in Alternative 1 and doesn't have the higher chemical costs associated with the ion
exchange unit in Alternative 2B.
Table ES-2 Operations and Maintenance Costs for Treatment Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 28 Alternative 38
O&M Item $/yr $/AF $/yr $/AF $/yr $/AF
Equipment Power $229,807 $393 $190,622 $326 $227,403 $389
Miscellaneous Energy $6,894 $12 $5,719 $10 $6,822 $12
Chemical Costs $10,255 $18 $44,664 $76 $11,001 $19
Concentrate Disposal $67,908 $116 $75,536 $129 $67,908 $116
OperatinQ Labor $83,220 $142 $83,220 $142 $83,220 $142
Maintenance Labor $21,900 $37 $21,900 $37 $21,900 $37
Maintenance Materials $47,461 $81 $47,387 $81 $41,461 $71
Equipment Replacement $17,135 $29 $18,535 $32 $16,670 $28
Miscellaneous $24,229 $41 $24,379 $42 $23,819 $41
Total $508,809 $869 $511,962 $875 $500,204 $855
The estImated capItal costs for AlternatIves 1,2 and 3 are shown In Table ES-3.The A
and B variations for Alternatives 2 and 3 do not differ from a capital cost perspective,so
only one is shown.The capital costs include the complete system with well pumping,
treatment processes,distribution system pumping,and building to house the facility.The
building is estimated conservatively at 50 ft by 80 ft with a perimeter fence and access
gates,sidewalks and a small parking area in the front of the building.The building
architecture matches the architecture of the adjacent child care facility.Capital costs use
various sources,including budgetary quotations for major equipment and reference data
from similar recent projects in California,Utah,and Arizona.
Once again,Alternative 3 appears to be the least cost alternative from a capital
perspective because it doesn't have the ion exchange unit of Alternative 2 and the product
water pumping equipment is smaller and,therefore,less expensive.
Page 4
TABLE ES-3 Capital Costs for Treatment Alternatives
Alternative
Item Unit 1 2a or 2b 3a or 3b
Well Pump $82,000 $82,000 $82,000
Sulfuric Acid System $23,000 $23,000 $23,000
TI System $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Cartridge Filter -Included in RO
Train $0 $0 $0
RO Membrane Train $454,000 $454,000 $454,000
CIP System $41 000 $41,000 $41,000
Ion ExchanQe System $0 $167,000 $0
NaOCI System $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Aqua Ammonia System $23,000 $23,000 $23,000
BlendinQ System $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
NaOH System $22,000 $22,000 $22,000
Finished Water Pumping &Wetwell $321,000 $281,000 $281,000
Installation 15%$153,000 $172,000 $147,000
Mechanical Total $1,174,000 $1,320,000 $1,128,000
BuildinQ,4,000 SF $150/SF $600,000 $600,000 $600,000
Subtotal $1,774,000 $1,920,000 $1,728,000
Site Work 7%$124,000 $134,000 $121,000
Building HVAC 3%$53,000 $58,000 $52,000
Plumbing 3%$53,000 $58,000 $52,000
Electrical,I&C 15%$266,000 $288,000 $259,000
Subtotal $2,270,000 $2,458,000 $2,212,000
ContinQency 20%$454,000 $492,000-$442,000
Overhead and Profit 16%$363,000 $393,000 $354,000
EnQineerinQ 15%$341,000 $369,000 $332,000
Total $3,428,000 $3,712,000 $3,340,000
Page 5
Table ES-4 combines the capital and O&M costs and expresses them as an annualized
unit costs in terms ofdollars per acre-foot ($/AF).
TABLE ES-4 Alternative Annualized Unit Costs of Producing Water
from the Rancho del Rey Well
Description Annualized Unit
Costs,$/AF
Alternative l-LP RO with CWA $1,525
Alternative 2B-LP RO with IX &DesaI $1,530
Alternative 3B-HP RO with DesaI $1,510
The unit costs are FY 2011 numbers developed based on a 30-year useful life of the
facility with a discount rate of 4.5%,chemical costs from vendor quotes and other
facilities,power costs based on $0.11 per kW-hr,labor for operating and maintenance,
and repair and replacement.The facility is assumed to be a base load facility and will
operate 95%ofthe time.
Conclusion
After a thorough review ofthe treatment alternatives,including the capital,operating and
maintenance costs,it is recommended that the Otay Water District consider Alternative
3B as the preferred alternative.It is the least costly,would provide high quality drinking
water over the life ofthe project,and would be relatively easy to operate.
Page 6
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
u.~1500
~
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
Exhibit C
Projection of CWA vs.RDR Well Unit Cost,$/AF
----~
~~
~---
~
./V
/'~...~.._.._._................-...............
-+-CWARate/'_RDRWell
--~
2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year
2014 2015 2016
Exhibit 0
II
II,I
Preliminary Site Plan
D.ltnNG IMPROVEMENT
IN THIS A"EA
r-JOT NW=ED
Otay Water District
Rancho DelReyWeD Head TreatmentSystem
IIII\I
\
I\II
iI
}-24'itlIDE rR[VATC UTILIT'{
I AND INGRESS/EGF.ESSEASEMENTGRANTEDTO own
rER PARC:L HAc;NO 1[510
S;EIoIER em\I\IIII
N/F
OlAV \-lATER JI£TRICT
DOC.1t 97-518037
A.P,\..'J93-382-4J
~(
:;:("1
~S;//)_:/'-.I
Q't"I. I
,/~'-....I
(1....(I0:;/
1.....-:/'coo(,,......,I
~/
C'1::;.21,..I>},
-~/I.J:"II
I
Ii
l
/I
I
t
I
/
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Authorization to Issue a RFP for the Design of
the Rancho del Rey Well Project
Project No.:P2434-001101
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Report
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Manager:
12d \/l.U
Signature
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
~:-.\-!\_\D_'_
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 229
STAFF REPORT
AllDIV.NO.
January 6,2011
W.O.lG.F.NO:
MEETING DATE:
Services
Regular Board
Stephen Dobrawa,~12
Purchasing Mana~~
/-
Rom Sarnoj ""
,;"';
German Alv.r ,
Assist eral Manager,Finance and Administration
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:
SUBJECT:DECLARATION OF SURPLUS VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board declare the identified vehicles and equipment as
surplus to the District's needs.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See "Attachment A".
PURPOSE:
To present a list of vehicles and equipment and obtain Board
declaration that the items identified on the list are surplus to
the District's needs.
ANALYSIS:
Listed below are various vehicles and equipment that have been
determined by the user departments to be of no use,obsolete
(spare parts and service not available),beyond useful life and/
or,not cost effective to repair or operate and therefore,
surplus to the District's needs.
Vehicles Identified as Surplus
Item Qty Description Reason for
Declaration--
No longer meets
District's
1995 Ford Super Duty utility truck,unit operational
1 1 #93,VIN 1FDLF47G3TEB38026,82,493 miles,specifications.
Replaced with unit #202 Ford F550.No longer costaeffectiveto
maintain and
operate.
1996 Ford F-800 dump truck,unit #92,VIN
2 1 1FDXF80E8TVA24475,101,104 miles,Same as above.
Identified for in-kind replacement FY11
1993 Ford F-800 dump truck,unit #8,VIN Same above.3 1 1FDLF47G2SEA22962,125,211 miles,as
Replaced with unit #206 a Ford F650 dump.Replaced
1985 Ford LT9000 dump truck,unit #5,VIN
4 1 1FDYU90WXFVA23079,165,934 miles,Same as above.
Replaced with unit #199 a LT8901 dump.
1995 Ford Super Duty utility truck,unit
5 1
#1,VIN 1FDLF47G2SEA22962,95,355 above.miles,Replaced with unit #198 Ford Same asa
F350 vac truck.
1997 Ford F-800 line truck,unit #98,VIN
6 1 1FDXF80E2VVA37936,71,000 miles,Not Same as above.
scheduled for replacement.
1997 Ford Aerostar Van,unit #99,VIN
7 1 1FMDA31X9VZB04139,52,090 miles,Replaced Same as above.
with unit #208 a Ford Transit Connect.
1998 Ford Ranger pickup truck,unit #101,
8 1
VIN,1FTYR14U8WPA63097,86,275 miles,Same above.Replaced with unit #127 asaFordRanger
pickup.
1998 Ford F-800 line truck,unit #106,
9 1 VIN 1FDXF80E6WVA32305,90,705 miles,Same as above.
Identified for in-kind replacement FY10
1999 Ford F-250 pickup truck,unit #107,
10 1 VIN 1FTNX20L9XED68701,95,315 miles,above.Replaced with unit #117 Ford F-250 Same asa
pickup.
2001 Ford E-150 van,unit #119,VIN
11 1 1FTRE14L11HA17895,103,805 miles,Same above.Replaced with unit #205 Ford F-150 asa
pickup.
2001 Ford Taurus sedan,unit #133,VIN
12 1 FAFP55S71A188711,102,052 miles,Replaced Same as above.
with unit #207 a Toyota Matrix.
2003 Ford Ranger pickup truck,unit #146,
13 1 VIN 1FTRZ44V43PBOO061,71,448 miles,Same above.Replaced with unit #204 Ford F-150 asa
pickup.
2003 Ford Ranger pickup truck,unit #147,
14 1 VIN 1FTZR44V83PBOO062,73,278 miles,Not Same as above.
identified for replacement.
2005 Ford Ranger pickup truck,unit #155,
15 1 VIN 1FTYR44E95PA42798,76,324 miles,Not Same as above.
identitied for replacement.
2008 Chevrolet Malibu sedan,unit #179,
16 1 VIN 1G1ZK577184211819,47,355 miles,Not Same as above.
identified for replacement.
Equipment Identified as Surplus
Qty Description Reason forItemDeclaration--
No longer meets
1978 Cummins Engine and Pump NTA855G.operational
17 1 Serial #30115437.specifications or
requirements.No
longer required.
Not Operational.
No longer cost
18 1 Smith Tapping Machine,Serial effective to
#2016484.maintain and
operate.No
longer needed.
No longer meets
Stand-By Generator,Olympian,FA #2800 operational
19 1 20KW,KVa 40,240V,166.6Amp.0.2 hrs.specifications or
requirements.No
longer required.
No longer meets
operational
1995 LeRoi 175 Compressor,Model #specifications or
20 2 Q175DJ4;FA #2759,Serial #3313X12 ;requirements.No
FA#2997,#Serial #3313X16.longer required.
No longer
supported.
21 1 1992 Callen Emergency Trailer,FA No longer
#2489,VIN #lAU082027NA002345.required.
No longer meets
operational
1995 Ingersoll-Rand Compressor,Model specifications or
22 2 #P175W-JD-U;FA #1931,Serial requirements.No
#179419U8931;FA 2308,Serial longer required.
#187157U90315.No longer
supported by
manufacturer.
No longer meets
1991 Caterpillar Stand-By Generator,operational
23 1 Model #3208,Serial #5YF01189,KW 175,specifications or
KVa 219,480V,267Arnp,430 Hrs.requirements.No
longer required.
Trailer Mounted Asphalt Emulsion No longer
24 1 operational.NoSprayer,FA #1131.longer required.
No longer cost
1981 Wisconson Trailer Mounted Trash effective to
25 1 Pump,Model #VH4D,FA #813,Serial operate and
#6048600.maintain.No
longer required.
No longer cost
1978 Caterpillar 920 Loader,FA 409,effective to
26 1 andVIN#7K7070-3682,Serial ~62K6301.operate
maintain.No
longer required
No longer meets
Autocrane Truck Mount Crane Model operational
27 2 #3023,Serial #DEX-012-01-01;FA specifications or
#3156,Serial #320304-228BT-0598.requirements.No
longer required.
Before vehicles and equipment (where the individual acquisition
cost exceeded $5000)can be disposed of,the Board must first
declare the items as surplus (ref:Purchasing Manual,Section 12).
The District's Purchasing Manual
disposing of material,equipment,
declared surplus.Typically,items
of by sale through public auction.
_cc7.~FISCAL IMPACT:///;"/
/"
identifies the process for
and supplies that have been
declared surplus are disposed
The salvage value and associated gain or loss
determined until their disposal.Therefore,the
the recommended action is not known at this time.
on items is not
fiscal impact of
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This action supports the District's goal to ensure financial
health through efficient operations.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment A -Committee Action Statement
<::IIR I/~ROJ
ATTACHMENT A
DECLARATION OF SURPLUS VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications
reviewed this item in detail at a meeting held on
2010 and the following comments were made:
Committee
December 6,
•Staff indicated that a list of equipment recommended to be
surplused is presented to the board on an annual basis as
they no longer meet the District's requirements,are not
cost effective to repair or are no longer required by the
District.
•Staff is requesting that the board declare the listed
vehicles and equipment surplus to the District's needs.It
was discussed that once the equipment is declared surplus,
they would be disposed of in various ways that are
consistent with the District's surplus policy,such as,
traded-in,purchased by another agency,public auction,
etc.
•It was noted that the District does not typically notify
agencies of items that the District will be surplusing,
however,if staff is aware that an agency is looking for a
particular item which is to be surplused,staff would
contact that agency.
•The committee requested that staff send the surplus
Mexico's agencies should they have an interest
equipment to be surplused.
list to
in the
•The committee noted that some of the vehicles being
surplused were 2003,2005 and 2008 models and inquired the
reason that these vehicles were being surplused.Staff
indicated that the District changed its fleet management
practices several years ago.Prior to the change,fleet
vehicles were reviewed for surplus at 100,000 miles or ten
years.When the District initiated the outsourcing of its
maintenance program for fleet vehicles,it began to look at
reviewing vehicles for surplus at 60,000 miles or five
years as this is when the vehicle begins to require more
maintenance and where you would receive the best trade-in
value.
•It was noted that the District is also moving to smaller
and more fuel efficient vehicles when they would meet the
District's needs.
The Committee supported staffs'recommendation and presentation
to the full Board on the consent calendar.
AGENDA ITEM 22h
STAFF REPORT
January 5,2011
AllDIV.NO.
Regular Board MEETING DATE:
James c~e Manager W.O.lG.F.NO:
Joseph ~Chief Financial Officer
Germa~~~arez,Assistant General Manager,Administration andFi~
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:Banking Services Pricing Update
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board approve staff's recommendation to authorize the
General Manager to approve FY-2011 expenditures for banking
services with Union Bank,not to exceed the budgeted total of
$149,700.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To authorize the General Manager to approve FY-2011 expenditures
for banking services with Union Bank,not to exceed the budgeted
total of $149,700.
BACKGROUND:
On February 3,2010 the Board approved the continued use of
Union Bank with the request to review this again in 2012.
Because the cost of this service exceeds $50,000 per year,on
October 19,2010,staff presented a proposal to the Finance and
Administration Committee to amend the District's Purchasing
Manual,to provide authority to the General Manager to approve
certain routine business expenses as enumerated.The Committee
requested that this item be brought to the Board for specific
approval and not be added to the purchasing manuals list of
routine expenditures as requested by staff.
ANALYSIS:
The total budgeted cost for banking service in Fiscal year 2011
is $149,700 or $12,475 per month.Fiscal year-to-date
expenditure through October 31,2010 are $41,096,only $10,274
per month.The majority of this positive variance results from
fee reductions that Union Bank provided to the District in the
second half of last fiscal year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.Average monthly costs for banking services indicate that
total fees for fiscal year 2011 will not exceed the approved
budgeted total of $149,700.
STRATEGIC OUTLOOK:
The District ensures its continued financial health through
long-term financial planning and debt planning.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
General Manager
Attachments:
A:Committee Action Form
2
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Banking Services Pricing Update
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
reviewed this item in detail at a meeting held on December 6,
2010 and the following comments were made:
•Staff had discussed with committee in October 2010 that
expenditures for banking services with Union Bank exceeds
the General Manager's signing authority and is presenting
for board approval banking services expenditures in an
amount not exceed the budgeted total of $149,700.
•Expenditures to date are approximately $10,000
which is a little less than anticipated.
budgeted approximately $12,500 per month.
per month
Staff had
•Historically,banking services expenses has been
approximately $170,000 to $180,00 annually.A large part
of the savings is attributed to Union Bank decreasing its
costs for some services,staff negotiating lower credit
card fees,and a good increase in customers utilizing the
internet and credit cards to pay their water bills which
has reduced lock box expenses.
The Committee supported staffs'recommendation and presentation
to the full Board on the consent calendar.
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgBankServPricingUpdate010511.doc
AGENDA ITEM 22i
STAFF REPORT
&Operations
AllDIV.NO.
January 5th ,2011
W.O.lG.F.NO:
MEETING DATE:
Frank Anderson,Utility
Services Manager fk ~
Pedro Porras,
Chief,Water Operations
Manny Magana~
Assistant General M~ager,Engineering
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITIED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!. GM):
SUBJECT:Approval to Purchase Class 8 Service Line Truck
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the General Manager to issue a purchase
order to Summit Truck Bodies in the amount of $139,797.81 for
the purchase of one (1)Class 8 Service Line Truck.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment "A".
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization to purchase a Class 8 Service Line
Truck.
ANALYSIS:
On December 6,2000 the Board authorized the General Manager to
initiate CIP P2366 that provided funding for the repair,
retrofit or replacement of District Assets in order to comply
with APCD air standard requirements.The Retrofit or replacement
of 5 Gen-set engines have been completed with some of the fleet
engines being modified with devices to scrub the diesel exhaust,
replaced and/or surplussed.Two (2)existing District Class 8
Service Line Trucks are scheduled for replacement due to their
age and/or engine exhaust displacement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Based on system operation evaluations of work flow history by
Construction/Maintenance supervision and management,it is
recommended that 1 new Class 8 Service Line Truck be purchased
and the two older service line truck units be declared surplus.
This action would also reduce the District's vehicle inventory
and save fuel,maintenance and repair costs.
It should be noted that these two existing line trucks are 14
and 13 years old respectively.This replacement activity will
also noticeably reduce the District's diesel emissions output.
In accordance with District policy,bids were solicited for the
Class 8 Service Line Truck.Three (3)bids were received.
Prices received include all applicable fees and taxes and
delivery.
Dealer Vehicle Bid Bid Price
Summit Truck Bodies Kenworth-Line Truck $139,797.81
Miramar Truck Center Ford F-750 Line Truck $145,251.56
San Diego Freightliner Freightliner Line Truck $170,520.71..,,~'-~~:...•.........~.-
~
/
The purchase of this vehicle will cost $139,797.81 which will be
charged against the APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits CIP
2366.
The total FY11 proj ect budget
Replacements and Retrofits is
and current encumbrances for
purchased under this request if
for the
$442,000.
the CIP,
approved,
CIP p2366 APCD Engine
Existing expenditures
including the vehicle
are $140,136.54.
Additional FY11 costs include contract retrofit or replacement
for Engine 1 and Emergency Stand By Gen-Set at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant to be completed by the end of this fiscal year.
Projected purchase budget for this vehicle is $130,000.The
$9,797.81 increase in cost was required to re-inforce the rear
bumper and hitch modification to ensure optimum crane operation
safety and equipment trailer towing safety.This increase in
cost should be off-set by the savings in purchases of the
Wastewater Plant pump engine and gen-set.
Based on the Utility Service Manager's evaluation,the CIP 2366
budget is sufficient to complete the budgeted purchase.
The Finance Department has determined that 100%of the funds are
available in the replacement fund.
Expenditure Summary:
FY11 APCD Engine Replacement ClP 2366 $442,000Budget:
FY11 Expenditures and Encumbrances to Date:
APeD compliance replacement parts for $338.73
existing fleet.
Proposed Vehicle Purchase:$139,797.81
Total Expenditures and Encumbrances:$140,136.54
Projected Balance of APCD Engine $301,863.46ReplacementFY11ClP2366Budget:
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Implementation of the APCD engine compliance program per
schedule.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Ge
Attachment "A",Committee Action
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:•Approval to Purchase Class 8 Service Line Truck
COMMITTEE ACTION:
:
i
The Finance,Administration and
reviewed this item in detail at a
6,2010 and the following comments
Communications Committee
meeting held on December
were made:
•Staff is requesting that the board approve the
issuance of a purchase order to Summit Truck Bodies in
the amount of $139,797.81 for the purchase of a Class
8 Service Line Truck.
•The bid was $9,797.81 over the initial projected cost.
The increase was required to reinforce the rear bumper
and hitch modification to ensure optimum crane
operation safety and equipment trailer towing safety.
This increased cost should be off-set by savings from
the purchase of the pump engine and gen-set for the
Wastewater Plant.Also,the new Service Line Truck
will replace two older truck units,reducing the fleet
and the District's diesel fuel emissions output.
•It was noted that a Service Line Truck is the larger
of the trucks that are dispatched for repairing main
line breaks.These trucks hold all the tools for
repairs,such as jack hammers,compressors,etc.and
would be utilized to tow the backhoe.
The Committee supported staffs'recommendation and
presentation to the full Board on the consent calendar.
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Approval to purchase class 8 service line truck.Project No.:P2366
Document Description:Staffreport for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting.
Author:
Signature
fKf)!,\~8ND8<~D~
Printed NameQAReView~~
Ignature
Date:l;;l --{--10
Manager:Date:12-1-)0
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best oftheir ability,the signers
verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended information;being
grammatically correct and free offormatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting calculated values and
numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and unifonTI in its presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 22j
STAFF REPORT
&Operations
AllDIV.NO.
January 5,2011
W.O.lG.F.NO:
MEETING DATE:
Frank Anderson,Utility
Services Manager fA·a
Pedro Porras,
Chief,Water Operations
Manny Magafia~~
Assistant General M~ger,Engineering
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT:Purchase of one class 8 dump truck
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorizes the General Manager to issue a
purchase order to Miramar Truck Center,6066 Miramar Road,San
Diego Ca,92121 in the amount of $89,925.00,for the purchase of
one (1)new Class 8 Dump Truck.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment "A".
PURPOSE:
To provide bid results and obtain authorization to purchase one
(1)new Class 8 Dump Truck identified within the FY11 Capital
Purchase Budget.
ANALYSIS:
Included in the approved FY 2011 budget is one (1)new class 8
dump truck.
The dump truck is a replacement for a 1999 GMC dump truck.The
1999 GMC is inefficient due to its history of service repairs
and braking down in route to job sites.The constant repairs by
the fleet mechanics has resulted in excessive staff labor and
materials cost.The dump truck replacement will be more
efficient with fuel economy and reliability while still
accommodating the construction needs of their field tasks.
In accordance with District policy,bids were solicited for the
one (1)Class 8 Dump Truck.Of the 3 Southern California
dealerships solicited,three (3)bids were received.Prices
received include all applicable fees and taxes.
Dealer Vehicle Bid Bid Price
Miramar Ford Ford F-750 Dump $89,925.00 ea.
EI Cajon Ford Commercial Ford F-750 $91,565.34TrucksDump ea.
San Diego Freightliner Freightliner M2106 $94,432.03 ea.
FISCAL IMPACT:~
The purchase ::vehicle will cost The total
FY11 CIP 2282 budget is $540,000.This is for the projected
purchase of eight vehicles.Existing expenditure including this
vehicle,if approved is $169,350.18.
This purchase is the second of two dump trucks purchased this
fiscal year.The total budgeted amount for these two dump truck
purchases is $140,000 with the first dump truck purchased for
$49,988.36.Expenditure for this vehicle will result in the
total purchase price for both dump trucks at 139,913.36.
Based on the Utility Service Manager's evaluation,the CIP 2282
budget is sufficient to complete the budgeted purchase.The
Finance Department has determined that 100%of the funds are
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 "AIf ,Committee Action
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Purchase of One Class 8 Dump Truck
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and
reviewed this item in detail at a
6,2010 and the following comments
Communications Committee
meeting held on December
were made:
•Staff is requesting that the board
issuance of a purchase order to Miramar
in the amount of $89,925 for the purchase
Dump Truck.
approve the
Truck Center
of a Class 8
•This is the second of two dump trucks purchased this
fiscal year.The total expenditures for both dump
trucks will be below budget.This dump truck is a
large capacity truck and this is the reason it cost a
little more than the dump truck purchased earlier this
fiscal year.
•The committee inquired about the process to purchase
vehicles.Staff indicated that general specifications
for the vehicle to be acquired are determined through
discussions with operations staff.Dealers are then
identified who can provide vehicles that meet the
determined specifications.Bids are then solicited
for the vehicle.
The Committee supported staffs'recommendation and
presentation to the full Board on the consent calendar.
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Approval to purchase class 8 dump truck.Project No.:P2282
Document Description:Staffreport for the January 5,2011 Board Meeting.
Author:
Manager:
Signature
Printed Narne
~\-tL
Signature
·f~\<...t1\"1DE'Q.-..':>"VH
Printed Name
Date:I)-?:>C)-)0
Date:f:J.-1-(u
Date:,'J.~1'-/0
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best oftheir ability,the signers
verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended information;being
grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical en-ors;accurately presenting calculated values and
numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 23a
STAFF REPO T
MEETING DATE:January 5,2011TYPEMEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITIED BY:Bob Kennedy ~
Associate Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
W.O.lG.F.No.:00790-DIV.NO.2
090070/
090076
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM)
SUBJECT:
Rod Posada~~~
Chief,Engineering
ngineering and Operations
Approval of Water Supp y Assessment and Verification Reports
(November 2010)for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and
for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMME ATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors
(Board)approve the following Water Supply Assessments and
Verification Reports (WSA&V),as required by Senate Bills 610
and 221 (SB 610 and SB 221):
1.Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report dated November
2010 for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project development
proposal (see Exhibit A for project location),and
2.Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report dated
November 2010 for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
development proposal (see Exhibit B for project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board approval of the November 2010 WSA&V for both the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9
Project,as required by SB 610 and SB 221.
ANALYSIS:
The City of Chula Vista submitted a request for a WSA&V report
to the District pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221.SB 610 and SB
221 require that,upon the request of the city or county,a
water purveyor,such as the District,prepare a water supply
assessment and verification report to be included in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)environmental
documentation.These requests were received by the District on
October 19,2010.
SB 610 requires a city or county to evaluate whether water
supplies will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand
for certain "projects"that are otherwise subject to the
requirement of the CEQA.SB 610 provides its own definition of
"project"in Water Code Section 10912.
SB 221 requires affirmative written verification from the water
purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water
supplies are planned to be available for certain residential
subdivisions of property prior to approval of the tentative map.
The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed by the
November 2010 WSA&V Reports for both projects.The WSA&V
Reports were prepared by the District in consultation with
Dexter Wilson Engineering,Inc.,the San Diego County Water
Authority (Water Authority),and the City of Chula Vista (City).
Prior to transmittal to the City,the WSA&V Reports must be
approved by the Board of Directors.An additional explanation
of the intent of SB 610 and SB 221 is provided in Exhibit C,the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project WSA&V Report is provided as
Exhibit 0,and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Report is
provided as Exhibit E.
For both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay
Ranch Village 9 Project,the City is the responsible land use
agency that requested the SB 610 and SB 221 water supply
assessment and verification report from the District.The
requests for the WSA&V Reports,in compliance with SB 610 and SB
221 requirements,was made by the City because both projects
meet or exceed one or both of the following SB 610 and SB 221
criteria:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500
dwelling units.
2
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than
1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of
floor space.
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the land
uses specified in SB 610.
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent
to,or greater than,the amount of water required by a 500
dwelling unit project.
The proposed development within Village 8 West consists of 2,050
mixed density residential units,retail commercial,a middle
school,an elementary school,a community purpose facility,
parks,and open space.The project surrounds the City of San
Diego's South San Diego Reservoir,which will remain in place.
See Exhibit A for the project location.
The proposed developments within Village 9 Project consists of
4,000 mixed density residential units,retail commercial,an
elementary school,community purpose facilities,parks,and open
space.See Exhibit B for Project Location.
The request for compliance with SB 221 requirements was made by
the City because both projects exceed the SB 221 criteria of a
proposed residential development subdivision of more than 500
dwelling units.
The Village 8 West project and the Village 9 Project are
included within a land use planning document known as the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan (Otay Ranch
GOP).The County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista jointly
prepared and adopted the Otay Ranch GOP.Both projects are
located within what is defined as the Otay River Parcel of the
Otay Ranch GOP.Both projects are part of the designated 14
villages and 5 planning areas within the Otay Ranch GOP area.
The Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch GOP on October 28,1993,
which was accompanied by a Program Environmental Impact Report
EIR-90-01 (SCH #89010154).The Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project entitlement
approval are dependent on the City's eventual adoption of their
Sectional Planning Area Plans (SPA).The Land Offer Agreement
between the City and the Otay Land Company,per document
recorded April 24,2008 as document No.2008-0218696,forms the
basis for the SPA entitlement densities and intensities of
development for both projects.
3
Pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221,the WSA&V Reports incorporate by
reference the current Urban Water Management Plans and other
water resources planning documents of the District,the Water
Authority,and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan).The District prepared the WSA&V
Reports in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering,Inc.,
which demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies
are planned for and are intended to be made available over a 20-
year planning horizon under normal supply conditions and in
single and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of
the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project,the Otay Ranch Village 9
Project,and other planned development projects within the
District.
The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project is
881 acre-feet per year.As originally included in the
District's Water Resources Master Plan,dated October 2008 and
approved by the District on February 2010,the projected demand
for this property was 734 acre-feet per year.This is an
increase of 147 acre-feet per year due to the increase in
development intensity.The 2009 WRMP,updated November 2010,
was revised to include this increase in demand.The projected
recycled water demand for the proposed project is approximately
154 acre-feet per year,representing 17 percent of the total
water demand.
The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project is
1,507 acre-feet per year.As originally included in the
District's Water Resources Master Plan,the projected demand for
this property was 1,312 acre-feet per year.This is an increase
of 195 acre-feet per year due to the increase in development
intensity.The 2009 WRMP,updated November 2010,was revised to
include this increase in demand.The projected recycled water
demand for the proposed project is approximately 130 acre-feet
per year,representing 8 percent of the total water demand.
Metropolitan's Integrated Water Resource Plan (IRP)identifies a
mix of resources (imported and local)that,when implemented,
will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands
through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation,
local supplies,State Water Project supplies,Colorado River
supplies,groundwater banking,and water transfers.
Metropolitan's 2010 update to the IRP (2010 IRP Update)includes
a planning buffer supply to mitigate against the risk associated
with implementation of local and imported supply programs.The
planning buffer identifies an additional increment of water that
could potentially be developed if other supplies are not
implemented as planned.As part of the implementation of the
4
planning buffer,Metropolitan periodically evaluates supply
development to ensure that the region is not under-or over-
developing supplies.If managed properly,the planning buffer,
along with other alternative supplies,will help to ensure the
Southern California region,including San Diego County,will
have adequate supplies to meet future demands.
The County Water Authority Act,Section 5,Subdivision 11,
states the Water Authority,"as far as practicable,shall
provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of
water to meet their expanding and increasing needs."
The intent of the SB 610 and SB 221 legislation is that the land
use agencies and the water agencies are coordinating their
efforts in planning for new development and thus planning for
sufficient water supplies to meet the needs.
As per the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221,if the water
supply assessment and verification finds that the supply is
sufficient,then the governing body of the water supplier
(District)must approve the water supply assessment and
verification report and deliver it to the lead agency (City)
within 90 days.
Pursuant to SB 610,if the water supply assessment finds overall
supplies are insufficient,the water supplier shall provide to
the lead agency "its plans for acquiring additional water
supplies,setting forth measures that are being undertaken to
acquire and develop those water supplies,"and the water
supplier governing body must approve the assessment and deliver
it to the lead agency within 90 days.If the water supplier
does conclude that additional water supplies are required,the
water supplier should indicate the status or stage of
development of the actions identified in the plans it provides.
Identification of a potential future action in such plans does
not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to proceed
with the action has been made.
Once either of the two actions listed above are accomplished,
the District's SB 610 water supply assessment responsibilities
are complete.
As per the requirements of SB 221,if the water supply
verification finds overall supplies are insufficient -"the lead
agency may bridge any gap from verification's "insufficient"
determination with additional supplies not accounted for by the
water supplier,based on substantial evidence and findings on
record."And the water supplier governing body must approve the
5
verification and deliver it to the lead agency within the 90
days,unless a 30 day extension is granted.In bridging any
sufficiency gap,whether before of after issuance of
verification,the lead agency may coordinate with others to
identify and secure sources of supply.The lead agency may also
place a condition on the tentative map to comply with a water
supply sufficiency requirement.
Once the actions listed above are accomplished the District's SB
221 water supply verification responsibilities are complete.
SB 610 and SB 221 provides that if the SB 610 and SB 221 water
supply assessment and verification report is not received by the
lead agency from the water supplier within the prescribed 90-day
period,and any requested time extension,The lead agency may
seek legal relief,such as writ of mandamus.
Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face
climatological,environmental,legal,and other challenges that
impact water source supply conditions,such as the court ruling
regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues.Challenges
such as these are always present.The regional water supply
agencies,the Water Authority,Metropolitan,and the District
nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient,reliable supplies
to serve the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay
Ranch Village 9 Project.
With the initiation of the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant
(SBWRP)recycled water supply on May 18,2007,the District has
reduced the annual take of potable water from the Water
Authority,once used to supplement the recycled water supply
shortfall,in excess of 3,200 acre-feet per year.The District
is also working on several other local water supply projects
that are in various stages of development.The additional
demand from both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the
Otay Ranch Village 9 Project estimate of an additional 342 acre-
feet per year potable water demand is about 11 percent of the
potable water saved with the SBWRP supply start-up.
In addition,several other planned local water supply projects
could provide water to the District.The Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well is expected to provide 500 to 600 acre-feet per
year.The Rosarito Ocean Desalination Project is expected to
provide 24,000 to 50,000 acre-feet per year.The Otay Mesa Lot
7 Groundwater Well is expected to provide 400 to 500 acre-feet
per year.
6
The WSA&V Reports demonstrate that the District,the Water
Authority,and Metropolitan have all developed plans and are
implementing projects,programs,and/or procedures to ensure
that there will be adequate supplies to serve the proposed Otay
Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9
Project along with existing and other planned users.In
addition,the supplies necessary to serve the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project along with
existing and other projected future users have been identified
in the WSA&V Reports for the Projects.The actions necessary
and status to develop these supplies have also been documented
in the various planning documents and in the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project WSA&V Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
WSA&V Report.
FISCAL IMPACT:/c~
,<7'
The District has been reimbursed $8,120 for all costs associated
with the preparation of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
WSA&V Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Report.
The reimbursement was accomplished via a $20,000 deposit the
project proponents placed with the District.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The preparation and approval of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Reports
supports the District Mission statement,"To provide the best
quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of the
Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,and efficient
manner"and the District's Strategic Goal,in planning for
infrastructure and supply to meet current and future potable
water demands.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Approval of a WSA&V Reports for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Projects in form and
content satisfactory to the Board of Directors would allow the
District to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 610 and
221.
7
f)JrtMtr
GeIf'eraiM~ager ----
P:\WORKING\WO D0790-0tay Land Company\Staff Report\BD 01-05-11,Otay Ranch Village 8 West &
Village 9 WSA&V (BK-RR).doc
BK/RR:jf
Attachments:Attachment A -Committee Action
Exhibit A Location Map for the Otay Ranch
Village 8 West Project
Exhibit B -Location Map for Otay Ranch Village 9
Project
Exhibit C -Explanation of intent of the SB 610
and SB 221 for the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project
Exhibit 0 -Explanation of intent of the SB 610
and SB 221 for the Otay Ranch Village
9 Project
Exhibit E -Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V
Report
8
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
00790-
090070/090076
ATTACHMENT A
Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification
Reports (November 2010)for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on December 7,
2010 and the following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Otay Water District (District)
Board of Directors (Board)approve the November 2010 Water
Supply Assessment and Verification Reports (WSA&V Reports)
for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and for the Otay
Ranch Village 9 Project.
•Staff indicated that on October 19,2010,the District
recived a request from the City of Chula Vista to prepare
the WSA&V Reports for Villages 8 and 9 that are located
within the Otay River Parcel of the Otay Ranch GDP.It was
noted that SB 610 and SB 221 requires that the District
honor the City's request.An exhibit was provided to the
Committee that showed the location of the two project
sites,and staff noted that they are a part of the
designated 14 villages and five planning areas within the
Otay Ranch GDP.
•Staff stated that Village 8 West is a 320-acre mixed use
development with 2,050 dewlling units and 300,000 square-
feet of retail/commercial use,and that Village 9 is a 323-
acre mixed use site with 4,000 dwelling units and 1.5
million square-feet of retail/commercial.
• A PowerPoint presentation was provided to the Committee
that included the following:
o Background of Senate Bills 610 and 221,which became
effective on January 1,2002,and their intent and how
they relate to the WSA&V Reports
o Required Board approval for the submittal of the WSA&V
Reports to the City of Chula Vista
o Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and
the Otay Land Company
o Land use plan for both Otay Ranch Villages 8 and 9
o Potable demand estimates for Villages 8 and 9
o Metropolitan Water District's Integrated Water Resources
Plan
•It was indicated that the Developer hired PBS&J to prepare
the November 2010 update to the District's Urban Water
Master Plan.Staff noted that the City of Chula Vista,The
Otay Land Company,the City of San Diego,and the
District's staff worked together to provide most of the up-
to-date planning information to PBS&J.
•Staff indicated that the City forwarded the densities and
dwelling unit counts update to SANDAG and this Series 12
update was made available to the Metropolitan Water
District for their use in updating their Integrated
Resource Plan and their Urban Water Management Plan,and to
CWA to update their Urban Water Management Plan.Staff
noted that the information will also be used in the
District's Urban Water Management Plan scheduled to be
completed by the end of this Fiscal Year.
•Staff stated that the District's WSA&V Reports are based on
data from the District's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
and that it projects the District's water demand for every
5 years.It was indicated that the total demand for FY 2010
was 36,500 acre feet (includes recycled water use),which
was 6,500 acre feet lower than the peak demand of Fiscal
Year 2006 (43,000 acre feet).Staff stated that the drop in
demand was a result of the unit price of water,the
conservation efforts of users as a result of the prolonged
drought,and the economy.
10
•Staff indicated that the WSA&V Reports states the
following:
"The regional and local water supply agencies acknowledge
the challenges of supply and fully intend to develop
sufficient reliable supplies to meet demands.Water
suppliers recognize additional water supplies are necessary
and portfolios need to be reassessed and redistributed with
intent to serve existing and future needs."
•Staff indicated that the status of the current water supply
situation is documented in the WSA&V Reports with the
intent that the water agencies plan to develop sufficient
water supplies to meet demands.Staff believes that the
Board has met the intent of SB 610 and 221 statutes in that
Land use agencies and water suppliers have demonstrated
strong linkage.The Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and
Village 9 Project WSA&V Reports clearly document the
current water supply situation.Staff believes that based
on existing documentation,the WSA&V Reports demonstrate
and document that sufficient water supplies are planned for
and are intended to be acquired.Also,staff stated that
the Metropolitan Water District has updated its IRP to
address Delta issues and other potential water supply
impacts.
•Staff indicated a clarification to the last page of the
staff report,which should be corrected as follows:
Attachments:Exhibit D -Explanation of intent of the BE
610 and BE 221 for the Otay Ranch Village 9
Project Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
WSA&V Report
•The Committee recommended that staff provide all Board
members a notification to fully review the WSA&V Reports
(provide a hardcopy of the reports to the Board)and
instruct the members to address any questions or concerns
with staff prior to the January 5,2011 Regular Board
meeting.
11
EXHIBIT A
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
D0790-090070
EXHIBIT A
OTAY RANCH -VILLAGE 8 WEST
LOCA TION MAP
~0«
'"NTS
r
><W ./
---f-'"0<LW'"::rf-(/)"~<L::;0u
Clz5
>-«
0I0'",...
0a
0s:
---(')zi<tr0~/'
CL
EXHIBIT B
\
/
CITY OF S.D.
TRANSMISSION ~~LINE EASEMENT ~~.~7--
~-(2 --~
\
\
/
..
~
".....
oz«
8 \~-------\
81-~--------------------_1o
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
00790-090070
OTAY RANCH -VILLAGE 9
LOCATION MAP
~.Ii'I
~cLL-......I ........----------~
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT C
Background Information
The Otay Water District (District)prepared the November 2010 Water Supply
Assessment and Verification Reports (WSA&V)for both the Otay Ranch Village 8
West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project at the request of the City of Chula
Vista (City).The District received the City's written request for both projects on
October 19,2010.The Otay Land Company,the developer of the Project,submitted
an entitlement application to the City for both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project.The Owner of both properties is the Homefed
Corporation,a Delaware Corporation and the parent company to the Otay Land
Company,a Delaware Limited Liability Company.
Both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project are
located within the jurisdictions of the District,the San Diego County Water Authority
(Water Authority),and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan).See Exhibit A and B for project locations.To obtain permanent
imported water supply service,land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of
the District,Water Authority,and Metropolitan.
Both the Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project are included
within a land use planning document known as the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan (Otay Ranch GOP).The County of San Diego
and City of Chula Vista jointly prepared and adopted the Otay Ranch GOP.Both
projects are located within what is defined as the Otay River Parcel of the Otay
Ranch GOP.The project is a part of the designated 14 villages and five planning
areas within the Otay Ranch GOP area.Both the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project entitlement approval are dependent on the
City's eventual adoption of their Sectional Planning Area Plans (SPA).The Land
Offer Agreement between the City and the Otay Land Company per document
recorded April 24,2008 as document No.2008-0218696 forms the basis for the SPA
entitlement densities and intensities of development for both projects.
The WSA&V Reports were prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson
Engineering,Inc.,the Water Authority,and the City of Chula Vista pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631,
10656,10910,10911,10912,and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB)610 and
Government Code Sections 65867.5,66455.3,and 66473.7 referred to as SB 221.
SB 610 and SB 221 amended state law,effective January 1,2002,intending to
improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use
decisions made by cities and counties.SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of
the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)environmental documentation and
approval process of certain proposed projects.SB 221 requires affirmative written
verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water
supplies are to be available for certain residential subdivision of property prior to
approval of a Tentative Map.The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed
in the November 2010 WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and
the Village 9 Project.
The Otay Ranch Village 8 West proposed development concept for the approximately
320.1 acre project consists of 2,050 mixed density residential units,retail commercial,
a middle school,an elementary school,a community purpose facility,parks,and
open space.The project surrounds the City of San Diego South San Diego
Reservoir which will remain in place.
The Otay Ranch Village 9 Project proposed development concept for the
approximately 323 acre Project consists of 4,000 mixed density residential units,
retail commercial,an elementary school,community purpose facilities,parks,and
opens space.
The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project is 881 acre-feet per
year.This is 147 acre-feet per year higher than the demand estimate in the District's
2009 WRMP.The expected demand for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project is 1,507
acre-feet per year.This is 195 acre-feet per year higher than the demand estimate in
the 2009 WRMP.The Otay Land Company retained PBS&J to update the 2009
WRMP to include the entitlement densities and intensities of development proposed
for both projects.The District's 2009 WRMP updated November,2010 now includes
the demand estimate for both projects in the District's demand projections that was
forwarded to the Water Authority for inclusion in their UWMP update.
SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista have also confirmed the Land Offer Agreement
that forms the basis for these SPA entitlements was included in the Series 12 update
that has been forwarded to both Metropolitan and the Water Authority for their future
UWMP updates.The Series 12 update was also available to Metropolitan for their
use in preparing the demand projections for their 2010 IRP Update.
The District currently depends on the Water Authority and the Metropolitan for all of
its potable water supplies and regional water resource planning.The District's Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP)relies heavily on the UWMP's and Integrated
Water Resources Plans (IRPs)of the Water Authority and Metropolitan for
documentation of supplies available to meet projected demands.These plans are
developed to manage the uncertainties and variability of multiple supply sources and
demands over the long term through preferred water resources strategy adoption and
resource development target approvals for implementation.
The new uncertainties that are significantly affecting California's water resources
include:
• A Federal Court ruling that sets operational limits on Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta pumping from December to June to protect the Delta smelt.Water
2
agencies are still trying to determine what effect the ruling will have on state
water project deliveries.Actual supply curtailments for Metropolitan are
contingent upon fish distribution,behavioral patterns,weather,Delta flow
conditions,and how water supply reductions are divided between state and
federal projects.
•Extended drought conditions.
These uncertainties have rightly caused concern among Southern California water
supply agencies regarding the validity of the current water supply documentation.
Metropolitan's 2010 IRP acknowledges that significant challenges in some resource
areas will likely require changes in strategies and implementation approaches in
order to reach long-term IRP water supply targets.Significant progress in program
implementation is being realized in most resource areas.However,a further
examination of the uncertainty of State Water Project supplies,among other
uncertainties,will be required to assess the ability of achieving the long-term IRP
targets.
Metropolitan is currently involved in several proceedings concerning Delta operations
to evaluate and address environmental concerns.In addition,at the State level,the
Delta Vision and Bay-Delta Conservation Plan processes are defining long-term
solutions for the Delta.
Neither the Water Authority nor Metropolitan has stated that there is insufficient water
for future planning in Southern California.Each agency is in the process of
reassessing and reallocating their water resources.
Under preferential rights,Metropolitan can allocate water without regard to historic
water purchases or dependence on Metropolitan.Therefore,the Water Authority and
its member agencies are taking measures to reduce dependence on Metropolitan
through development of additional supplies and a water supply portfolio that would
not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation.For Fiscal Year 2006 the Water
Authority's preferential right was 16.56%of Metropolitan's supply.
In the Water Authority's 2005 UWMP,they had already planned to reduce reliance on
Metropolitan supplies to 372,922 acre feet per year by 2030,which is a 28%
reduction from the Fiscal Year 2005 Water Authority purchase from Metropolitan.
This reduction is planned to be achieved through diversification of their water supply
portfolio.This reduction would more than compensate for the Metropolitan predicted
reduction in water supply available from the State Water Project,which could be an
overall 2%cutback in Metropolitan total supplies in 2025.
The Water Authority's Drought Management Plan (May 2006)provides the Water
Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to engage when
faced with a shortage of imported water supplies due to prolonged drought
3
conditions.Such actions help avoid or minimize impacts of shortages and ensure an
equitable allocation of supplies throughout the San Diego County region.
The District Board of Directors should acknowledge the ever-present challenge of
balancing water supply with demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and
adaptable water supply implementation strategy that can be relied upon during
normal and dry weather conditions.The responsible regional water supply agencies
have,and will continue to adapt,their resource plans and strategies to meet
climatological,environmental,and legal challenges so that they may continue to
provide water supplies to their service areas.The regional water suppliers (Le.,the
Water Authority and Metropolitan),along with the District,fully intend to maintain
sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal,single,
and multiple dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project,along with existing and other
planned development projects within the District's service area.
If the regional water suppliers determine additional water supplies will be required or
in this case,that water supply portfolios need to be reassessed and redistributed with
the intent to serve the existing and future water needs throughout Southern
California,the agencies must indicate the status or stage of development of actions
identified in the plans they provide.Metropolitan's 2010 IRP Update will then cause
the Water Authority to update its IRP and UWMP,which will then provide the District
with the necessary water supply documentation.Identification of a potential future
action in such plans does not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to
proceed with the action has been made.The District's Board approval of the Otay
Ranch Village 8 West Project WSA&V Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
WSA&V Report does not in any way guarantee water supply to these projects.
Alternatively,if the WSA&V Report is written to state that water supply is or will be
unavailable,the District must include in the assessment,a plan to acquire additional
water supplies.At this time,the District should not state there is insufficient water
supply.
So the best the District can do right now is to state the current water supply situation
clearly,indicating intent to provide supply through reassessment and reallocation by
the regional,as well as,the local water suppliers.In doing so,it is believed that the
Board has met the intent of the SB 610 statute,that the land use agencies and the
water agencies are coordinating their efforts in planning water supplies for new
development.
With District Board approval of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project WSA&V
Report and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project WSA&V Report,the project proponents
can proceed with the draft EIR CEQA review process and water supply issues will be
addressed in the EIRs,consistent with the WSA&V Report.
4
The District,as well as others,can comment on the draft EIRs with recommendations
that water conservation measures and actions be employed on both projects.
Some recent actions regarding water supply assessments and verification reports by
entities within Southern California are as follows:
•City of San Diego approved water supply assessment reports for both the La
Jolla Crossings Project and the Quarry Falls Project in September 2007.
•Padre Dam Municipal Water District approved a water supply assessment
report for the City of Santee's Fanita Ranch development project in April 2006.
In October 2007 a follow-up letter was prepared stating the current
uncertainties associated with the regional water supply situation.However,
the letter concludes that sufficient water exists over the long run in reliance
upon the assurances,plans,and projections of the regional water suppliers
(Metropolitan and Water Authority).
•The District unanimously approved in July 2007 the Eastern Urban Center
Water Supply and Assessment Report.The Board also approved the Judd
Company Otay Crossings Commerce Park WSA Report on December 5,2007
and the Otay Ranch L.P.Otay Ranch Preserve and Resort project Water
Supply Assessment and Verification Report on February 4,2009.
•The District is working on a water supply assessment report for the City of San
Diego -Tijuana Cross Border Facility.Staff is also working with the City of
San Diego on a WSA for Scenario 3B Otay Mesa Community Plan Update.
The Pio Pico Power Plant on Alta Road within the County of San Diego may
also require a WSA for the temporary use of potable water to serve the power
plant.
Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed Otay Ranch Village
8 West Project and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project,along with existing and other
projected future users,as well as the actions necessary to develop these supplies,
have been identified in the water supply planning documents of the District,the Water
Authority,and Metropolitan.
The WSA&V Reports includes,among other information,an identification of existing
water supply entitlements,water rights,water service contracts,or agreements
relevant to the identified water supply needs for each project.The WSA&V Reports
demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned and are
intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon,under normal conditions
and in single-and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of the Otay
Ranch Village 8 West Project,the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project,and the existing and
other planned development projects within the District.
5
Accordingly,after approval of a WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Project and the WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project by the District's
Board of Directors,the WSA&V Reports may be used to comply with the
requirements of the legislation enacted by Senate Bills 610 as follows:
Senate Bill (SB)610 Water Supply Assessment:The District's Board of Directors
approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)Environmental Impact Report (EIR)compliance process for
the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the EIR Compliance process for the
Otay Ranch Village 9 Project as a water supply assessment and verification
report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610.The
City,as lead agency under the CEQA for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project
EIR and the Otay Ranch Village 9 Project EIR,may cite the approved WSA&V
Report as evidence that a sufficient water supply is planned and intended to be
available to serve the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch
Village 9 Project.
Senate Bill (SB)221 Water Supply Verification:The District's Board of Directors
approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the City's Tentative Map
approval process for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and the Otay Ranch
Village 9 Project as a water supply verification report,consistent with the
requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221.The City,within their process
of approving the Otay Ranch Village 8 West and Otay Ranch Village 9 Project's
Tentative Maps,may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended
sufficient water supply to serve the Project.
6
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Approval of Water Supply Assessment and
Verification Reports (November 2010)for the
Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and for the
Otay Ranch Village 9 Project
Project No.:00738-090062
Document Description:Staff Report for January 5,2011 Board Meeting
Author:
QA Reviewer:
Signature
Bob Kennedy
Printed Name
Daniel Kay
Date
Date
Printed Name c:
Manager:
Ron Ripperger
Printed Name
Date
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best of their ability the
signers verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended
information;being grammatically correct and free of formatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting
calculated values and numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its
presentation style.
Water'S pply Assessme,nt &.Verification Reports for
-----ay Ranch Village 8 West andl Village,9 Projects
58 610 &.221.Complianlce
Village 9
323 Ac.Total
4,000 Dwelling Units
1,500,000 Sq.Ft.
Retail/Commercial
....,..",.........-----...fi~
~'
Village 8 West
320 Ac.Total
2,050 Dwelling Units
300,000 Sq.Ft.
Retail/Commercial
•
•
•
--,-
-
~
I .;;..",
-j'~~·:::;;/jl::~':'"~-:-:.'.-:.~~:);~~ii!!!!!!:'"
-'',....l~
~1
Senate Bills 610 and 221 became effective on Ja ua 1,
200!2,with the prirnary intent to,improve the lin,~b --een
---w ter sup,ply ill.ailability and land use,decisions.·~~
o 58 610 Wat Ii Rly Assessment (WSA):
o Requires wa..r purveyor to prepare a Water u 1
Assessment report for inclusion in land use agency CEQA
documentation.
o 221 Water Supply Verification:
o Requires the walter pUlVeyor to prepare writte
-Verificationthalt sufficient water supplies are planned to
b available.
o The Ota!y Ranch Village Sst and Village 9 58 610 and 2~1
WateF upply Assessment a d Verification Reports (WSA&V).
o Boar approval required for submittal of the WSA&V
Reports to the City of Chula Vista.
D
D
D
Legend -Transect:Zone
T-l:Open Space Preserve (Or)
T-l:Open Space SIq:>e (OS)
T-2:Neighbcrhood Edge (NE)
T~2:Neighbcrhood General (NG)
T-3:Neighbcrhood Center (NC)
T-4:Town Center (TC)
SD:Park (P)ti '
SD:Ccrnmunity PurlXlse Fadlity (CPF)~,
r.::==::..::....-...:..:=-=----=---_--..JJ&llmL "'"~li;':91 L-----J SD:Reservdr (R);.--:L--.--MX;P-------..;.....
•
'\
4,000 D ellin
1,500,000 g.Ft.~
Retail/Com ercial
Elementary School tv 22 Ac.
Community Facility
25 Ac.Parks
uture nivers·ty tv 50 Ac.
De and Estimate
1,5 7 AFY PotaBle
Wat r (195 AFY
above current
appr'ove Ian use)
30 R cycled
Water (80/0 I,
de and)
T-1:Open Space Preserve (OP)
T-1:Open Space Slope (OS)
T-2:Neighborhood Edge (NE)
T-2:Neighborhood General (NG)
T-3:Urban Neighborhood (UN)
T-4:Town Center (Te)
T-5:Urban Center (uq
so:Park (P)
so:Community Purpose Fadlity (CPF)
SO:University (U)
0
1(·2 JJfTC}(U)
f'Wvtot:
1---U~ey
0-1 ()"2(TC)(TQ
--
~~~~
U-2 ~::>
(UN)~
",
"",...".,...dlt1l!";>O/\;)lIlgi<lnJoan-t'l~""'~;I~""",,1nf~
pl"nn,n9Theror.aoltl.r'lCltinte'ldldtobc!cpreo<tlptionrarrullJf8..rowth,~.tIlert~ror_i.
'nter.d«jto"""'"p">s,olefut>.ndtY.lcpnentp.ll!llrn~blI00d :;n~j<;Jn.ll1projtctlomend lcco.l.,."
n,~~050 Aotgoon"'lG,owchFon.;uot.."'"ofthe f,m ~tllp5indlMj'Cpin\;j lhlI 2l'.SQ ~~
T'Jnop<;lllllUOO P",,,(Iffi')<lrItl i,w~1'nfurm thll<Je.eJopmunl gfthoIlI'jli....'l filltS""t;"".,b1c
Cr,mmunlflm;Strc,"!l'J'(SCS),n .-compoo"ru oIIMllTP,IlndlMlMGtot\;llliOItlirl\'l1Orn':i'l
kw.o;vnent (IlI-IN"l prI'tolifornlll '\en~teBill 375 (SEl315)(Chojlt'll'7n !>Inullnl ot ~ooa).In
lKIctn,,,,,,..I'ot«ItStInform"uon.~I~ulld ~..."Iu.~future 1lPP'!:otlCn.rex tlvreg.CI1"
smart Grow-..h l_ntlVf Program CncIJUPIX:'r1:Io:~t Qj:l1tlll imj:l"OVemM"l1 lind We.-r"",-",pl.nnlngthrouo;t.outth.r"9ICnThi,roracmt~p1"Wllholl.pp1Ic.>bl,,:atUl1N""<lr''0U'3b'l'1o..-g.ar<lJngthDllTP,SCS_..-.:lIll\N"'romSBJ1~oodlhelWlr;,;:nIIlTr.~OI'1cammlUlOl'10...ttIlT~Gl.Ii<....
Th't~OSO~ran-.Growrnr(llll~Sl~ ~lo:lllly<l'l"""'1L.dywid.,i~u,fromloGf.J""lOcHer..,.,S111f1.
MId.Iet:".edorr.,.."onfr.l:.~.~end14""UlO'M....n:l(IQI'lI Bll,*,onI....clI'cC'uonofttl~tlowdofDl"'I;IQr1.IUlJuly,Y.NDA<>'lIlfl""'hc:lted",putontl'Wf~f""",_hJUl'IS.:lic:lIQ1'lel"tyCot.n;H,I:lO.l"'olSuptNi1c:r.,lIl'ldplllrlninQcommIloIOl"ll'IMling1OJrlng~l.»c"Xm<ln:/'>.Thoo.,rcrnwlOnendoomm...,l!<oIleee.:;1OJr"'!OU.....m""lr,goarod1l.bleqlJl>nCnlerxtlonol-..de
lI(J'lltlCal'lt m~oton fcrmu1.:l:....!hi ""900n'0 :ncntlikely _1oP'f*l1~lt...n QI/.,t.........t
40~....'"
In6ddlc,,,,,10workmg with ''''''l'jI.I"sdCCCi!l$.SANOA(;seerr~JO!kod<lowlyw,ttl Ioc.lJI r-.:.:;'~""ltllln::l_cel'f'O'llde"toII'lCQl'POl"Ufllny~svpplynf<>rm4tion...,tothcfortQlla.
THEMETROPOUTAN WATERDISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
DRAFT
_....._.....16
~----~
The 1lr<!l,,,,,,,1 P\;>r>nI"Il Comrn1UouI'O:<:MII'rIOl~1I""UlO'8oafo:lolOiJlltlall1lCl;~1lI tIW 2(150 InglO"lll ~wJ>
rCl....."fllilMlnthl2C6C~~
Tr.~ti(II'Il'Wl,,"IdOlr.rpolvol.1'lIiI....,.
D\Jri..~a.p,lIt 14 monthl,SAAOAG 1:Dft ilMd
r'jX._t.lt,"~~r1dIl.aeClOl'litt/ll.fro",...thoith.
b1 01"\10 rC'iliCf1"19 ....'00>:10'1'h(we wo'kcdt","e"""'IQdt!.elopa~.r""9"g,o..Lhrtlle[~...rDfmeSrln01017"<'<)100 1II'ld IlSl'1C,ghborl'1oOl:l$.ThiIAtl.IIt'lor:tvllcfl'or!lll'~tlI!..:tlbedindct.!lUbf,IOW
-_.-..................
.......T_lX......_..~...._
~~~=---t·_:lClZIlf'U!._~_-
1oIoIt;'.:.~"':.:••:=::..::_""'l::::--==..----'---~===_.........-....~.....,..~..===~===~=======...~----_.
.,...,.....'~:A.;:..~~~....".
•The WSA8l epo,rts document the planned water
supply projects and the actio,ns ecessary to
velop the sup,plies.
•wat r supply for the tay Ranch Village 8 West
an Village 9 Projects,and for existinlg and future
developments wl'thin the District for a 20-year
pl,anr:-r 9 horizon,under ormal and!in single and
l11,ultl~le dry years,are tanned for and a e
intentJed to,e made availabl1e.
•e!ay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwate,r Well (300-400 AFY)
49,81.2
49,812
Water Authorit Supply _
Description
Recycled Water Suppl¥
Groundwater Suplttv
Total Required Su~~ly,~I~·..
Total Projected Dem,and-);_
Actual Demand vs.2005 UWMP
100000
80000,
60000
40000
20,000
o
----------...---•7 Iiii..........,.2005 UWMP
-L3""'""
-Actual Demands
71UZ ~-P'rojected Demands
I I I
FY 2005 FY 2010 FY 2015 FY 20,20 FY 2025 FY 2030
11
•Actions n e a 0 develo tile identified
wat,er eO.c ppli 5 are docum!ented.
•The Otay Ranch Village 8 West Project and
Vi'llage 9 Project SA&V Reports de,monstrate
"and document tha sufficient water sup,plies
-are planned for and are intended to be
a!va,ilable over the ne 20 years.
Metropolitan has Upl ated its .RP to,address
Delta Issues and 0 :her pote,ntlal water supply
impacts•.