HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-07 Board PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
March 7,2007
3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1.ROLL CALL
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
5.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)APPROVE AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH TMO CAlNV,
LLC,d/b/a T-MOBILE SUCCESSOR TO PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS,FOR
AN EXISTING FACILITY AT OTAY'S PATZIG RESERVOIR SITE
b)APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
CREATING THE INTERAGENCY WATER TASK FORCE
c)APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.3 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH
ORTIZ CORPORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 30-INCH RECY-
CLED WATER PIPELINE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,969.01
d)APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.6 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH
TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 450-1
RECYCLED WATER RESERVIOR AND THE 680-1 RECYCLED WATER
PUMP STATION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $167,743
1
e)AWARD OF AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT
FOR FISCAL YEARS 06-07 AND 07-08 TO LEE &RO.,INC.FOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $175,000
f)AWARD OF A PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND AR-
CHITECTURAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE 1485-1 PUMP STATION
REPLACEMENT TO SWE IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,765
g)AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR AS-NEEDED
ELECTRICAL SERVICES WITH THE ENGINEERING PARTNERS,INC.
FOR A AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 06-
07 AND 07-08
h)APPROVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT WITH
THE EASTLAKE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR CAPI-
TAL IMPROVEMENT WATER FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE 680-1
RESERVOIR AT SUNSET VIEW PARK
INFORMATION /ACTION ITEMS
6.ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS
a)REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 CAPITAL IM-
PROVEMENT PROGRAM (RIPPERGER)
b)UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED REGIONAL TRAINING FACILITY (JUY-
BARI)
7.ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
a)PRESENTATION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS'EXPENSES FOR THE 2ND
QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 (PRENDERGAST)
b)UPDATE ON THE BOND SALE (BEACHEM)
8.GENERAL MANAGER
a)REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE 2006 RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER
OPINION AND AWARENESS AND 2006 CUSTOMER SERVICES SATIS-
FACTION SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY REA &PARKER RESEARCH INC.
(BUELNA)
9.BOARD INFORMATION /ACTION ITEMS
a)DISCUSSION OF 2007 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
2
REPORTS
10.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
a)UPDATE ON THE 30"RECYCLED WATER PIPELINE PROJECT (SEE AT-
TACHMENT "A")
b)SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
11.DIRECTORS'REPORTS /REQUESTS
12.PRESIDENTS REPORT
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
13.CLOSED SESSION
a)POTENTIAL LITIGATION (GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9)
(I)OTAY WATER DISTRICT v.NORTHROP GRUMMAN
(ii)ATOMIC INVESTMENTS v.OTAYWATER DISTRICT
b)CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -PENDING LITIGATION [GOV-
ERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)]
(i)DONNA BARTLETT-MAY,et.al.v.OTAY WATER DISTRICT
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
14.REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
15.CONSIDERATION OF TERMS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE
AGREEMENT
16.ADJOURNMENT
3
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 March 2,2007,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 March 2,2007
Connie Rathbone,Assistant District Secretary
4
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM Sa
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chien
Regular Board
David Char1es~
Public Services~Manager
Rod posada~~~<S ~
Chief,Engineering
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
March 7,2007
aaOOO DIV.NO.1
ldlOOO
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:
Manny Magana~~~
Assistant General ~nager,Engineering and Operations
Request Approval of Amendment No.2 to Agreement with TMO
CA/NV,LLC,d/b/a T-Mobile successor to Pacific Bell
Wireless,for an existing facility at Otay's Patzig Reservoir
site.
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors (Board)authorize the General
Manager to execute Amendment No.2 with TMO CA/NV,LLC,d/b/a/
T-Mobile (T-Mobile),successor to Pacific Bell Wireless as
Tenant,for the 30 day extension of the existing temporary
cellular agreement now in place and authorize the General
Manager to execute subsequent 30 days agreements until a
permanent lease agreement is in place (Attachment 1),the second
amendment (Attachment 2),would be replaced upon execution of a
permanent lease at Otay's Patzig Reservoir site.(See attached
Exhibit A for project location.)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
Amendment No.2 with T-Mobile to its existing temporary lease
agreement for Otay's Patzig Reservoir site executed on March 30,
2004.The amendment will allow T-Mobile's existing temporary
cellular communication facility to remain in operation until a
permanent lease has been executed.Otay and T-Mobile are
currently negotiating a permanent lease for this site.This
amendment extends the current temporary lease for 30 days and
will continue monthly until the permanent lease is in place.
ANALYSIS:
T-Mobile will have the ability to provide continuous cellular
service from the existing temporary Patzig Reservoir facility
until the permanent cellular facility is in place.Staff agrees
with the content and purpose of this amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Currently the Distri t receives $2,333.98 per month in rent.
Effective upon execution of the amendment,the District will
receive a 3 percent increase,to $2,404.00 per month,or
$28,848.00 for a period of one year.
An initial $2,000.00 payment toward the District's non-
refundable administrative fee of $6,500.00 was paid to reimburse
the District for staff time to supervise and assist the tenant
during the licensing and permitting phases;this fee is separate
from rent.The remaining balance of $4,500.00 will be due and
payable upon execution of the permanent agreement by both
parties to reimburse the District for costs to assist the tenant
with planning,design,and construction phases of the project,
including legal expenses.An additional non-refundable
administrative fee of $1,000.00 will be due and payable upon the
execution of this agreement to reimburse the District for legal
expenses and staff time expended in the processing of this
amendment.
LEGAL IMPACT:
The District's Lease Agreement and proposed Amendment No.2 have
been reviewed by our legal counsel.District Counsel has been
an integral part in the negotiations and construction of this
amendment.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This item is in line with the District's Strategic Focus Areas:
Community and Governance,and Financial Health.
g~-
DC!RP
Exhibits
Attachments
P:\WORKING\W09192 Cellular Lease File\T-MOI3ILE\Patdg\Staff Report\BD 3-7-07,T-Mobile Amendment No.2.doc
2
ATTACHMENT A
;T :T:Approve Amendment No.2 to Agreement with TMO CA/NV,LLC,
d/b/a T-Mobile,successor to Pacific Bell Wireless,for an
existing facility at Otay's Patzig Reservoir site.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the board approve a month-to
month temporary agreement with TMO CA/NV,LLC,d/b/a T-
Mobile,while a permanent agreement is negotiated.The
current temporary agreement will expire on March 1,2007.
•Staff is requesting a temporary agreement as T-Mobile is
going through negotiations with the District and their
internal administrative process to finalize the
agreement which will be a five year lease term,
consistent with other District cell tower leases.
•The Committee inquired how many more such contracts were
expected.It was indicated that staff will be working on
10-11 additional leases in the next year or two.It is
expected that revenue from such contracts will be
approximately $1 million dollars in the next 1 to 2
years.
•It was discussed that there will always be new technology
and communications service providers who will continue to
approach the District as the District owns many
reservoirs in higher elevation areas.It is expected
that such agreements will continue to be a growing
revenue stream for the District.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported
staff's recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors
on the consent calendar.
3
,...
o
~,
~
o
Mission
Bay OC~~\M
a
o
~...
~
IMPERIAL
BEACH
Tijuana Esruory
01AY
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
OTAY PATZIG RESERVOIR SITE
LOCATION MAP
T-MOBILE AMENDMENT NO.1/PROJ AAOOO-1 D1000
EXHIBIT A
Market San Diego,CA
Site Number:SD06~972
Site Name:Patzig Reservoir
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN T-MOBILE WIRELESS
AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT TO LOCATE A COMMUNICAnONS FACILITY
AT OTAY'S "PATZIG"RESERVOIR SITE
This Second Amendment (the "Amendment")to Agreement between TMO CA/NV,LLC and
Otay Water District to locate a Communications Facility at Otay's "Patzig"Reservoir Site is
made and entered into on March __,2007 (the "Effective Date")by and between the Otay
Water District (hereinafter "District")and TMO CA/NV,LLC,a Nevada limited liability
company (hereinafter "Tenant"),as the successor in interest to Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC,a
Nevada limited liability company d/b/a T-Mobile Wireless ("T-Mobile").This Amendment
concerns only those matters,understandings and agreements set forth below.All other
provisions of the Agreement (as defined below)remain in full force and effect for the duration of
this Amendment.
RECITALS
WHEREAS,District and Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC,by and through its agent Cingular
Wireless,LLC,entered into that certain Agreement between Cingular Wireless and Otay Water
District to Locate a Communications Facility at Otay's "Patzig"Reservoir Site SD 972-91,dated
March 30,2004 (the "Original Lease"),as amended pursuant to that certain First Amendment to
Agreement between Cingular Wireless and Otay Water District to Locate a Communications
Facility at Otay's "Patzig"Reservoir Site (the "First Amendment"and,together with the Original
Lease,the "Lease");and
WHEREAS,District and T-Mobile entered into the Lease to provide terms pursuant to which
District leased to T-Mobile certain Premises (as defined in the Lease),and to provide terms and
conditions pursuant to which T-Mobile was allowed to construct and operate certain
communication facilities on real property owned by District,and known to the parties as the
Patzig Reservoir Site,and defined in the Lease as the Property;and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the First Amendment Tenant has represented to District that it is the
legal successor in interest to T-Mobile and Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC under the Lease,and has
fully and knowingly succeeded to all obligations,rights and responsibilities of the Tenant as set
forth in the Lease;and
WHEREAS,Tenant and District desire to enter into this Amendment to amend certain
portions ofthe Lease,but only to the extent specifically stated herein.
NOW THEREFORE,for good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged,Landlord and Tenant hereby agree to amend the Lease as
follows:
I.Incorporation ofRecitals and Definitions.The recitals and definitions set forth above are
incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of this Amendment.Capitalized terms
II
used herein in a context where such terms would not normally be capitalized and not defined
herein shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Lease.
2.Term.Notwithstanding any other provision ofthe Lease,the Lease is hereby converted to
a month to month Lease commencing on April I,2007;provided,however,that if the parties
have not entered into a new lease agreement on or prior to March 30,2008,this Lease shall
automatically terminate.Either party may terminate the Lease at any time upon not less than
thirty (30)days notice to the other party.
3.Administrative Fee.Tenant shall pay to the District a non-refundable administrative fee
in the amount of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($1,000.00).These
administrative fees shall not be considered rent or part ofthe rental installment.
4.Rent.Commencing on March 30,2007,the Tenant shall pay District as rent the sum of
Two Thousand Four Hundred Four Dollars ($2,404)per month payable on the first day of each
month in advance.If the commencement of the extended term occurs on a date other than the
first day of the calendar month,Tenant shall pay on the first day of the term the prorated rent for
the remainder of the calendar month in which the term commences.If the Lease is terminated,
Tenant shall be allowed to occupy the Premises until the last day ofthe calendar month on which
the notice oftermination becomes effective.
5.No Other Change.Except as expressly modified herein,the terms and provisions of the
Lease shall remain in full force and effect.
6.Controlling Provisions.In case of any inconsistencies between the terms and conditions
contained in the Lease and the terms and conditions contained in this Amendment,the terms and
conditions ofthis Amendment shall control.
7.Amendment.This Amendment cannot be amended, modified or revised unless done in
writing and signed by an authorized agent of the District and an authorized agent ofthe Tenant.
No provision may be waived except in writing signed by both parties.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2
8.Corporate Authority.The person or persons executing this Amendment on behalfofeach
party hereto warrants and represents that (i)such party is duly organized and existing,(ii)he or
she or they is or are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment on behalf of said
party,(iii)by so executing and delivering this Amendment,such party is formally bound to the
provisions hereof,and (iv)the entering into this Amendment does not violate any provision of
any other agreement to which said party is bound.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Amendment as of the i h day of
March,2007.
TENANT:
LANDLORD:
TMO CAlNV,LLC,a Nevada limited liability company
By:
Tim Fincham,Director-Engineering
Date:
OTAY WATER DISTRICT,a municipal water district
By:
Mark Watton,General Manager
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel's Office
Date
3
Market:San Diego,CA
Site Number:$D06·972
Site Name:Patzig Reservoir
~
"T'fPtC '"M8\/'T 1()'L~O -L0.S'::>
)
9
FffiST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CINGULAR WffiELESS
..AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT TO WCATE A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
AT OTAY'S "PATZIG"RESERVOm SITE
This First Amendment (the "Amendment")to Agreemerit between TMO CAlNV,LLC,
successor-in-interest to Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC and Otay'Water District to locate a
Communications Facility at Otay's"Patzig"Reservoir Site,is made and entered into on March
13,2006,to be effective as of March 29,2006 (the "Effective Date")by and between the Otay
Water District (hereinafter "District")and TMO CAlNV,LLC,a Nevada limited liability
company (hereinafter "Tenant"),as the successor in interest to Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC,a
Nevada limited liability company d/b/a T-Mobile ("T-Mobile").This Amendment concerns
only those matters,understandings and agreements set forth below.All other provisions of the
Agreement (as defined below)remain in full force'and effect for the duration ofthis Amendment.
RECITALS
WHEREAS,District and Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC entered into that certain Agreement
between Pacific Bell Wireless LLC and Otay Water District to locate a Communications Facility
at Otay's "Patzig"Reservoir Site,dated March 30,2004 (the "Agreement");and,
WHEREAS,District and Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC entered into the Agreement to
provide terms pursuant to which District leased to Pacific Bell Wireless LLC certain Premises
(as defined in the Agreement),and to provide terms and conditions pursuant to which Pacific
Bell Wireless LLC was allowed to construct and operate certain communication facilities on real
property owned by District,and known to the parties as the Patzig Reservoir Site,and defined in
the Agreement as the Property;!!Jld
WHEREAS,Tenant has represented to District that it is the legal successor in interest to
'.Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC under the Agreement,and has fully and knowingly succeeded to all
obligations,rightsand responsibilities oftheTenant as set forth in the Agreement;and,
WHEREAS,Tenant and Pistrict desire to enter into this Amendment to amend certain
portions ofthe Agreement,bUlonly to the extent specifically stated herein.
NOW THEREFORE,for good a~d v;u,uable'consideration,fue re~eipt and sufficien~y ~f'
whiGh is hereby acknowledged,Landlord and Tenant hereby agree to amend the Agreement as
follows:
1.Incorporation ofRecitals and Definitions.The recitals and definitions set forth above
are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of this Amendment.
Capitalized terms used herein in a context where such terms would not normally be
capitalized and not dd:ined herein shall have the ineaning given to suchterrns in the
Agreement
)Tenant.The Tenant,TMO CA/NV,LLC shall hereby replace all references to Tenant
in the Agreement.Tenant has represented to the District that it is the successor in
interest to Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC,a Nevadalimitedliability company,d/b/a
CingUlar Wireless,and that it assumes all terms,conditions,.covenants and
obligations formerly attributed to Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC under the Agreel)1ent.
3.Notice.Paragraph 24,Notice of the Agreement shall be amended t6 reflect the new
.Tenant and shall be as follows:
TENANT:TMO CA/NV.LLC
c/o T-Mobile USA,Inc.
10180 Telesis Court,Suite.333
San Diego,California 92121
Attn:Lease Administrator
With a copy to TMO CA/NV.LLC
c/o T-Mobile USA,Inc.
12920 SE 38th Street
Bellevue,WA 98006
Attn:Lease Administrator
4.Term.The term of the Lease is hereby extended for one (1)year,commencing on
March 30,2006,and expiring on March 29,2007.It is agreed that the parties are in
the process of negotiating a permanent lease for the Premises and that the term of the
Agreement will terminate on the earlier of (1)the expiration Of the Agreement as
extended by this Amendment,or(2)the date on which District and Tenant enter into a
permanent agreementfor the location ofa communication facility at.the Premises.
5.Administrative Fee.Tenant shall pay to the District a non-refundable administrative
fee in the amount of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($1,000:00).
.These administrative fees shall not be considered rent or part ofthe rental installment.
6..Rent.Commencing on March 30,2006,.the Tenant shall pay District as·rent the sum
ofTwo Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three Dollars and 98/100th ($2,333.98)per
month payable on the first day of each monihin ad~aP.ce..tfih6 coinmericemeni of.
the extended term occurs on a date other than the first day of the calendar month,
Tenant shall pavon the first day of the tenn the prorated rent for the remainder ofthe
calendar month in which the tenn commences.
·7.No OtherChartge.Except as.expressly modified herein,the terms and provisions of
the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.
2
."..
\I,
\
)8,
9,
10,
Controlling Provisions,In case of any inconsistencies between the terms and
conditions contained in the Agreement and the terms and conditions contained in this
Amendment,the terms and conditions ofthis Amendment shall control.'.
Amendment.This Amendment cannot be amended;modified or revised l.Ul1ess
done in writing and'signed by',an authorized agent of the District and an authoriied
agent of the Tenant..No provision may be waived except in writing sfgned by both
parties,
Comorate Authoritv,The person or persons executing this Amendment on behalf
of each party hereto warrants and represents that (i)such party is duly organized and
existing,(ii)he or she or they is or are duly authorized to execute and deliver this.
Amendment on behalf of said party,(iii)by so executing and delivering this
Amendment,such party is formally bound to the provisions hereof,and (iv)the
entering into this Amendment does not violate any provision of any other agreement
to which said party is bound,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Amendment as of the 13th (lay of
March,2006,
LANDLORD:
Date:
ark atton,General Manager
1lZ-7,/~,
I
..'.
TENANT:TMO CAlNV,LLC,a Nev dalimite liability company
Tim Fincham,Director-Engineering
Date::N1,0IOf<;>
This First Amendment to Agreement Between ,Cingular Wirdess and Otay Water District
to Locate a Communications Facility 'at Otay's"'Patzig"ReserVoir Site-is approved'as to
form on the date indicated below.
3
/
,.(''
')
,I.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CINGULAR WIRELESS
AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT
TO LOCATE A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
AT OTAY'S
"PATZ IG"RESERVOIR SITE 'S1J _~/'2..-~\
This Agreement ("Lease")is entered into between the Otay
Water District,a municipal water district organized and
operated pursuant to the Water Code Section 71000,et seq.
("Otay"),and Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC,a Nevada limited
1 iability company,d/b/a Cingular Wireless,with its principal
office located at Cingular Wireless,Network Real Estate,6100
Atlantic Blvd.-GAN02,Norcross,GA 30071
R E CIT A L S
("Tenant")
1.Otay owns a site on which it has constructed water
facilities known as the "patzig"reservoir site as shown on
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
2.Tenant has requested Otay to allow it to locate a
temporary communications facility and transmitting and receiving
antennas at the Patzig reservoir site.
A G R E E MEN T
Otay and Tenant agree as follows:
1.Premises.Otay owns the real property described in
Exhibit B (the "Property").Otay agrees to lease to Tenant
approximately 360 square feet of real property within the
1
"
,'.'
Property,as more
"Premises Tl )
particularly shown on Exhibit C (the
2.Grant of Trench Easement (s).No trenching shall be
permitted by tenant under the provisions of this lease.
3.Use.The Premises may be used by Tenant for any
lawful activity in connection with the provision of
communications services.Tenant agrees to obtain all necessary
approvals.
with Tenant
Otay agrees,at no expense to Otay,to cooperate
in making application for and obtaining all
licenses,permits and any and all necessary approvals that may
be required for Tenant's intended use of the Premises.Tenant
shall provide written evidence,satisfactory to Otay of all FCC
'3 approvals and other governmental permits and approvals,
including but not limited to compliance with FCC Electromagnetic
Radiation Guidelines.Said use shall not include the right to
otherwise
)
sublease:to any other person or entity unless
expressly authorized pursuant to this Lease.
Tenant shall deliver to Otay copies of all executed
licenses,approvals and permits applicable to Tenant's operation
of communication services within the Premises.
In addition,Tenant shall obtain such permits,licenses or
easements from other tenants of Otay and from the owners of
property adjoining the leased premises as may be necessary for
Tenant to have access to and from the leased Premises and also
2
.,
,.'
to Otay prior to commencing
)for access to
provide copies
utilities
of these
as may
documents
be necessary.Tenant shall
operations at the Premises.
4.Access.Otay shall provide access to Tenant,Tenant's
employees,agents,contractors and subcontractors to the
Premises 24 hours a day,seven days a week,at no charge to
Tenant.Otay hereby grants to Tenant such rights of ingress and
egress over Otay's Property as may be necessary and consistent
with the authorized use of the Premises as outlined by Otay
Operations.Subject to Otay's reasonable rules,Otay shall
permit Tenant's employees,agents,contractors,subcontractors
and invitees to park vehicles on Otay's Property as necessary
8 and consistent with the authorized use of the Premises.Otay
shall,at its expense,maintain all access roadways or driveways
from the nearest public roadway to the Premises in a manner
reasonably sufficient to allow access.
5.Term.The term of this Lease shall be one (1)year,
commencing with the day of the month in which the Lease is
executed ("Commencement Date")Tenant shall have the right to
extend the term of the Lease for one (1)additional term of one
(1)year by giving Otay written notice of its intention to do so
at least 90 days prior to the date that the then current term
would otherwise end.~It is agreed however,that the parties are
)in the process of negotiating another lease for the Premises and
3
that this Lease will terminate on the earlier of (1)the
expiration of this Lease or (2)the date on which Otay and
Tenant enter into another lease concerning the Premises.
6.Administrative Fee.Tenant shall provide Otay with a
$2,000 non-refundable fee due and payable upon execution by both
parties of this agreement.This fee is to cover Otay's costs to
provide assistance to Tenant during early planning phases and to
cover Otay's costs incurred or to be incurred in Otay's
supervision and processing of this Lease.This fee is to be
separate from rent and any other fees associated with other
lease agreements.
shall pay Otay as rent the sum of $2,200 per month payable on9
7.Rent.Beginning upon the Commencement Date,Tenant
the first day of each month in advance.If the Commencement
Date is other than the first day of the calendar month,Tenant
shall pay on the first day of the term the prorated rent for the
remainder of the calendar month in which the term commences.If
Tenant chooses to exercise their option to extend the current
agreement as per paragraph five (5)"Term"of this agreement,
the rent shall be increased by a rate of 3%for the following
term.
8.Environmental.Otay represents that to the best of
its knowledge the Premises have not been used for the
generation,storage,treatment
4
or disposal of hazardous
\)
materials other than those materials normally used by Otay for
the treatment of water and that there is no hazardous waste in
the Premises.Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Lease,Tenant relies upon the representations stated herein as a
material inducement for entering into this Lease.Tenant shall
not bring any hazardous materials onto the Premises except for
those contained in its temporary power facilities (e.g.lead-
acid batteries and diesel fuel)and properly stored,reasonable
quantities of common materials used in telecommunications
operations (e.g.cleaning solvents).Tenant sh~ll handle,store
and dispose of all hazardous materials it brings onto the
Premises in accordance with all federal,state and local laws
8 and regulations ("Laws")."Hazardous materials"means any
substance,chemical,pollutant or waste that is presently
identified as hazardous,toxic or dangerous under any applicable
federal,state or local law or regulation and specifically
includes but is not limited to asbestos and asbestos containing
materials,polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs)and petroleum or
other fuels (including crude oil or any fraction or derivative
thereof).
9.Installation of Equipment.Tenant's design and
installation of all such temporary antennae facilities shall be
done according to plans approved by Otay,and such .approval
J shall not be unreasonably withheld.
,/
5
Any damage done to Otay's facility or facility site during
installation and/or during operations caused by Tenant shall be
repaired or replaced immediately at Tenant's expense and to
Otay's reasonable satisfaction.In connection with the
installation and operation of the temporary antennae facilities,
Tenant shall not locate or attach any antennae or other
equipment to Otay's facilities without the prior written
approval of Otay.Tenant shall pay all costs and expenses in
relation to maintaining the integrity of Otay's facilities in
connection with Tenant's installation and operation of the
temporary antennae facilities.
Tenant shall provide Otay with drawings of the temporary
antennae facilities and the improvements installed on the
Premises.The drawings shall show the actual location of all
equipment and improvements.Said drawings shall be accompanied
by a complete and detailed inventory of all equipment,personal
property and antennae equipment.
10.Maintenance and Repairs.At all times during the term
of this Lease and any renewals or extensions thereof,Otay may,
at its option and upon written notice to Tenant,request the
tenant to relocate the temporary antennae or other equipment
located within the Premises in order for Otay to repair,add or
make replacements (the "Maintenance Work"),that may become
)necessary to the facility.Tenant will reasonably cooperate
6
)
.,
with Otay's efforts in this regard including removing the
antennae and/or other equipment.
11.Condition of Property at Expiration.Upon the expira-
tion or termination of this Lease,Tenant shall surrender the
Premises to Otay in good and broom-clean condition,with all
temporary equipment,supplies,and structures removed.
12.Interference.Tenant shall not use,nor shall Tenant
permit its agents or invitees to use any portion of the Premises
in a manner which interferes with Otay's or any other tenant's
use of the Property for it's intended purpose including
communications facilities relating to Otay's operation such as
way interferes with Otay's telemetry/radio facilities,Tenant
will have five (5)business days to correct the problem after
9
telemetry/radio communications.If Tenant's operation in any
notice from Otay.Tenant acknowledges that continuing
interference will cause irreparable injury to Otay and therefore
Otay will have the right to terminate the Lease immediately upon
notice to Tenant.
13.Taxes.During the term of this Lease,Tenant shall
pay before delinquency all taxes,assessments,license fees,and
any other charge of any type whatsoever that are levied,
assessed,charged,or imposed on or against Tenant's personal
property installed or located in or on the leased premises and
that become payable during the term of this Lease.
7
14.Termination.()
(a)This Lease may be terminated by Tenant without further
liability if:
(i)Tenant delivers to Otay 30-day written notice at
any time prior to the Commencement Date,for any reason or no
reason;
(ii)Tenant gives Otay three months notice when Tenant
determines at any time after the Commencement Date that any
governmental or non-governmental license,permit,consent,
9
approval,easement or restriction waiver that is necessary to
enable Tenant to install or operate Tenant's temporary facility
cannot be obtained or renewed at reasonable expense or in
reasonable time period.
(iii)Tenant determines at any time after the
)-=,
Commencement Date that the Premises are not appropriate or
suitable for its operati.ons for economic,·environmental or
technological reasons,including without limitation,any ruling
or directive of the FCC or other governmental or regulatory
agency,or problems with signal strength or interference not
encompassed by subsection (iv)below;provided that the right to
terminate under this subsection (iii)is exercisable only if
Tenant pays Otay,as a termination fee,the balance of the rent
due for the remaining term of this Lease;
8
"
)(iv)Otay commits a default under this Lease and fails
to cure such default within a 30-day notice period,provided
that if the period to diligently cure takes longer than 30 days
and Otay commences to cure the default within the 30-day notice
period,then Otay shall have such additional time as shall be
reasonably necessary to diligently effect a complete cure;
(v)The Premises are totally or partially destroyed
by fire or other casualty so as to hinder Tenant's normal
operations and Otay does not provide to Tenant within ten days
after the casualty occurs a suitable temporary relocation site
for Tenant's facility pending repair and restoration of the
e Premises.
(b)This Lease may be terminated by Otay without further
liability if:
(i)Tenant commits a default under this Lease and
fails to cure such default as provided under paragraph 15,
below.
15.Default
(a)Event of Default.The parties covenant and agree that
a defaul t or breach of this Lease (an "Event of Default")shall
occur and be deemed to exist if,after notice and opportunity to
cure as provided below:
9
"
)(i)Tenant shall default in the payment of rent or
other payments hereunder and said default shall continue for ten
(10)days after Otay provides written notice of the same;or
(ii)Either party shall default in the performance or
observance of any other covenant or condition of this Lease to
be performed or observed if such failure persists for a period
of thirty (30)days after the non-defaulting party provides
written notice of the default to the defaulting party.
(b)Right Upon Default.Upon the occurrence of an Event of
Default,in addition to any other rights or remedies available
to the non-defaulting party under any law,the non-defaulting
party shall have the right to terminate the Lease.e (c)Cure Rights.An Event of Default shall not exist
unless written notice has been given in accordance with this
Lease,and the defaulting party has had the opportunity to cure
as provided herein.The defaulting party shall cure the alleged
default wi thin the manner provided herein;provided,however,
that if the nature of an alleged default is such that it can not
reasonably be cured within such thirty (30)day period,the
defaulting party shall not be in breach of this Lease if it
commences a cure within such period,and thereafter diligently
proceeds with the actions necessary to complete such cure.
16.Destruction of Premises.If the Premises or Tenant's
J facilities are destroyed or damaged,Tenant may elect to termi-
10
nate this Lease as of the date of the damage or destruction by
so notifying Otay no more than 30 days following the date of
damage or destruction.
17.Condemnation.If the condemning authority takes all
of Otay's property or a portion which in Tenant's opinion is
sufficient to render the Premises unsuitable for Tenant's use,
then this Lease shall terminate as of the date when possession
is delivered to the condemning authority.In the event of any
taking under the power of eminent domain,Tenant shall not be
entitled to any portion of the award paid for the taking and
Otay shall receive the full amount of such award except as
claim to any portion of a condemnation award,e provided herein.Tenant hereby expressly waives any right
except
or
for
relocation benefits and goodwill.All other damages,whether
awarded as compensation for diminution in value of the leasehold
or to the fee of the Premises,shall belong to Otay.
ance:
18.Insurance.Tenant shall maintain the following insur-
A.Commercial general liability with limits of
)
$5,000,000 per occurrence;
B.Automobile liability with the combined single
limit of $1,000,000 per accident;
C.Worker's compensation,as required by law;
11
per occurrence.
Tenant shall name Otay as an additional insured on each of
the aforementioned insurance policies and the policies shall
state that they are primary and that any policies Otay maintains
C)D.Employer's liability with limits of $1,000,000
shall be noncontributory.Tenant shall provide Otay with
written certificates of insurance evidencing such coverage.
Said policies shall expressly provide that the policies shall
not be canceled or altered without at least 30 days prior
written notice to Otay.Said policies shall be with insurance
e
companies with an A.M.Best rating of AVII or better.
Otay takes no responsibility for the protection of Tenant's
property from acts of vandalism by third parties.
19.Indemnity.Tenant shall hold harmless,indemnify and
defend Otay and each of Otay's directors,officers,managers,
employees,agents and successors and assigns,from any and all
claims ,suits or actions of any kind and description brought
forth on account of injuries to or death to any person or damage
to any property,including damage to the Premises arising out of
or related to its use of the Premises,except to the extent that
such claims ,suits or actions arise out of the sole negligence
or willful misconduct of Otay.
20.Estoppels Certificate.Tenant shall,at any time and
_oj from time to time upon not less than thirty (30)days prior
12
request by Otay,deliver to Otay a statement in writing
certifying that (a)the Lease is unmodified and in full force
(or if there have been modifications,that the Lease is in full
force as modified and identifying the modifications;(b)the
dates to which rent and other charges have been paid;(c)as far
as the person making the certificate knows,Otay is or is not in
default under any provisions of the Lease;and (d)such other
matters as Otay may reasonably request.
21.Assignment.A tenant shall not assign this Lease
except to an affiliated parent entity,subsidiary,purchaser of
assets,or holder of its FCC license without Otay's prior
the written consent of Otay to9
written
requests
consent.If,during the term of this Lease,
any assignment,
Tenant
Otay's
consent thereto shall not unreasonably be withheld.A consent
to one assignment shall not be deemed to be a consent to any
subsequent assignment,and any subsequent assignment without
Otay's consent shall be void and shall,at Otay's option,
terminate this Lease.
22.Attorneys'Fees.In the event that either party
commences any legal action or proceeding,including an action
for declaratory relief,against the other by reason of the
alleged failure of the other to perform or keep any term,
covenant,or condition of this Lease,the pa.rty prevailing in
)said action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover,in
13
i)in addition to court costs,reasonable attorneys I fees to be
fixed by the court,and such recovery shall include court costs
and attorneys'fees on appeal.
23.Entire Agreement.This Lease contains all agreements,
promises and understandings between Otay and Tenant and no
verbal or oral agreements,promises or understandings shall or
will be binding upon either Otay or Tenant and any addition,
variation or modification to this Lease shall be in effect
unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto.
24.Notjce.Any notice pursuant to this Lease may be made
by first class mail to the addresses set forth below:
e
OTAY:
TENANT:
Otay Water District
Attn:General Manager
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2096
(619)670-2210
c/o Cingular Wireless
Network Real Estate
6100 Atlantic Boulevard
Mail Code GAN02
Norcross,GA 30071
(877)231-5447
copy to:
Cingular Wireless
Attn:Lease Administrator
6160 Cornerstone Court,Suite 150
San Diego,CA 92121
25.MemorandllID of Ilea se.If requested by Tenant,Otay
agrees to promptly execute and deliver to Tenant a recordable
Memorandum of Lease substantially in the form of Exhibit D.
14
26.Choice of Law and Venue.This Lease shall·be
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of
California,and any disputes shall be heard in a court of
competent jurisdiction in the State of California.
27.Resolution of Disputes.All controversies or claims
arising out of or relating to this Lease shall be resolved by
submission to final and binding arbitration at the offices of
the .American Arbitrat ion Association .("AAA")located in San
Diego,California.Such arbitration shall be conducted in
accordance with the most recent version of the AAA commercial
arbitration rules.The prevailing party in any such arbitration
-)
shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses,including
reasonable attorneis'fees.
r
15
C)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Lease as of
'30'flf day of _~
Pacific Bell Wireless,LLC
a Nevada limited liability company d/b/a Cingular Wireless
By:GSM Facilities,LLC
its sale member,
By:Cingular Wireless,LLC,
Its agent
e
By:
Name:
Title:
Date :
/"
Mark A.Appel
Director of Network
f3o~bt
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,CA 91979
BY:
Name:Robert Griego
Title:General Manager
16
State of California
County of SAVl lAeso
On Wlf'M-v'lr.'30 2-t>O'j
.Dale I
/)CALIFORNIA ALL·PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
before me,\N\:Cct\€Ll£¥SIe\VJ
Na etlllcllille of O"lcer(e.9-."Jane Doe,Notary Public")
personally appeared --1~',Adt!..<~=--J~~---,c-j:~~~~L-~_-,----~·_
Name(s)of 51 lie s)
o personally known to meF'proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
8
?l:.A4_8 e $~r=l
MICHELLE KLEIN
CommiuslOn i1357929
to be the person~whose name~~
subscribed to the witl)!R"instrurlfent and
acknowledged to m~t~~executed
the same in his h~~thorized
capacily(i~),an that by his ~
signature~on the instrument the rson(.tj,or
the entity upon behaif of which the personM'
acted,executed the instrument.
-----------OPTIONAL -----------
Though the information below is not required bylaw,it may prove valuable /0 persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:__L=<2.-=i\S'-="..:-:e."-_hj,--,-,~IiL",,,e-,I2..-:::\;=V\&VI~:>L!~-t-~_
Document Date:Number of Pages:_
Signer(s)Other Than Named Above:~__'___
Capacity(ies)Claimed by Signer
\)
Signer's Name:__-'-------~----------
o IndividualoCorporate Officer -Title(s):_,-_
o Partner - 0 Limited 0 GeneraloAttorney-in-FactoTrusteeoGuardi~n or ConservatoroOther:_
Signer Is Representing:_
Top of thumb here
@1999 Naliollal Nolary AssooEilion •9350 De Sol~Ave.,P.O.8<lx 2402 •Chalswortl'l,CA91313-2402 •www.naUOIlalnolary.org Prod.No.5907 Reoro'er:Call TolI·Free 1-800-878·6827
,'..,
~
o,.,
()~SSion
Bay 1,lL~--t<v
c
IMPERIAL
BEACH
njuana Esfuary
VICINITY MAP
a::o
EL CAJON
ERVOIR
>-«5:;,c
0:::«
0...
GTAY WATER DISTRICT
CINGULAR WIRELESS
AT "PATZIG RESERVOIR SITE"
W.O.9192 LOCATION MAP CIPH N/A
EXHIBIT A
/1_-\--UJ
EXHIBIT C
j,
A-1
--.......ZCor>'O«M)._~
._~
m .........(..)
ZOIl<"'CW("):-....:.....~
---SD-972-11-P5-B:S
'~~-::,:,.~
EASTLlKE OTAY DISTRICT
;;:dngular
WIREl-ESS
.-
o
.................."
1t~Po/l..~~
l.t.A.H....
AIt.:fA
......,......,...,....,
[]
GEWERATO~SPACE
(lS'l.><8'W)
~---------------i,,,,,,,L_~_
,...........
o
ENlARGED SITE PlAN
..-_•.._--_._----
.
'\'"~
.~RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
/WHEN RECORDED,MAIL THIS
(yEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT TO:
APN:643-020-13-00
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
.ANDOTAYWATERDISTRICT
THIS MEMORANDUM evidences that a lease :JIl':,r1!!"'llmade and entered into by written
Agreement between and ta Water District to locate a
communications facility at "Reservoi Site'"ite")effective as of ,200_,
between the OTAY WATER DISTRIC ,("owner")~i ater district organized and operated
pursuant to the California Water c Section 71.0,t q.,with an office at 2554 Sweetwater
Springs Boulevard,Spring Valley,91978-70.nd (Lessee")with an
~~~,
parties enter in this Memorandum of Site Agreement as of the effectiveINWITNESSWHEREOF,t
date above.
The Site agreement v es n pa t 0 er leases to , a certain site
("Site")located on a parc 0 ope e ounty of San Diego,State of California,and more'J.particularly described as "t "B"a a e to this memorandum.The site Agreement provides
..'t ccess and electric/telephone facilities rights.The site
memorandum,and ONE (1 a~ti na rm extension.
Should any party ir y information concerning the Site Agreement,they should contact
either . r Owner..
OWNER:
OTAYWATER DISTRICT (VENDOR)
By:_By:~-----
Name:_Name:_
Title:General Manager
J Date:----------
Title:_
Date:_
EXHIBIT "0"
/
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:,""SCALE:1-=100'
NORTH 21'35'20"EAST,10 FEJT THENCE NORTH 56'02'29"EAST,153.48 FEE \T~I;:JCE SOUTH
55'45'03"EAST,77.84 FEET;~NCE SOUTH 17'50'20"WEST 189.54 FEET;THEN NG~TH 79'09'40"
WEST,368.48 FEET;THENCE N TH 21'35'20"EAST,180.34 FEET TO THE TRUE P T 0 BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3:ALL THAT PORTION F SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 18 SOUTH,RANGE 1 WEST,AN ERNARDINO
MERIDIAN,IN THE COUNTY OF N DIEGO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA.MORE PARTICULARLY S LLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST 10RNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION A SHOWN
ON RECORD OF SURVEY MAP .12371,FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER F N
DIEGO COUNTY,OCTOBER 12,1 9;THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWES QU TER
OF SAID SECTION,SOUTH 00''02'WEST,131.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERL II
OF AN 80.00 FOOT WIDE EASE NT GRANTED TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY P A
FILE/PAGE NO.83-353519,C RDED OCTOBER 3,1983,SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POI T
OF BEGINNING;THENCE CON INU NG SOUTH 61'31'02"WEST,585.63 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY
CORNER OF LAND DESCRIB IN DEED TO THE OTAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 15,1965 AS ILE/P GE NO 167296 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID DIS ICTS L ND AS FOLLOWS:SOUTH 42'03'00"EAST,518.011 FEET;THENCE
18'15'15"WEST,199.89 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 480.00 FOOT RADIUS TANGENT CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHWESTE LY ALON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
05'00'00",A DISTANC OF 41.8 'AND TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 23'15'15",179.27 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH ASTERLY INE OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO OTAY MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT,RECORDED EPTEMBER 30,1965 AS FILE/PAGE NO.177739 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;THENCE
ALONG THE BOUNDA Y OF SAID LAST MENTIONED DISTRICT'S LAND;SOUTH 55'44'43"EAST,98.30
FEET,AND SOUTH 1 '50'42"WE T,189.54 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LAND;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEAST RL Y PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID WATER
DISTRICT'S LAND S UTH 79'09'1 "EAST,246.48 FEET;THENCE NORTH 04%~%D 29'21"EAST,33.31
FEET,THENCE NOR H 11'11'28"AST,150.88 FEET;THENCE NORTH 07'15'08"EAST,7590 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0 25'58"EAST,188.84 FEET;THENCE NORTH 12'44'10"EAST,200.96 FEET;THENCE
NORTH 28'44'50"AST,116.10 EET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 10.00
FEET OF SAID NO THWEST QUA TER OF SECTION 3,THENCE ALONG SMD WESTERLY LINE,NORTH
00'36'28"EAST 4 2.35 FEET T A POINT ON SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY
WATER AUTHORIT EASEMENT,H ING A POINT IN THE ARC OF AA 1970.00 FOOT RADIUS
NON-TANGENT C RVE,CONCAV SOUTHWESTERLY,A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH
48'57'30"EAST;HENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE.BEING ALONG THE ARC
OF SAID CURVE,HROUGH A C NTRAL ANGLE OF 00'45'21"A DISTANCE OF 25.99 FEET;THENCE
TANGENT TO SAl CURVE NORT 41'47'51"WEST,130.05 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXIBIT B
,,
,,
APN 643-020-13-00
,,
'"
~~ai
¥:n:i'xw
,,!,N¥d"-
Ld'5.~W/•g-
"
E"/Ld'5'",<u
/'"..a:~/..,
is)~~/0:......"""'........1 ----------'
''')
AGENDA ITEM 5b
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Mark Watton,
General Manager
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Assl.GM):
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
March 7,2007
DIV.NO.
SUBJECT:Approve Amendments to the Cooperative Agreement Creating the
Interagency Water Task Force
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the board approve the amendments to the attached
Cooperative Agreement creating the Interagency Water Task Force.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present for the board's consideration the approval of the
proposed amendments to the Cooperative Agreement creating the
Interagency Water Task Force.
ANALYSIS:
The Interagency Water Task Force was implemented in June 1990
through a mutual cooperative agreement between the Otay Water
District,Sweetwater Authority and the City of Chula Vista.The
Task Force's purpose is to study water related issues facing the
City of Chula Vista and make recommendations with regard to such
issues to the City Council and to affected water agencies.
The Interagency Water Task Force wished to update its bylaws and
had voted to adopt the following amendments at a meeting held on
February 12,2007:
~Added the election of a vice-chair annually.
~Added to "PART II:Functions and DutiesU of the bylaws,
Drought Management Programs.
~Changed reference to how often the Task Force shall meet to
"at least twice a year,or quarterly as agenda matters
require"(rather than meeting each quarter).
~Added language to provide further clarification as noted in
the attached strike-thru copy (Attachment B).
It was suggested that the amended Cooperative Agreement be
presented to the Task Force participants'boards and the city's
council for formal adoption.The attached agreement is
presented for this purpose.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENT A
Approve Amendments to the Cooperative Agreement Creating
SUBJECT/PROJECT:the Interagency Water Task Force
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The
following comments were made:
•The Interagency Water Task Force's main interest in
amending its by-laws was to add the election of a Vice
Chair who would preside over the Task Force meetings when
the Chair was not available to attend the meetings.This
change is included in the attached copy of the Task Force
bylaws.;
•The amendments also include verbiage that the Task Force
would "meet at least twice a year or quarterly as agenda
matters require."The committee indicated disappointment
that the language seemed to imply that the Task Force
would meet less often.It was discussed that the Task
Force could meet as often as needed.Meetings are
dependent on attendees.It was noted that there has been
more interest among attendees and recently,discussions
included the exploration of implementing solar cell
sites.
•It was indicated that the amended agreement would be
formally adopted by the City of Chula Vista Council and,
for consistency,is being presented for formal adoption
by the Otay Board of Directors;
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported
staff's recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors
on the consent calendar.
AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,mEOTAY
WATER DISTRICT,AND THE-SWEETWATER AUTHORITY CREATING
THE CHULA VISTA INTERAGENCY WATER TASK FORCE AND
ESTABLISHING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES THEREOF
WHEREAS,in May 1989,the City Council formed the Chula Vista Ad Hoc Water
Task Force for the purpose ofstudying water related issues facing the City of Chula Vista and
to make recommendations to the City Council and to the affected water agencies regarding
water related matters;and
WHEREAS,said Task Force has received presentations from leaders and staff
members from all major water related agencies in Southern California since the date of its
commission;and
WHEREAS,said Task Force has,at the City Council meeting of June 19 (Item 4b)
reported back to the City Council with regard to its recommendations which were contained
in a report from said Task Force dated May 1990,entitled "Recommendations Report to Chula
Vista City Council,"a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City;and
WHEREAS,said Task Force has recommended the formation of a Chula Water Task
Force to discuss local water related issues;and
WHEREAS,at the City Council meeting of June 19,1990,the City Council did direct
staff to study and report back on the formation of said Task Force;and,
WHEREAS,it is mutually agreed between the City Council of Chula Vista,the board
of directors of the Otay Water District,and the board of directors of the Sweetwater
Authority that an Interagency Water Task Force to deal with local related water issues would
be advisable;and
WHEREAS,an agreement should be prepared establishing the formation,
responsibilities,and duties of the Task Force;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OTAY WATER DISTRICT,AND THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Part I:Interagency Water Task Force
Creation;Appointment of Members;Term;Quorum;Rules and Regulations.
1 There is hereby created a Chula Vista Interagency Water Task Force.The
Task Force shall consist of seven (7)voting members and non-voting ex-
officio members and such other ex-officio members as the agencies may
assign.
2.Ex-officio members shall be entitled to deliberate,and participate in the
deliberations ofthe Task Force,but shall not be entitled to vote on matters before the
Task Force.
3.Of the Voting Members,two shall be representatives of,and members of the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista and appointed by the City Council
("Council Representatives"),one shall be a representative of the general public
of,and qualified elector of the City of Chula Vista and appointed by the City
Council ("General Public Representative"),two shall be members of the Otay
Water District Governing Board and appointed by their board of directors
("Otay Water District Representatives"),and two shall be members of the
Sweetwater Authority Governing Board and appointed by their board of
directors ("Sweetwater Authority Representatives").The three groups of
representatives,to wit:Council Representatives,Otay Water District
Representatives,and Sweetwater Authority Representatives shall be
sometimes herein referred to as "Agency Voting Classifications."
4.All vacancies shall be filled by the appointing authority of the representative
of the office vacated.
5.Each agency shall rotate the appointment of a secretary to the Task Force
periods agreed to by the Task Force.
6.The Task Force shall select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from its
membership annually in the month ofJanuary.
7.The Task Force shall not conduct business vv'ithout the presence of a quorum
which is hereby defined to exist '.vhen at least four members are present,and at
least each Agency voting Classification is represented.Four voting members,
including at least one Council Representative,one Otay Water District
Representative,and one Sweetwater Authority Representative,shall constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business.Otherwise,the Task Force shall
adopt reasonable rules and regulations for carrying out all the functions and
duties of the Task Force and governing its meetings.All reports and
recommendations shall be made in writing.All officers and department heads
of all agencies shall cooperate with and render reasonable assistance to the
Task Force.
Part II:Functions and Duties
1.It shall be the function of the Task Force to investigate,study and make
recommendations to the Chula Vista City Council~and to each of the governing
boards of each of the two members '.vhich are water providers ("Water Provider
members")the Otay Water District Governing Board,and the Sweetwater
Authority Governing Board concerning water related matters.The primary
objective of the Task Force shall be to make recommendations with the goal of
assuring an adequate and high quality supply of water for the residents of the
region.The Task Force shall produce a report which provides objectives
including but not limited to:
(1)Water Quality
(2)Water Reclamation Program
(3)Water Conservation Program/Drought Management Programs
(4)Emergency Water Storage Supply
(5)Water Pressure
(6)Water Distribution
(7)Implication of Land Use Proposals on Water Supply
2.In addition to the above,the Task Force shall:
A.Make recommendations as to how the City of Chula VistaL and the
Water Provider Members the Otay Water District,and the Sweetwater
Authority may become more proactive in state and regional water
related issues.
B.Make recommendations as to how the City,the Water Provider
Members,the Otay Water District,the Sweetwater Authority,and the
various water purveyors may integrate their long and short term master
and general plans for development.Each Agency reserves the right to
develop and implement its own Water Master Plan.However,this
Task Force may review and comment on these Plans with the common
goal that~e§.ach such Plan should represent a coherent and
complimentary water policy (relating to usage,storage,conservation,
and enforcement)for the territory '""hich is the subject matter of
covering the combinedjurisdiction§.of the City...and the Water
Provider Members.the Otay Water District,and the Sweetwater
Authority.
C.Make recommendations to the City Council...and to the appropriate
Water Boards of the Water Provider Members the Otay Water District
Governing Board,and the Sweetwater Authority Governing Board as
to the establishment of ordinances,policies and guideline manuals for
the implementation of water conservation and other water related
measures.
D.Recommend the establishment,with implementation plans,of a new
water use and conservation ethic and to recommend to the City and the
Water Provider Members Council,the Otay Water District Governing
Board,and the Sweetwater Authority Governing Board means for
implementing same.
E.Provide advice to the City in developing any water element or plan as
part of its General Plan and/or Growth Management Plan.
F.Study and report,as requested,the impacts to the water systems of
land use decisions.
3.Such other and further matters as have been or may,from time to time,be
assigned to the Task Force by the City Council...or Water Provider Members
beaffis.the Otay Water District Governing Board,and the Sweetwater Authority
Governing Board.
Part III:Meetings
The Interagency Water Task Force shall schedule at least one regular meeting each
ql:larter year meet at least twice a year,or quarterly as agenda matters require on the day
and at the time and in the place that it shall designate by resolution and/or by bylaw and
such special meetings as the Task Force may require.
Part IV:Termination
This agreement may be terminated by any party upon written notice authorized for
issuance by its governing board.This Cooperative Agreement may be terminated upon
the written authorization of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,the Otay Water
District Governing Board,or the Sweetwater Authority Governing Board.
[End of Page.Next Page is Signature Page]
Signature Page to the
Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement Creating the
Chula Vista Interagency Water Task Force
Now therefore,the parties hereto,having read and understood the terms and
conditions of this agreement,do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting
their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
Date:
Attest:
Susan Bigelow,
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Anne Moore,
City Attorney
Date:
Approved as to form:
Yuri Calderon,
General Counsel
Date:
Approved as to form:
C.Michael Cowett,
General Counsel
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Cheryl Cox,
Mayor
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
Mark Watton,
General Manager
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
Dennis Bostad,
General Manager
AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATNE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,OTAY WATER DISTRICT,AND
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY CREATING THE CHULA VISTA
INTERAGENCY WATER TASK FORCE AND ESTABLISHING THE
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES THEREOF
WHEREAS,in May 1989,the City Council formed the Chula Vista Ad Hoc Water
Task Force for the purpose of studying water related issues facing the City of Chula Vista and
to make recommendations to the City Council and to the affected water agencies regarding
water related matters;and
WHEREAS,said Task Force has received presentations from leaders and staff
members from all major water related agencies in Southern California since the date of its
commission;and
WHEREAS,said Task Force has,at the City Council meeting of June 19 (Item 4b)
reported back to the City Council with regard to its recommendations which were contained
in a report from said Task Force dated May 1990,entitled "Recommendations Report to Chula
Vista City Council,"a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk ofsaid City;and
WHEREAS,said Task Force has recommended the formation of a Chula Water Task
Force to discuss local water related issues;and
WHEREAS,at the City Council meeting of June 19,1990,the City Council did direct
staff to study and report back on the formation of said Task Force;and,
WHEREAS,it is mutually agreed between the City Council of Chula Vista,the board
of directors of the Otay Water District,and the board of directors of the Sweetwater
Authority that an Interagency Water Task Force to deal with local related water issues would
be advisable;and
WHEREAS,an agreement should be prepared establishing the formation,
responsibilities,and duties of the Task Force;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OTAY WATER DISTRICT,AND THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Part I:Interagency Water Task Force
Creation;Appointment of Members;Term;Quorum;Rules and Regulations.
1.There is hereby created a Chula Vista Interagency Water Task Force.The
Task Force shall consist of seven (7)voting members and non-voting ex-
officio members and such other ex-officio members as the agencies may
assign.
2.Ex-officio members shall be entitled to deliberate,and participate in the
deliberations of the Task Force,but shall not be entitled to vote on matters before the
Task Force.
3.Of the Voting Members,two shall be representatives of,and members of the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista and appointed by the City Council
("Council Representatives"),one shall be a representative of the general public
of,and qualified elector of the City of Chula Vista and appointed by the City
Council ("General Public Representative"),two shall be members of the Otay
Water District Governing Board and appointed by their board of directors
("Otay Water District Representatives"),and two shall be members of the
Sweetwater Authority Governing Board and appointed by their board of
directors ("Sweetwater Authority Representatives").The three groups of
representatives,to wit:Council Representatives,Otay Water District
Representatives,and Sweetwater Authority Representatives shall be
sometimes herein referred to as "Agency Voting Classifications."
4.All vacancies shall be filled by the appointing authority of the representative
of the office vacated.
5.Each agency shall rotate the appointment of a secretary to the Task Force
periods agreed to by the Task Force.
6.The Task Force shall select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from its
membership annually in the month ofJanuary.
7.Four voting members,including at least one Council Representative,one Otay
Water District Representative,and one Sweetwater Authority Representative,
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.Otherwise,the Task
Force shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for carrying out all the
functions and duties of the Task Force and governing its meetings.All reports
and recommendations shall be made in writing.All officers and department
heads of all agencies shall cooperate with and render reasonable assistance to
the Task Force.
Part II:Functions and Duties
1.It shall be the function of the Task Force to investigate,study and make
recommendations to the Chula Vista City Council,the Otay Water District
Governing Board,and the Sweetwater Authority Governing Board concerning
water related matters.The primary objective of the Task Force shall be to make
recommendations with the goal of assuring an adequate and high quality supply
of water for the residents of the region.The Task Force shall produce a report
which provides objectives including but not limited to:
(1)Water Quality
(2)Water Reclamation Program
(3)Water Conservation Program/Drought Management Programs
(4)Emergency Water Storage Supply
(5)Water Pressure
(6)Water Distribution
(7)Implication of Land Use Proposals on Water Supply
2.In addition to the above,the Task Force shall:
A.Make recommendations as to how the City of Chula Vista,the Otay
Water District,and the Sweetwater Authority may become more
proactive in state and regional water related issues.
B.Make recommendations as to how the City,the Otay Water District,
the Sweetwater Authority,and the various water purveyors may
integrate their long and short term master and general plans for
development.Each Agency reserves the right to develop and
implement its own Water Master Plan.However,this Task Force may
review and comment on these Plans.Each such Plan should represent a
coherent and complimentary water policy (relating to usage,storage,
conservation,and enforcement)for the territory covering the
combined jurisdictions of the City,the Otay Water District,and the
Sweetwater Authority.
C.Make recommendations to the City Council,the Otay Water District
Governing Board,and the Sweetwater Authority Governing Board as
to the establishment of ordinances,policies and guideline manuals for
the implementation of water conservation and other water related
measures.
D.Recommend the establishment,with implementation plans,of a new
water use and conservation ethic and to recommend to the City
Council,the Otay Water District Governing Board,and the
Sweetwater Authority Governing Board means for implementing
same.
E.Provide advice to the City in developing any water element or plan as
part of its General Plan and/or Growth Management Plan.
F.Study and report,as requested,the impacts to the water systems of
land use decisions.
3.Such other and further matters as have been or may,from time to time,be
assigned to the Task Force by the City Council,the Otay Water District
Governing Board,and the Sweetwater Authority Governing Board.
Part III:Meetings
The Interagency Water Task Force shall meet at least twice a year,or quarterly as
agenda matters require on the day and at the time and in the place that it shall designate
by resolution and/or by bylaw and such special meetings as the Task Force may require.
Part IV:Termination
This Cooperative Agreement may be terminated upon the written authorization of the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista,the Otay Water District Governing Board,or
the Sweetwater Authority Governing Board.
[End ofPage.Next Page is Signature Page]
Date:
Attest:
Susan Bigelow,
City Clerk
Signature Page to the
Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement Creating the
Chula Vista Interagency Water Task Force
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Cheryl Cox,
Mayor
Ii
Approved as to form:
Anne Moore,
City Attorney
Date:_
Approved as to form:
Yuri Calderon,
General Counsel
Date:
Approved as to form:
C.Michael Cowett,
General Counsel
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
Mark Watton,
General Manager
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
Dennis Bostad,
General Manager
AGENDA ITEM 5c
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:March 7,2007
1,2DIV.
NO.
R2022/
001103
PROJECT I
SUBPROJECT:
Ron Ripperger f./'\.--./
Engineering Manager
Rod posad~~,
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magafia~
Assistant General~anager,Engineering and Operations
Change Order No.3 to the Contract with Ortiz Corporation
for Construction of the 30-Inch Recycled Water Pipeline
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!. GM):
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board approve Change Order No.3 to the existing
contract with Ortiz Corporation (Ortiz)for construction of the
30-Inch Recycled Water Pipeline project in the amount of
$53,969.01.(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.3 (Exhibit B)for $53,969.01 to the contract
with Ortiz.
ANALYSIS:
At the May 10,2005 Board meeting,Ortiz was awarded the
construction contract for the recycled water pipeline project.
The project construction began in September,2005 and is
completed with the exception of start up.Hirsch &Company was
awarded the Construction Management contract for the project at
the July 7,2005 Board meeting.Currently,work is under way
performing functional checkout to prepare the newly completed
30-inch recycled water pipeline,450-1 Reservoir and 680-1 Pump
Station for start up.Staff is coordinating with the City of
San Diego (City)to ensure that the start up for this project
will be successful and recycled water can be delivered to the
Otay Water District (District's)customers on schedule.
To date,two (2)change orders have been processed in the amount
of $41,140.79.These change orders covered a variety of items
including credits for risk assessment reviews and relocation of
pipeline operations allowances to adds for modifying pipeline
alignments and profiles.
Change Order No.3 consists of seven (7)items for increases to
the contract including start up support and ten (10)items for
decreases to the contract including deletion of sidewalk,curb
and gutter installation for a net increase to the contract of
$53,969.01.Since start up time is included in Change Order No.
3 staff does not anticipate any more change orders for this
project.Including Change Order No.3,the total cost of all
change orders is $95,109.80.Staff recommends approving Change
Order No.3 in the amount of $53,969.01.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approved total budget for CIP R2022 is $23,600,000.
Expenditures to date are $22,225,805.Total commitments to
date,including this Change Order,are approximately
$23,151,175.See Attachment B for budget detail.
The Project Manager anticipates that based on the attached
financial analysis that the budget will be sufficient to support
this project.Finance has determined that all funding for this
project will be available from the Recycled Expansion Fund.The
District anticipates up to a 25-percent reimbursement from the
Bureau of Reclamation.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's mission statement and the
District's Strategic Goal to:"Design and construct new
infrastructure -satisfy current and future water needs for
Potable,Recycled,and Wastewater Services."
LEGAL IMPACT:
Exhibit
Attachments
RR/RP
P;\WORKING\CIP R022\WO 8875\Staff Reports\BD 03-07-07,Ortiz Corporation CO*3.doc
2
~
1"=3000'
CIP R2022
-'~':-';'.-:::,~;~-:-':"",:,---,-
ROAD
LEGEND
EASEMENTS
1.AYERS LAND COMPANY
2.SAN DIEGO LANDFILL SYSTEMS
3.ROBINHOOD PT HOA
4.ATOMIC INVESTMENTS
5.KOHLS
6.YACOEL7.DAVIES FAMILY TRUST8.PARDEE HOMES
9.PARDEE CONSTRUCTION
10.KAMBER
11.FULLER
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT • - - - •
o«oet:
PFnECT"~1
SITE IMPERIAL
BEACH
(~
~cS+'(/)
I-o
~
+'ii:cx
Lei
./VI+'ii:cXW./~§i~(\J[~~==~Il~_======~~===~:::]SOUTHBAYWATEN USA
RECLAMATION PLANT MEXICO
C)
;OTAY WATER DISTRICT
G 30"RECYCLED WATERz
il2 PIPELINE PROJECTo;W.O.8875 LOCATION MAP
CL....~~~~~-~-------------...
EXHIBIT A
f-VICINITY MAP~t,---::==::-,r:=====i=====""~~~~~'''''''''''''''c",,,,,,,.,,,,,,.cc,,,,<[PALM AVE PALM AVE
"(Y)
(Y)
6~
If)
C)
C)
(\J
'-CJ'
'-
(\J
OTAYWATER DISTRICT EXHIBIT B
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.3
PROJECT/ITEM:30-inch Recycled Water Pipeline Project
CONTRACTORNENDOR:Ortiz Corporation,Inc.
APPROVED BY:Board:REF.P.O.No:
DESCRIPTION:
See attached page 2 of 5 for continuation.
REASON:
See attached page 3 of 5 for continuation.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
REF.CIP No.:R2022
REF.W.O.No.:8875 DATE:02/05/2007
Revise Contract to add $53,969.01 for a total Contract amount of $14,842,709.80.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
CONTRACT/P.O.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$
$
$
$
14,747,600.00
14,788,740.79
53,969.01
14,842,709.80odays
12/23/2006
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:
TITLE:DATE:_
ADDRESS:Ortiz Corporation
788 Energy Way,Chula Vista,CA 91911
STAFF APPROVALS:
PROJ.MGR._
DIV.MGR:_
CHIEF:_
ASSIST G.M.:_
DISTRICT APPROVAL:
DATE:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
DATE:_
GEN.MANAGER:DATE:_
COPIES:0 FILE (Orig.),0 CONTRACTORNENDOR,0 CHIEF.-ENGINEERING.,0 ASST CHIEF.-FINANCE 0 ENGR.MGR.
o ACCTS PAYABLE 0 INSPECTION 0 PROJ MGR 0 ENGR.SECRETARY 0 PURCHASING
C:\Documents and Settings\Ronr\Local Settings\TemporaryInternet Files\OLKI\CO 03 RFP's 13-20 Closeout.doc
Contract /P.O.Change Order No.3
Description of Work
page 2 of 5
Description Increase Decrease
Item No.1:RFP 013
This Change Order provides for modification of the pipeline profile and $21,532.13
alignment from Station 10+00 to 17+50 on West Point Drive alloWing for
installation of a SDG&E natural gas line to feed the 450-1 Reservoir Site,per
RFP 013.
Item No.2:RFP 014
This Change Order provides for modification of the pipeline profile from Station $31,319.90
53+30 to 56+60.This profile modification relocates the pipeline and casing
beneath MTDB to a profile above the unmarked fiber-optic telecom lines beneath
Beyer Road,per RFP 014.
Item No.3:RFP 015
This Change Order provides for installation of concrete retaining walls around $11,600.00
the AVAR enclosures at Station 297+52 and 14+32 due to the existing ground
slope conditions,per RFP 015.
Item No.4:RFP 016
This Change Order provides for implementation of additional paving $100,009.15
requirements due to alignment modifications on both Sequoia Street and West
Point Ave,per RFP 016.
Item No.5:RFP 018
This Change Order provides for removal,disposal and impacts associated with $49,915.32
unanticipated rocks and cobbles encountered in the receiving horizontal
directional drill (HDD)pit at Station 237+86 that impacted prosecution of the
HDD operation,per RFP 018.
Item No.6:RFP 019
This Change Order provides for removal,disposal and impacts associated with $40,184.79
an unmarked and abandoned telecom ductbank in the Interstate 5 right-of-way
that impacted prosecution ofthe 1-5 Jack &Bore casing installation,per RFP 019
Item No.7:RFP 020
This Change Order provides for Start-up Support services by the pipeline $51,975.76
contractor.Support will include manning of blow-off points,monitoring of
pipeline pressures and discharge of flows to simulate usage of the pipeline
during initial start-up operations,per RFP 020.
Item No.8:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 17,Curb and
Gutter Replacement by $69,125.00 to a new authorized amount of $875.00.
(Delete 1,975 LF at $35 /LF)
Item No.9:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 18,Sidewalk
Replacement by $51,350.00 to a new authorized amount of $650.00.(Delete
1975 LF at $26 I LF)
Item No.10:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 28,Utility
Undercrossings Not Identified On The Plans Greater Than 4-lnches by
$19,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $6,000.00.(Delete 38 EA at $500 /
EA)
Item No.11:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 29,Unknown
Utilities Allowance by $5,885.29 to a new authorized amount of $194,114.71.
Item No.12:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 31,Compliance
with SOAPCD Allowance by $10,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.
U;\OS\OS2\CM Files\Changcs\Change Ordcrs\CO 03 -Closcoul\CO 03 -RFPs 13 -20 Closcoul.doc
$69,125.00
$51,350.00
$19,000.00
$5,885.29
$10,000.00
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 33,Additional
Mandatory Night Shift Operations by $19,200 to a new authorized amount of
$4,800.00.(Delete 24 Shifts at $800 I Shift)
Item No.14:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 34,InleUOutiet
Traffic Control Plan Preparation Allowance by $3,625.75 to a new authorized
amount of $1,374.25.
Item No.15:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 35,Additional
Potholing,by $46,750.00 to a new authorized amount of $63,250.00.(Delete 85
EA at $550 lEA)
Item No.16:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 36,
Archeological and Native American Recovery Allowance by $2,632.00 to a new
authorized amount of $22,368.00.
Item No.17:
This Change Order decreases the amount allocated for Bid Item 37,Sound
Walls Allowance by $25,000.00 to a new authorized amount of $0.00.
page 3 of 5
$19,200.00
$3,625.75
$46,750.00
$2,632.00
$25,000.00
o
o
o
o
o
Sub Total Amount $306,537.05 $252,568.04 0
Total Net Change Order Amount $53,969.01
Revisions to:BID SCHEDULE
Item #..Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount
17 Curb and Gutter Replacement 1,975 LF $35 $875.00
18 Sidewalk Replacement 1,975 LF $26 $650.00
28 Utility Undercrossings Not Identified On The Plans Greater Than 12 EA $500 $6,000.004-lnches
29 Unknown Utilities Allowance 1 LS LS $194,114.71
31 Compliance with SDAPCD Allowance 1 LS LS $0.00
33 Additional Mandatory Night Shift Operations 24 Shift $800 $4,800.00
34 InleUOutiet Traffic Control Plan Preparation 1 LS LS $1,374.25
35 Additional Potholing 115 EA $550 $63,250.00
36 Archeological and Native American Recovery Allowance 1 LS LS $22,368.00
37 Sound Walls Allowance 1 LS LS $0.00
Reason:
Item No.1:RFP 013
Subsequent to beginning construction it was discovered that SDG&E did not have the infrastructure on the South side of the
450-1 Reservoir site as anticipated.This discovery resulted in SDG&E re-designing the natural gas feed line to the Reservoir
site to West Point Dr.This modification required that the 30-inch pipeline alignment be shifted further East than originally
designed.This change is required to modify the profile and alignment of the 30-inch pipeline to allow for installation of the
Reservoir site required natural gas feed line.
Item NO.2:RFP 014
Subsequent to beginning construction it was discovered that a fiber-optic telecom ductbank existed beneath Beyer Road that
had not shown on utility searches or Dig-Alert street mark-out.Potholing resulting in the discovery that the utility was in
conflict with the designed profile for the 48-inch casing beneath MTDB ROWand Beyer Road.ReSUlting from this discovery
the profile of the casing and pipeline was modified to avoid the conflict and allow installation of the pipeline.This change is
required to adjust the profile of the casing,modify fittings at both ends of the casing and change the elevations of both the
jacking and receiving pits for the casing installation.
U:\05\052\CM Filcs\Changes\Changc Orders\CO 03 -Closeout\CO 03 -RFPs 13 -20 Closeout.doc
Contract /P.O.Change Order No.3 page 4 of 5
Item No.3:RFP 015
Subsequent to beginning construction it was discovered that the location of the Air Vacuum /Air Release Valves (AVAR)at
Stations 297+52 and 14+32 could not be achieved unless retaining walls were constructed due to existing surface grades at
the locations.This discovery resulted in the requirement to implement construction of a retaining walls at the subject
locations to ensure long term serviceability of the AVARs.
Item No.4:RFP 016
Subsequent to beginning construction the Contractor requested to modify the alignment of the pipeline on Sequoia Road.
The alignment modification was approved and resulted in the requirement to significantly increase the limits of asphalt re-
paving.This alignment modification was approved because it also eliminated the requirement to replace the curb/gutter and
sidewalk for the length of the street resulting in a net savings to the Contract of $39,475 due to the credit received on Bid Item
No.17 and Bid Item No.18.This Change Order is required to compensate the Contractor for the increased paving required
on Sequoia as wells as West Point Ave.due to the alignment modification resulting from installation of a SDG&E natural gas
line for the 450 Reservoir site.
Item No.5:RFP 018
Subsequent to beginning construction operations and during horizontal directional drilling (HOD)work,cobbles and debris
were discovered in the HOD receiving pit impacting the HOD drilling process.The cobbles and debris were not indicated in
the soils report and could not have been anticipated as part of the bid process.This Change Order is required to compensate
the Contractor for additional excavation required to remove interfering portions of the cobbles and debris and standby time for
the HOD drill rig during the excavation of the cobbles and debris and SUbsequent backfill of overexcavated materials.
Item No.6:RFP 019
Resulting from the 1-5 Jack and Bore operation an abandoned telecommunications ductbank was discovered beneath the
CalTrans Right-of-Way adjacent to the travel lanes.The ductbank initially thought to be contain active cables presented a
concrete barrier to the prosecution of the 60-inch bore.Upon discovery that it was no longer in use,efforts were undertaken
to jackhammer the interfering portion from the face of the bore to enable the boring machine to continue installation of the
casing.This Change Order is required to compensate the Contractor for delays and removal of interfering portions of the
unknown ductbank.
Item No.7:RFP 020
Resulting from System Start-Up meetings it was determined that a comprehensive system start-up would be required to
adequately interface multiple Otay Water District projects with the City of San Diego.This system start-up would encompass
not just the 30-inch Pipeline Project but also the 450-1 Reservoir /680-1 Pump Station and the South Bay Water
Reclaimation Plant.To sucessfully accompish this system start-up,Contractor support would be necessary to monitor
AVAR's,B/O's during initial pumping operations and record pipeline pressures at various locations during start-up to ensure
the system performed as designed.
Item No.8:
The Contract Unit Price Bid Item,Item No.17,Curb and Gutter Replacement,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in
the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.9:
The Contract Unit Price Bid Item,Item No.18,Sidewalk Replacement,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the
performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.10:
The Contract Unit Price Bid Item,Item No.28,Utility Undercrossings Not Identified On The Plans Greater Than 4-lnches,
was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the performance ofthe contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.11:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.29,Unknown Utilities,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the
performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.12:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.31,Compliance with SDAPCD,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the
performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.13:
The Contract Unit Price Bid Item,Item No.33,Additional Mandatory Night Shift Operations,was utilized to the maximum
practical extent in the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.14:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.34,Inlet/Outlet Traffic Control Plan Preparation,was utilized to the maximum
practical extent in the performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
U:\05\052\CM Filcs\Changcs\Changc Ordcrs\CO 03 -Closeout\CO 03·RFPs 13 -20 Closcout.doc
Contract I P.O.Change Order No.3 page 5 of 5
Item No.15:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.35,Additional Potholing,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the
performance of the contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.16:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.36,Archeological and Native American Recovery,was utilized to the maximum
practical extent in the performance ofthe contract work and is no longer required.
Item No.17:
The Contract Allowance Bid Item,Item No.37,Sound Walls,was utilized to the maximum practical extent in the performance
of the contractwork and is no longer required.
U:\05\052\CM Files\Changcs\Changc Orders\CO 03 -Closeout\CO 03·RFPs 13 -20 Closcout.doc
iSUBJECTjpROJECT:
!R2022-001103
ATTACHMENT A
Change Order No.3 to the Contract with Ortiz Corporation
for Construction of the 30-Inch Recycled Water Pipeline
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held
on February 21,2007.The following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting the board's approval of Change Order NO.3 to the existing contract with
Ortiz Corporation for $53,969.01.
•To date,the total change order dollars processed for this project are $95,109.80 (this total
includes Change Order No.3).
•It was discussed that the change order total is greatly under the industry average of 5 to
10%of the total project cost.Under the average,it is expected that there would be
between $1.5 to $1.7 million in change orders.
•It was noted that the staff of Ortiz Corporation,Hirsch &Company and RBF were top notch
and this has helped keep change orders and costs down.
•The Committee inquired if staff forwarded thank you letters to the contractors for their
excellent work on the District's projects.Staff indicated that,in fact,two letters have been
completed and would be forwarded should the board approve this change order request.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported staff's recommendation and forwarding
to the Board of Directors on the consent calendar.
3
...........................,
Ortiz Corporation
Water Pipeline
Contract with
Recycled
the
the 30-Inch
ATTACHMENT 8
3 to
of
Change Order No.
for Construction
Budget Detail
ro"········Y·SUBJECT/PROJECT:I R2 02 2-0 01103
....·························o·t~y···w~'t~r··6i~i~i·;;t····
R2022 -RecPL -3D-Inch,450 Zone,Dtay Valley
Budget
$23,600,000
Committed Expenditures
,-"usanuIng
GOl'nnJ/tl71ent &
Fnrecast
ProJectedFinal
Cost
Vendor/
Comments
Planning
In House/Labor
Outside Services
Consultant Contracts
Subcontract
Meals
Professional &Legal Fees
Parking &Tolls
Postage
RegUlatory Agency Fee
Land/EasementAcqUisition
Total Planning
Design
In House/Labor
Consultant Contracts
Printing
Shipping
Temporary Labor
Professional &Legal Fees
Regulatory Agency Fee
Easement
Office Supplies
Meals
Advertise and A'Ward
Total Design
Construction
In House/Labor
Consultant Contracts
Construction Contracts
Materials
Rental
Shipping
Temporary Labor
Printing
Advertise and Award
Inventory
Regulatory Agency Fee
Staff Start Up Costs
Water Loss
AccpUciose-out
Total Construction
City ofSan Diego Capacity Fee
Community Outreach
Materials
Outside Services
District Events
Temporary Labor
Total Community Outreach
Grand Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
145,157 145,157
18,732 18,732
78,331 78,331
5,130 5,130
5,837 5,837
17,276 17,276
176 176
22 22
29,013 29,013
20 20
5 5
350 350
162,464 162,464
240,110 240,110
702,620.19 $702.619.70 $
335,040 335,040
1,500,613 1.500.613
43 43
131 131
10,106 10,106
2,500 2,500
72,599 72,599
528 528
14,246 14,246
14,753 14,763
147 147
161 181
909 909
63,661 63,661
1,452 1,452
6,050 6.050
5,200 5,200
44,165 44,165
56 56
41 41
249 249
78 78
2,072,726.26 $2,072,726.41 $
199,475 199,475
587,106 587,106
657,096 170,069
324,393 269,924
43 43
33,236 32,942
14,842,710 14,510,980
1,418 1,418
8,328 8,328
340 340
180 180
183 183
442 442
182 182
49 49
274 274
48 48
5,331 5,331
144 144
1,370 1,370
1,889 1,889
35,218 35,218
700 700
50,000
874 674
16,750,830 $15,827,310 $
3,600,000 $3,600,000 $
873 673
17,742 15,892
1,739 1,739
110 110
425 425
1,206 1,206
515 515
925 925
1,650 1,650
'8 16
24,999 $23,149 $
23,151,175 $22,225,805 $
4
$
$
487,027
54,470
294
331,730
50,000
0
923,520 $
$
0
1,850
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,850 $
925,370 $
145.157
18,732 Recon
78,331 Berryman &Hennigar
5,130 Lee &Ro Inc
5,837 Regional Environmental
17,276 Daniel Boyle
176 HelixEnvironmental Planning
22 Petty Cash Custodian
29,013 Burke Williams &Sorensen LLP
20 Petty Cash Custodian
5 Petty Cash Custodian
350 San Diego Gas &Electric
162,464 Clerk ofthe SuperiorCourt
240,110 First Southwestern Title
702,620
335,040
1,500,613 Lee &Ro
43 Bullet Logistics Inc.
131 Carmel Business Systems Inc.
10,106 Hatch &Parent
2,500 WRA &Associates
72,599 Jacobs Engineering
528 Divot Repair
14,246 Recon
14,753 OCB Reprographics
147 Team Reprographics,LLC
161 Fed-Ex
909 Sedona Staffing Services Inc.
63,661 Daley &Heft
1,452 Hatch &Parent
6,050 San Diego Gas &Electric
5,200 San Diego Metropolitan
44,165 First Southwestern Title
56 Petty Cash CUstodian
41 Petty Cash Custodian
249 Union Tribune PUblishing Co.
76 San Diego Daily Scripts
2,072,726
199,475
587,106 Hirsch &Co
657,096 RBF Consulting
324,393 Lee &Ro
43 Bullet Logistics Inc.
33,236 Mooney,Jones &Stokes
14,842,710 Ortiz Corporation (C.O.#3)
1,418 City ofChula:Vista
8,328 Badger Meter,Inc.
340 CW Mcgrath Inc.
180 Hanson Aggregates Pacific
183 Rent><
442 Casper Company
182 Fed-Ex
49 At'Work Personnel Services
274 Primary Funding Corp
48 Sedona Staffing Services Inc.
5,331 OCB Reprographics
144 San Diego Daily Scripts
1,370 Marston &Marston Company
1,889
35,218 City ofChuta Vista
700 San Diego ArCheological Center
50,000 Anticipated Stafflabor costs
674
16,750,830
3,600,000 City Treasurer
673 Vernon Company
17,742 Marston &Marston Company
1,739 Dell Enterprises
110 Samantha Bowman
425 Voice &Video Rentals
1,206 EI Taco Loco
515 PearTrees Catering Inc.
925 A Party Rentals
1,650 Auld Course
16 Sedona Staffing Services Inc.
24,999
23,151,175
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5d
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:March 7,2007
Engineering and Operations
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineeri~~~er
Rod posad~~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana e..".,~.
Assistant General ~nager,
PROJECT f
SUBPROJECT:R2001,
R2004
DIV.
NO.1
SUBJECT:Change Order No.6 to the Contract with TC Construction
Company for Construction of the 450-1 Recycled Water
Reservoir and 680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board approve Change Order No.6 to the existing contract with TC
Construction Company (TC)for construction of the 450-1 Recycled Water
Reservoir and the 680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station project in the amount
of $167,743.(See Exhibit A for project location.)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Chctnge
Order No.6 for $167,743 (Exhibit B)to the contract with TC.
ANALYSIS:
At the September 12,2005 Board meeting,TC was awarded the construction
contract for the reservoir and pump station project.The project
construction began in October,2005 and is proceeding well.Jacobs
Engineering was awarded the Construction Management contract for the
project at the December 7,2005 Board meeting.Currently,work is under
way performing functional checkout to prepare the newly completed 30-inch
recycled water pipeline,450-1 Reservoir and 680-1 Pump Station for start
up.Staff is coordinating with the City of San Diego (City)to ensure
that the start up for this project will be successful and recycled water
can be delivered to the Otay Water District (District's)customers on
schedule.
To date,five (5)change orders have been processed in the amount of
<$490,778>.These change orders covered a variety of items including
credits from value engineering.Change Order No.6 consists of additional
paving for the dirt access road,piping and other modifications in the
pump station,future piping for the the chlorination facility,and a
variety of miscellaneous items needed for the reservoir and pump station
to complete the overall work.Staff anticipates minor change orders may
still be required as start up of the facilities proceeds.Including
Change Order No.6,the total cost of all change orders is <$323,035>.
Staff recommends approving Change Order No.6 in the amount of $167,743.
FISCAL IMPACT:~The approved budget for the 450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir project
R2001)is $9,967,000.To date,$7,677,783 has been spent on the
Reservoir.See Attachment B-1 for budget detail.
(CIP
The approved budget for the 680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station project (CIP
R2004)is $8,233,000.To date,$6,677,453 has been spent on the Pump
Station.See Attachment B-2 for budget detail.
The total approved budget for the combined project is $18,200,000.Total
combined project commitments,including this change order,are
$17,191,918.
The Project Manager anticipates that based on the attached financial
analysis that the CIP R2001 budget will be sufficient to support the 450-1
Recycled Water Reservoir project.Finance has determined that 100%of the
funding for this project will be available from the Expansion Fund.
The Project Manager also anticipates that based on the attached financial
analysis that the CIP R2004 budget will be sufficient to support the 680-1
Recycled Water Pump Station project.Finance has determined that 100%of
the funding for this project will be available from the Expansion Fund.
The District anticipates up to a 25-percent reimbursement from the Bureau
of Reclamation.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's mission statement and the District's
Strategic Goal to:"Design and construct new infrastructure -satisfy
current and future water needs for Potable,Recycled,and Wastewater
Services."
2
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
General Manager
Exhibits
Attachments
RR/RP
P:IWORKINGICIP R001IWo 300161Staff ReportslBD 03-07-07,Construction CO#6.doc
3
CANYON
\
IMPERIAL
BEACH
PRO
Tijuana Estuary
PARKWAY
680-1
PUMP
STATIONw.•450-1
RESERVOIR
;.;;
"'.,.
/''"a>c-io~
'"#/''"ui'0-o~l:J/'§................
cry
o~0.~'-ISHE:O?~OTA y WATER DISTRICT~0'"0 .1 .!)<l\450-1 RECYCLED WATER RESERVOIR/
9 ~k 680-1 RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION~CI/-~,0 CENTRAL AREA
~WO 30016/30015 LOCATION MAP CIP R001/R004c;:.......~~~~----------..
EXHIBIT A
OTAYWATER DISTRICT EXHIBIT B
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.6
PROJECT/ITEM:450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir &680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
CONTRACTORNENDOR:TC Construction Company,Inc.REF.CIP No.:R2001/R2004-001103
APPROVED BY:Board:N/A REF.P.O.No:702551 REF.W.O.No.:30016 DATE:02-12-07
&30015
DESCRIPTION:
See attached pages 2 through 6 of 6 for descriptions.
REASON:
See attached pages 2 through 6 of 6 for reasons.
CHANGE P.O.TO READ:
A total increase of $167,743.00 for a revised Contract amount of $14,416,965.00.Revise the contract
completion date from 4/01/07 to 4/27/07.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT:
ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE:
TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
NEW CONTRACT/P.O.AMOUNT IS:
CONTRACT/P.O.TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
$
$
$
$
14,740,000.00
14,249,222.00
167,743.80
14,416,965.00
26 Days
2/28/07
4/27/07
IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS,THAT THE CONTRACTORNENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKETHE 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.THIS INCLUDES ALL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COST AND RELEASE OF ALL RIGHTS TO CLAIM AGAINST THIS ITEM IN THE
FUTURE.ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT/P.O.REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
CONTRACTOR/VENDOR:
TITLE:DATE:_
ADDRESS:
STAFF APPROVALS:
PROJ.MGR:._~DATE:_
DIV.MGR:DATE:'--_
CHIEF:DATE:_
ASST.GEN.MANAGER:DATE:_
DISTRICT APPROVAL:
GEN.MANAGER:DATE:.__-,--_
COPIES:0 FILE (Orig.),0 CONTRACTORIVENDOR 0 CHIEF-ENGINEERING/PLANNING 0 CHIEF-FINANCE 0 CHIEF-DEV.SERVICES
o ENGR.MGR.0 INSPECTION 0 PROJ MGR 0 ENGR.SECRETARY 0 PURCHASING 0 ACCTS PAYABLE
450-1/680-1:CONTRACT /P.O.CHANGE ORDER NO.6 1 of 6
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.6
PROJECTIITEM:450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir &680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
CONTRACTORIVENDOR:TC Construction Company,Inc.REF.CIP No.:R2001/R2004-001103
APPROVED BY:Board:N/A REF.P.O.No:702551 REF.W.O.No.:30016 DATE:02-12-07
&30015
DESCRIPTIONS:
1.Add $1,005 for the installation of floor drain in the compressor room and piping from the drain
to the sewer line.Also,add 1 (one)calendar day.
2.Add $2,878 for the installation of one retaining wall and a nozzle for the 6-inch air vac
installation included in CDC#2.Also,add 1 (one)calendar day.
3.Credit of $1 ,917 for the material type change for buried vault ventilation piping.
4.Add $3,375 for the installation of four interior light fixtures suitable for the location and mount
required in the drawings.
5.Add $3,441 for the installation of a temporary bypass and then reinstallation of an existing 2
%-inch potable water line.Also,add 2 (two)calendar days.
6.Add $1,615 for the installation of a personnel gate through the perimeter fence at the south
side of the tank as required by SDGE for access to the gas line leak detectors.
7.Add $2,060 for the modification of pump discharge pipe fittings to accommodate the discharge
angle provided by Peerless Pumps in their pump cans.Also,add 1 (one)calendar day.
REASONS:
1.RFP#16 was initiated by the CM and the Contractor.The Contract drawings did not call for a
floor drain in the compressor room where there will be continuous drainage from the
compressed air system.
2.RFP#17 was for a portion of the work proposed in RFP#2 which never resulted in a change
order.RFP#2 was issued for the installation of two air vac installation per WAS standards as
part of CDC#2 issued by MWH.Ortiz Construction installed the two air vacs under another
contract and TC Construction will install the required retaining wall and nozzle connection
through this contract as part of RFP#17.
3.RFP#19 was initiated by the Contractor and it involves changing the required SCH20 Steel,
10-inch buried,intake/exhaust piping that runs to/from the inlet meter,outlet meter and altitude
valve vault to SDR 35 PVC Piping.
4.RFP#25 was initiated by the Contractor and the Designer because four light fixtures called out
in the contract drawings to be the hanging type can not be hung in the lower vault area below
the grating.
5.RFP#26 was initiated because an existing 2 1/2-inch potable water line that runs through the
site to the landfill was not shown on the plans had to be temporarily bypassed and then
reconnected following the installation of the 30-inch recycled water line.
6.RFP #28 was initiated because SDGE required non-hill-climbing,pedestrian access to
observation wells at the top of the hill above the gas lines.
7.RFP #29 was initiated because the discharge angle of the RW pumps and their configuration
in the cans required angle corrections for each discharge line.
450-1/680-1:CONTRACT /P.O.CHANGE ORDER NO.6 20f6
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.6
PROJECT/ITEM:450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir &680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
CONTRACTORNENDOR:TC Construction Company,Inc.REF.CIP No.:R2001/R2004-001103
APPROVED BY:Board:N/A REF.P.O.No:702551 REF.W.O.No.:30016 DATE:02-12-07
&30015
DESCRIPTIONS:
8.Add $4,018 for structural steel added to support the weight of the air conditioning unit on the
roof above Room 105.Also,add 2 (two)calendar days.
9.Credit of $855 for elimination of skylight on the equipment curb for future equipment and the
addition of a sheet metal cover.
1O.Add $9,894 for the larger size sandwich skylights above the generator room.
11.Add $2,003 for the added structural steel for improved antenna support.
12.Add $48,325 for paving an additional 781 feet of access road and 400 ft of AC berm near the
tank perimeter road.Also,add 4 (four)calendar days.
13.Add $4,136 for caulking installation at the perimeter of the tank's chime.Also,add 1 (one)
calendar day.
14.Add $234 for the installation of a junction box provided by the sump pump manufacturer
required for the relocation of the sump pump control panel.
15.Credit of $4,462 for the elimination of the pump functional testing configuration called out in
drawing GC-1 and specification 01660.As part of the RFP,this credit is reduced by costs
related to the installation of another pipe configuration,blind flange and valve to be used for
testing purposes.
REASONS:
8.RFP #31 was initiated because not enough support was provided in original contract drawings.
Built per new detail provided by Designer.
9.RFP #32 was initiated as suggested by the Designer.
10.RFP #33 was initiated because a skylight size increase was required to fit over the per-
contract-installed roof beam opening.
11.RFP #34 was initiated because added support was required after antenna installation because
as installed -it was too flimsy.
12.RFP #35 was initiated as recommended by Contractor /requested by Owner.It was not called
for in the contract documents.
13.RFP #36 was initiated by the tank contractor and requested by Owner.
14.RFP #38 was initiated by the CM and Contractor due to limited mounting area and pre-cut
equipment cable lengths.
15.RFP #39 was initiated by the Contractor &CM in order to expedite testing while tank is being
painted.
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.6
450-1/680-1:CONTRACT /P.O.CHANGE ORDER NO.6 3 of 6
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
PROJECTIITEM:450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir &680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
CONTRACTORNENDOR:TC Construction Company,Inc.REF.CIP No.:R2001/R2004-001103
APPROVED BY:Board:N/A REF.P.O.No:702551 REF.W.O.No.:30016 DATE:02-12-07
&30015
DESCRIPTIONS:
16.Add $35,626 for the installation of potable water piping,sewer piping,sodium hypochlorite
piping (dual containment)and electrical conduit (power &signal)for the future chlorination
facility.Also,add 6 (six)calendar days.
17.Add $23,653 for the installation of two total dissolved solids (TDS)analyzers and to provide for
monitoring of their analog signals at the OWD SCADA system.
18.Add $2,227 for work required to fill in nail holes and paint 2X8 Mansard Roof fascia.Also,add
1 (one)calendar day.
19.Add $1,805 to delete the single-ply (thermoplastic)membrane roofing system and install a
built up roofing system on the pump station with a 20-year warranty.The work in this RFP
also includes costs for installing ninety (90)pitch pockets for sealing around the 2X2 mansard
roof angle braces where they attach to the lightweight roof concrete.Also,add 2 (two)
calendar days.
20.Credit of $7,670 for Deleted Landscaping and Irrigation in Unused Contractor Staging Area.
21.Add $1,713 to increase the engine exhaust piping diameter from 8-inches to 10-inches and to
provide an exhaust silencer for exhaust fan EF-3 similar to the one provided for EF-4.
22.Add $345 for the installation of 240 volt service to the generator from LP-1.Work in this RFP
includes the installation of a new 60-Amp (2-pole)breaker in LP-1 and other misc.wiring
changes.
REASONS:
16.RFP#40 was initiated per Owner's request.
17.RFP#41 was initiated per Owner's request.
18.RFP #42 was initiated per MWH CMRFI Response and was not called for in the original
contract documents.
19.RFP #43 was initiated because the membrane roofing supplier would not guarantee roofing
due to the 90 penetrations required for bracing attachment to the concrete roof.
20.RFP #44 was initiated by the Contractor.
21.RFP #46 was initiated because the sole source engine manufacturer upsized the exhaust
piping (provided by others)requirements to improve air emissions and duct silencer was not
included in contract documents.
22.RFP #47 was initiated because the contract drawings did not provide proper power supply for
auxiliary equipment provided by engine manufacturer.
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.6
PROJECT/ITEM:450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir &680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
CONTRACTORNENDOR:TC Construction Company,Inc.REF.CIP No.:R2001/R2004-001103
450-1/680-1:CONTRACT /P.O.CHANGE ORDER NO.6 40f6
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
APPROVED BY:Board:N/A
DESCRIPTIONS:
REF.P.O.No:702551 REF.W.O.No.:30016 DATE:02-12-07
&30015
23.Add $4,870 for the rental and operation of a load bank with adequate capacity to draw loads
required to pass APCD source testing and for fine tuning of the generator set by the
manufacturer.
24.Add $5,912 to provide new,add additional,substitute and/or delete wiring in ten different
conduit runs.
25.Add $1,170 for the installation of a temporary,APCD-required,exhaust stack extension and
platform.
26.Add $2,946 for the installation of a 1-inch pilot line which runs from the reservoir to the altitude
valve.Also,add 1 (one)calendar day.
27.Add $510 for additional coating of red paint on curb at West Point Drive.Also,add 1 (one)
calendar day.
28.Add $5,000 for the installation a battery master disconnect between the batteries and the
generator engine starter and additional piping and valves installed for the lube oil transfer
system.
29.Add $6,903 for modifications at the VFD to provide power and control for the pump motor unit
heaters.
30.Add $1,983 for additional bracketing required to secure the monorail diagonal support beam
above Door 106A.
31.Add $5,000 for miscellaneous additions to the irrigation and landscaping scope of work.
REASONS:
23.RFP #48 was initiated because APCD source testing and generator fine tuning could not be
done without a load bank which was not in the contract documents.
24.Additional costs from RFP #49 relate to wiring quantity and size changes directed in MWH
responses to RFI's 14,18,40 and CMRFI 55.
25.Work done through RFP #50 was required by APCD for source testing and not included in the
contract documents.
26.Work done in RFP #51 was required for the altitude valve to function properly.The pilot line
was not in the contract documents.
27.RFP #52 was initiated as requested by the City of Chula Vista.
28.RFP #53 was initiated by the Owner due to safety and maintenance concerns.
29.RFP #54 was initiated because power and control for the pump motor unit heaters is required
.but not included in the contract documents.
30.RFP #55 was initiated by the Contractor,Designer and CM because Door 106A would not
open because the diagonal beam was in the way as built/designed.
31.RFP #56 was initiated because the Contractor was required to install various components that
were not shown in the contract documents.
CONTRACT/P.O.CHANGE ORDER No.6
PROJECT/ITEM:450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir &680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
CONTRACTORIVENDOR:TC Construction Company,Inc.REF.CIP No.:R2001/R2004-001103
APPROVED BY:Board:N/A REF.P.O.No:702551 REF.W.O.No.:30016 DATE:02-12-07
&30015
450-1/680-1:CONTRACT /P.O.CHANGE ORDER NO.6 50f6
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD.,SPRING VALLEY,CA.91978,(619)670-2222
DESCRIPTIONS:
32.Add 3 (three)calendar days for work stoppage caused by rain.
REASONS:
32.The three rain days for 1/30/07,1/31/07 &2/12/07 were agreed to because of the poor/unsafe
working conditions created by the rain.
450-1/680-1:CONTRACT /P.O.CHANGE ORDER NO.6 60f6
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
R2001-
001103,R2004-
001103
ATTACHMENT A
Change Order No.6 to the Contract with TC Construction
Company for Construction of the 450-1 Recycled Water
Reservoir and 680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee reviewed this
item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The following comments were
made:
•Staff is requesting the board's approval of Change Order No.6
to the existing contract with TC Construction Company for the
450-1 Recycled Water Reservoir in the amount of $167,743.
•To date,the total change orders processed for this project
accounts for $490,778 or -3%of the total cost of the project
(this total includes Change Order No.6).
•The Committee inquired at what point does the District hold the
design contractor accountable for change orders associated with
design changes.Staff indicated that it is dependent on the
change required.If it is something that should have been
caught at the design stage,such as the design associated with
the elevation of the site,then staff would discuss this with
the designer.However,for small changes,such as the addition
of a drain for site improvements,staff would generally accept
the change order.
•It was also indicated that an original design may be adequate,
but staff may request improvements to the original design to
increase the longevity of the project and,thus,would accept
the costs associated with the improvements (staff will confirm
if any of the items noted on the change order fall under this
situation).
•Staff also noted that no matter how conscientious a design
engineer may be,there would still be small changes required as
it is much easier to identify necessary changes once a building
or reservoir is erected.
•Staff indicated that Change Order No.6 represents six to eight
months of accumulated charges.
4
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported staff's
recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors on the consent
calendar.
5
ATTACHMENT B-1
SUBJECT/PROJECT:'Change Order No.6 to the Contract with TC Construction
R2001-001103 Company for Construction of the 450-1 Recycled Water
Reservoir and 680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station Budget
Detail
Otay Water District
R2001 -RecRes -450-1 Reservoir 12 0 MG
Date Updated:February 10,2007
Outstanding Vendor/Budget Commilled Expenditures Commitment&ProjectedFinalCost Comments$9,967,000 Forecast
Planning
Studies
In House/Labor 84,235 84,235 84,235
Printing 672 672 672 Team Reprographics,LLC-265 265 Mc-Graw Hill Construction265-16,636 10,764 5,872 16,636 OCB Reprographics
Temporary Labor 431 431 431 Sedona Staffing Services
14 14 -14 Atwork Personnel Services
Consultant Contracls 9,971 9,971 -9,971 Kennedy Jenks
8,827 8,827 -8,827 Hatch &Parent
21,330 21,330 -21,330 Recon
288,121 288,121 -288,121 MWH Americas Inc
Insurance 63 63 -63 Daley&Heft
Professional &Legal Fees 2,729 2,729 2,729 Halch &Parent.-900 900 FirstSouthwestern Tille900
15,637 15,637 15,637 Daley&Heft
Regulatory Agency Fee 470 470 470 San Diego Gas &Electric
Postage 175 175 175 Fed-Ex
Land/Easement Acquisition 14,600 14,600 14,600 Clerk ofthe SuperiorCourt
39,334 39,334 39,334 FirstSouthwestern Title
19,500 19,500 19,500 ACI SunbowLLC
4,351 4,351 -4,351 Robinhood Point Homeowners
Total Planning $528,260.46 $522,388.71 $5,872 $528,261
Design
In House/Labor 151,314 151,314 151,314
Consultant 247,294
..
247,294 -247,294 MWH Americas Inc
11,650 11,650 -11,650 Recan
Printing 76 76 -76 San Diego Daily Scripts
252 252 -252 Union Tribune
Temporary Labor 32 32 32 Sedona Staffing Services
Regulatory Agency Fee
Materials -
Service Contracts
Advertiseand Award -
Total Design $410,617.63 $410,617.25 $$410,617
Construction
In House/Labor 107,131 107,131 107,131
Consultant Contracts 454,000 223,978 230,022 454,000 Jacobs Inc.
32,585 11,431 21,154 32,585 MWH Americas Inc
Materials 57 57 -57 CW Mcgrath Inc
151 151 -151 United Rentals Northwest Inc.
Construction Contracls 7,929,331 6,400,637 1,528,694 7,929,331 TCConstruclion Inc.(C.O.#6)
Professional &Legal Fees 1,392 1,392 -1,392 Burke,Williams &Sorensen.LLP
Service Contracts -
Future Start up cosls 50,000 -50,000 50,000 Anticipaled minor C.O.'s
Staff Start upcosts 50,000 50,000 50,000 Anticipated Stafflabor costs
AccpUclose-out
Total Construction $8,624,647 $6,744,777 $1,879,870 $8,624,647
Grand Total $9,563,525 $7,677,783 $1,885,741 $9,563,525
6
~11:1 I JEeT:
R2004-001103
ATTACHMENT B-2
A Change Order No.6 to the Contract with TC Construction
Company for Construction of the 450-1 Recycled Water
Reservoir and 680-1 Recycled Water Pump Station -Budget
Detail
Otay Water District
R2004 -RecPS -680-1 Pump Station (11,500 GPM)
Date Updated:February 10,2007
Outstanding Vendor/Budget Committed Expenditures Commitment&Projected Final Cost Comments$8,233,000 Forecast
Planning
Studies
In House/Labor 51,373 51,373 51,373
Consultant Contracts 18,730 18,730 18,730 Recon
3,904 3,904 3,904 GBA Master Series
Subcontract -
Service Contracts -
Postage --
Land/Easement Acquisition -
Total Planning $74,007 $74,007 $-$74,007
Design
In House/Labor 140,771 140,771 140,771
Consultant Contracts 531,344 531,344 -531,344 MWH Americas Inc.
8,828 8,828 -8,828 Hatch &Parent
14,250 14,250 -14,250 Recon
Insurance 62 62 -62 Daley &Heft
Professional &Legal Fees 15,640 15,640 -15,640 Daley &Heft
2,730 2,730 2,730 Hatch &Parent
Regulatory Agency Fee -
Materials -
Advertise and Award --
Total Design $713,625 $713,625 $$713,625
Construction
In House/Labor 95,948 95,948 95,948
Consultant Contracts 371,000 163,951 207,049 371,000 Jacobs Inc.
36,656 15,502 21,154 36,656 MWH Americas Inc
Construction Contracts 6,487,634 5,254,171 1,233,463 6,487,634 TC Construction Inc.(C.O.#6)
Service Contracts 4,398 4,398 4,398 San Diego Gas &Electric
600 600 600 Sloan Electric Co.
Infrastructure,Materials &Supplies 348,415 348,415 -348,415 Peerless Pump Co
Regulatory Agency Fee 6,600 6,600 -6,600 County of San Diego Air Pollution
Postage/Shipping 46 46 -46 Fed-Ex
Professional &Legal Fees 145 145 -145 Burke,Williams &Sorensen LLP
Parking 44 44 -44 Petty Cash
Future Start up costs 40,000 40,000 40,000 Anticipated minor C.O.'s
Staff Start up costs 49,274 49,274 49,274 Anticipated Stafflabor costs
Accptlclose-out -
Total Construction $7,440,760 $5,889,821 $1,550,940 $7,440,760
Grand Total $8,228,393 $6,677,453 $1,550,940 $8,228,392
7
AGENDA ITEM 5e
5TAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:March 7,2007
ALLDIV.NO.N/APROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:Hossein Juybarift-~H~
Senior Civil Engineer
Rod posa~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~~
Assistant Gener1l (jnager,Engineering and Operations
Award of As-Needed Engineering Design Services Contract,
Fiscal Years 06-07 and 07-08 to Lee &Ro,Inc.
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTED BY:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the General Manager to enter into an
Agreement for Professional Services for As-Needed Engineering Design
Services with Lee &Ro,Inc.(Lee &Ro)for an amount not to exceed
$175,000 during Fiscal Years 06-07 and 07-08.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the award of a professional
services contract to obtain engineering design services on an as-
needed basis in support of the District's Capital Improvement
Program (CIP).The contract amount is not to exceed $175,000 for a
two-year period commencing upon Board approval (see Attachment B for
sample agreement)
ANALYSIS:
The District will require the professional services of an
engineering consultant in support of the District's CIP projects for
a period of two years.The As-Needed Engineering Design Services
contract will provide the District with the ability to obtain
consulting services in a timely and efficient manner and on an as-
needed basis.
The District will require the expertise of an engineering consultant
to provide civil enginnering design for a variety of CIP projects.
The District incurs expenses in requesting,reviewing and ranking
proposals;checking references;and preparing staff reports for
Committee and Board approval.The engineering design services,
individually,are small enough that preparation of formal proposals
by consultants becomes expensive and these costs are passed on to
the District.For these reasons,the District began using similar
contracts for as-needed environmental consulting services in Fiscal
Year 05-06 and as-needed geotechnical services in Fiscal Year 06-07.
The District will issue task orders to the Consultant for specific
projects during the contract period.The Consultant will then
prepare a detailed scope of work,schedule,and cost estimate for
each task order assigned under the contract.Upon written task
order authorization from the District,the Consultant shall then
proceed with the project as described in the scope of work.
The CIP projects that are estimated to require engineering design
services for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008,at this time,are listed
below:
ESTIMATED
CIP DESCRIPTION COST
P2038 PL -12-Inch,978 Zone,Jamacha and Hidden $30,000
Mesa Road Upsize and Replacement
P2387 PL -12-Inch,803 Zone,Jamul Drive $30,000
Permastran Pipeline Replacement
P2356 PL -12-Inch,832 Zone,Steele Canyon Road-$30,000
Via Caliente/Campo Pipelie Replacement
R2086 RWCWRF Force Main AirVac Replacements $70,000
TOTAL:$160,000
The engineering design scopes for the above projects are estimated
from preliminary information and past projects.Therefore,staff
believes that a $175,000 cap on the As-Needed Engineering Design
Services contract is adequate.
The As-Needed Engineering Design Services contract would have a one-
year base period commencing upon Board approval,and a one-year
extension based on the District's CIP schedule and the consultant's
successful perfomance.The contract is not to exceed $175,000 for
all task orders.Fees for professional services will be charged to
the CIP Projects for which the engineering designs are performed.
This As-Needed Engineering Design Services contract does not commit
the District to any expenditures until a task order is approved to
perform work on a CIP Project.The District does not guarantee work
to the consultant,nor does the District guarantee to the consultant
2
that it will expend all of the funds authorized by the contract on
professional services.
The District solicited engineering design services from engineering
consultant firms by placing an advertisement on aWD website,in the
San Diego Union Tribune on December 25,2006 and an advertisement in
the San Diego Daily Transcript from December 25,2006 to January 2,
2007.Twenty-five (25)firms submitted a letter of interest and a
statement of qualifications.The Request for Proposal (RFP)for As-
Needed Engineering Design Services was sent to all twenty-five (25)
firms resulting in twelve (12)proposals received on January 23,
2007.They are as follows:
•Boyle Engineering Corporation
•Carollo Engineers,P.C.
•David Evans and Associates,Inc.
•DBE Psomas
•Dudek
•Harris &Associates,Inc.
•HDR
•Infrastructure Engineering Corporation
•Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
•Lee &Ro,Inc.
•RBF Consulting
•Winzler &Kelly
The thirteen (13)firms that chose not to propose are Anchor
Engineering,Inc.,Beyaz &Patel,Inc.,Camp Dresser &McKee Inc.,
Construction Testing &Engineering,Inc.,J.C.Heden and Associates,
Inc.,Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc.,MWH Americas,Inc.,Nolte
Associates,Inc.,Parsons Brinckerhoff,PBS&J,Pinnacleane,Rick
Engineering Company,and Willdan.
In accordance with the District's Policy 21,staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals.Lee &Ro received the highest score
for their services based on their experience,proposed method to
accomplish the work,and their ability to complete projects on
schedule.Lee &Ro was the most qualified consultant with the best
overall proposal.A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in
Attachment C.
The District has worked with Lee &Ro before with the 30-Inch
Recyled Water Pipeline from Dairy Mart to the 450-1 Reservoir.Lee
&Ro's staff worked well with the District's staff and delivered an
accurate and complete design on time to the District.
3
FISCAL IMPACT:~~>/.
The funds for this contract will be expended from the CIP projects
noted previously.The fees for professional services requested
herein are available in the authorized CIP project budgets.This
contract is for professional services based on the District's need
and schedule,and expenditures will not be made until a task order
is approved by the District for the consultant's professional
services on a specific CIP project.
The Project Manager anticipates that the budget will be sufficient
to support the professional services required for specific CIP
projects previously noted.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
safe,reliable water,recycled water and wastewater services to our
community in an innovative,cost efficient water wise and
environmentally responsible manner",as well as the General
Manager's vision,"...prepared for the future..."by guaranteeing that
the District will always be able to meet future water supply
obligations and plan,design and construct new facilities.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None
Gelheral Manager
Attachments
HJ/RR/RP:jf
P:\WORKING\As Needed Svcs Design\Engineering Design\BD 3-7-07,As-Needed Engineering Design Services.doc
4
~IIR I II:::CT:
ATTACHMENT A
Award of As Needed Engineering Design Services Contract,FY
07-08
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The
following comments were made:
•Staff indicated that the District has experienced
staff changes and requires engineering design
consultant services to provide civil engineering
design services for a variety of CIP projects on a as-
needed basis.
• A Request for Proposals (RFP)was advertised in the
San Diego Union-Tribune,San Diego Daily Transcript
and on the Otay website.Twenty-five letters of
interest were received and twelve proposals were
submitted.
•The proposals were evaluated and Lee and Ro was
identified as the most qualified responding
consultant.
•It was noted that Lee and Ro designed the District's
30"recycled water pipeline project.
•Staff is recommending that Lee &Ro be awarded the As-
Needed Design Services Contract for Fiscal Years 2007
and 2008 for an amount not to exceed $175,000.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported
staff's recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors
on the consent calendar.
:SUBJECTIPROJECT:
ATTACHMENT B
Award of As-Needed Engineering Design Services Contract,FY
07-08
.................................................................................................................................................1
consultant to render
fttrs to provide,personnel and
lime.
rm those services described in the scope ofwork set
orated herein by this reference.The scope of
ith District staffand review ofprevious technical
ti to proceed with the work described in Exhibit'A'is hereby granted
e Agreement.However,CONSULTANT shall not proceed with any
it 'A'until the receipt ofa request for specific services or "task order"
from the Distric esignated Agent.Upon receipt ofsuch a request for specific services,
CONSULTANT shall provide the the District's Designated Agent with an estimated budget for
the requested services and an estimated time for completion.The District's Designated Agent
shall then provide the CONSULTANT with authorization to proceed.No work shall be
commenced until the CONSULTANT receives the authorization to proceed.
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
AND
CONSULTANT
FOR
AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVI
I.
NOW,THEREFO
II.
WHEREAS,the DISTRICT require
certain technical and professional servic
WHEREAS,the CONSULTANT
facilities necessary to accomplish the wor
This Agreement (Agreement)is made and entered into this __
and between the OTAY WATER DISTRICT,a municipal wf:lter district,fo
pursuant to California Municipal Water District Act of 19 as amended,here
as "DISTRICT,"and [CONSULTANT],hereinafter ref!as "CONSU A
III.Compensation
In return for providing the services described in Exhibit'A',which are to be performed
by the CONSULTANT,the DISTRICT agrees to pay,and the CONSULTANT agrees to accept,
- 1 -
including digital photographs and
e services described in this
STRICT,except as otherwise
oc ents on high-density media such as ZIP®
.Fl wings and details shall be in AutoCAD®2000
ifications, reports,and spreadsheets shall be in
t.Any other electronic format documents provided
same software version or release as that ofthe
N agrees to coordinate project work to ensure its timely completion
the DISTRICT ofany anticipated delays,which may affect the work
e time for completing the scope ofwork is exceeded due to
circumstances b d the control ofthe CONSULTANT,the CONSULTANT shall have an
additional amount oftime to be agreed upon in writing between the parties in which to complete
the work.
VI.
IV.Standard ofCare
The CONSULTANT is employed to render geotec
any payment made to the CONSULTANT is compensati
CONSULTANT may render and recommendations the
CONSULTANT'S services shall be furnished in a
geotechnical consulting principles and practices
V.Documents
All original drawings,spreadshee
files developed for the project,shall,upon
Agreement,be furnished to and become the
provided in Section VIII:Te or A
compensation for all executed service requests up to an amount not-to-exceed ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($175,000.00),payable as agreed to by the parties per service
request.Total compensation for all Professional Services provided under this agreement shall
not exceed ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($175,000.00)during the term of
this agreement without prior written authorization from the DISTRICT.
The CONSULTANT shall invoice the DISTRICT on a monthly schedule in the format
shown in Exhibits 'B'and 'C'.The CONSULTANT shall not invoice the DISTRICT for work
that has not been completed at the time the invoice is prepared.The DIST shall have forty-
five (45)days from the date ofreceipt oferror-free invoices prepared in ce with Exhibits
'B'and 'C'to make payment without incurring interest and/or penalt
VII.Change in Scope of Work
Work under this agreement is to be performed on a task order basis and shall be pre-
approved by the DISTRICT.Each task order shall specify the services requested,the time for
performance and an estimated cost for such services.Ifthe services requested require a change,
addition or modification,such change,addition or modification shall require prior approval of
- 2 -
the DISTRICT.In the event that the services requested are outside ofthe Scope ofServices
specified in Exhibit 'A',CONSULTANT shall bring it to the attention ofthe DISTRICT
immediately,and no such work shall be done prior to obtaining written approval from the
DISTRICT.
nification
CONSULTA~T <.lgrees to the following:
nification for Professional Services.CONSULTANT will save harmless
and ifidemnify and,at DISTRICT's request,defend DISTRICT and all its
ers,volunteers,employees,and representatives from and against suits,
tions,or claims brought for,or on account of,injuries or damages sustained
,by any person or property directly resulting from a negligent or wrongful act,
error or omission by CONSULTANT or any ofCONSULTANT's officers,
agents,employees,or representatives,in the performance ofthis Agreement.
2.Indemnification for other Damages.CONSULTANT indemnifies and holds
DISTRICT harmless from and against a claim,action,damages,costs
(including reasonable attorney's fees),injuries,or liability,directly resulting
from this Agreement,for its negligent performance.Should DISTRICT be
named in a suit,or should a claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise,
IX.
VIII.Termination orAbandonment
Ten (10)calendar days from the date ofa written
the right to terminate or abandon all or any portion ofa
obligation to require all the services described under the Sco
select only those services needed from time to ti ide
that the District abandons or terminates any se ed as p
DISTRICT will have the right to take poss 0 wn imme ely all original
specifications,drawings,and other docu ts dev or that po on ofthe work completed
and/or being abandoned.The DISTRIC ay the SULTANT for services for any
portion ofthe work being terminated whi ender to termination.Ifsaid
termination occurs prior to completion of a the p ct for which a payment request has
not been received,the fee fo erfoc task shall be based on an amount
mutually agreed to by the D T ANT for the portion ofsuch task
completed but not paid prior to sai The DISTRICT will not be liable for any costs
other than the fees ortions thereo , .ch are pecified herein.Ifall work is abandoned as
herein provided,this ent shall a ically terminate on the 10th day from the date of
notice.
Ifthe DISTRICT changes the Scope ofWork,or ifchanges in regulations after execution
ofthis Agreement necessitate changes in the Scope ofWork,or ifthe CONSULTANT is
requested to perform services not detailed in the Scope ofWork,the parties shall execute an
amendment to Exhibit 'A',Scope ofWork.
All work performed without proper authorization shall be consi
Agreement for no additional compensation.
- 3 -
Ie
greement,d at all other times this
rocure and maintain the following
a minimum,with the limits set
00,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Statutoryrequirement
Insurance Requirements
A.Before commencing perform
Agreement is effective,CO
types ofinsurance with cove
forth below:
directly resulting out ofthis Agreement,for the CONSULTANT's negligent
performance,CONSULTANT will defend DISTRICT (at DISTRICT's request
and with counsel satisfactory to DISTRICT)and will indemnify DISTRICT
for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or
otherwise.
B.For purpose ofthis section "DISTRICT"includes DISTRICT's officers,officials,
employees,agents,representatives,and certified volunteers.
C.It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing pro
termination ofthis Agreement.
D.The requirements as to the types and limits of insur
maintained by CONSULTANT as required by this Agree
said insurance by DISTRICT,are not intendeq to and will n
or qualify the liabilities and obligations oth .se assumed by
pursuant to this Agreement,including,~i imitation,to e p
concerning indemnification.
eralliability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements ofISO-
o 12 10 11 97.The amount of insurance set forth above will be a
ng e limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury,and property
he policy coverage.Liability policies will be endorsed to name
D ,its officials,and employees as "additional insureds"under said
insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed "primary"such
that any other insurance that may be carried by DISTRICT will be excess thereto.
Such insurance will be on an "occurrence"basis,except professional liability shall
be on a "claims made"basis,and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction
except upon a thirty-(30)day prior written notice to DISTRICT.
C.Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form
CA 00 01 1001,including symbol 1 (Any Auto).
x.
- 4 -
D.CONSULTANT will furnish to DISTRICT duly authenticated Certificates of
Insurance and Endorsements evidencing maintenance ofthe insurance required
under this Agreement and such other evidence ofinsurance as may be reasonably
required by DISTRICT from time to time.Insurance must be placed with insurers
with a current A.M.Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of
"A:VII.fI Originals ofthe duly authenticated Certificates ofInsurance and
Endorsements shall be included with this Agreement as Exhibit D.
XI.Successors and Assigns
This Agreement and all ofthe tenus,conditions,and provisio
benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto,and their respecti
provided,however,that no assignment ofthis Agreement shall be made
ofthe parties to this Agreement.Any attempt by the CONSlJ TANT to aSS1
transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior n consent ofthe
be void.Since the primary consideration of the DISTRI tering this aree
qualifications ofthe CONSULTANT,as opposed to DISTRIC wi refuse to
consent to assignments ifit considers the assigne ificati .Any notice or
instrument required to be given or delivered b or delivered by
depositing the same in any United States P 0 ed,postage prepaid,
addressed to:
DISTRICT:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Spri
Spring Valley,California
Attention:Mark Watton
and shall be effecti
XII.
propos to assign [name]as the Project Manager.The Project
d from the project or reassigned without prior approval ofthe
all not be unreasonably withheld.No subcontracting of significant
ices shall be made without prior approval ofthe DISTRICT.
XIII.Integft
This Agre ent and the attached Exhibits represent the entire understanding by and
between the DISTRICT and the CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein.No prior
oral or written understanding shall be ofany force or effect with respect to those matters covered
hereunder.This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both
parties hereto.
- 5 -
XIV.Execution
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
Mark Watton,General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
General Counsel
CONSULTANT
Name,Title
COPIES:0 FILE (Orig.),0 CONSULTANT,0 PROJECT MANAGER.,0 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
P:\WORKlNG\As Needed Svcs Design\Engineering Design\As-Needed Engineering Design Services Agreement-2007.doc
-6-
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SCOPE OF REQUIRED SERVICES
d,based on li!ee performance,
The DistriQI:re erves the right to
work Jich the District may
s the right to appoint a
and coordination of the
t may not require the full level ofwork outlined herein,or may require
mber of projects to be evaluated over the term of the agreement is
re,work mayor may not be available for the Consultant.
Task 0
additio
notkno
The Consultant shall
reservOIrS,and pump
facilities.
The District will review the contract at the end ofthe firs
may desire to continue the agreement for one (1)add'.
request proposals from other firms for any proj
deem outside ofthe specialty or scope of this
different District Project Manager at any 1m
professional services to be provided by th nsulta
The contract period will be two (2)years commencing upon thedat
not to exceed amount of $175,000.The District does not guarantee
services to be performed for the duration ofthe contract.
The Scope of Services shall be consistent with the following as may be re .ed by the District to
include additions or deletions recommended by the Consultant for specifi9 0 ders.
The scope of ser isted below is intended to describe the typical services that may be requested
of the Consultant.The services listed are not all-inclusive,but rather represent those normally
expected during the performance of the contract.Specifically,the Consultant shall have experience
and ability to perform the following engineering services:
1)Determine and meet the permit requirements of all the public agencies and private utilities
throughout the duration of the project.The Consultant shall prepare required applications and
all supporting documentation necessary for permits and utility services for project
implementation.
2)Provide all professional surveying services required during the planning,design,and
construction phases of the project.This includes support for the preparation ofthe PDR,final
contract documents,and handling of survey issues during the construction phase that are not
part of the contractor's work.
gn,and
fthe PDR,
Ion phase that
for construction
oject in consultation with the District
location,elevation,etc.of existing and
oject will be connected with and/or located
elop the Contract Documents.
ties nd construction activities are to be located either
rty,rict easements,and/or within public right-of-way as
o erties where easements may be required and provide legal
easements.This information shall be clearly shown on
construction phases of the Project.This includ
•
•
•
•
investigations to determine the location,elevation,inclination,diameter,
e isting facilities in and adjacent to the project site for preparation of a
ccu set ofproject contract documents.Existing utilities shall include,but are
ater,sewer,storm drain,gas,electric,telephone,cable,and fiber optic cables.
shall coordinate the potholing ofexisting utilities at all points ofconnection and
eXlstlllg sys s near,over,under,along,adjacent,etc.of the new proposed work that mayor
may nofGonflict with the construction of any or all portions ofthe project.The Consultant shall
coordinate all potholing efforts with the District Project Manager and other appropriate utilities
or agencies and obtain all required permits.
4)Retain the services ofa qualified land surveyor firm to:
3)The District will provide geotechnical reports.The Consultant shall incorporate any and all
geotechnical requirements into the planning and pre-design of the project in conformance with
the industry standard ofcare.
6)The District will provide environmental services and documentation for the project and all other
environmental related services as necessary to support the work at hand.
7)Prepare Preliminary Design Reports for District Project Manager reVIew,comments,and
approval.
A-2
8)Prepare plan and profile or details showing all finished grades,traffic control,corrosion control,
erosion control,and other drawings as necessary.The drawings and specifications shall
incorporate any and all recommendations contained in all the environmental,geotechnical,
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan requirements and documents.
n files shall be delivered in AutoCAD 2000 format
docu nt deliverables shall be in the Microsoft Office platform
erPoint,Project,etc.)version 2000 or more recent.
ca Information System (GIS)files shall be delivered in ArcView
at (.shp).
1.All electro
or more rec
10)Assist the District Project Manager during the bidding period to res
and/or interpretations ofthe contract documents.The onsultant shall
document addenda for District review and appr to amend and/or
documents.Attend and participate in the pre-co .on conference
resolve discrepancies related to technical inter retati contrac
referred to as a Request for Information (iew t ntractor'
submittals for design intent and genera ith th
necessary drawings,sketches,and s ired to
approved by District staff,due to ange
result of a RFI or clarification fj e contr
discrepancies or omissions,etc.istrict
correction ofdesign errors or omiss
9)Prepare and submit a set ofproject contract documents consisting of drawings and specifications
in accordance with the WAS specifications and guidelines.Project specifications shall be
prepared in Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format.Inco te within the project
specifications the provided District contract document procedu uments consisting of
bidding requirements,contract forms,and conditions ofcontract hare i CSI format.
DELIVERABLES
4.All horizontal data (X,Y coordinates)shall be delivered using the California Coordinate
System (NAD 83,Zone VI,feet).All vertical data (Z coordinates)shall be delivered
using the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
5.Specifications shall be in Construction Specification Institute (CSI)format and III
conformance with District's Standard Specifications.
A-3
DISTRICT PROVIDED SERVICES
The District will:
1.Provide existing reports,record drawings,and other related materials to the Consultant that are
in the District's possession.All such materials will be provided in the format available (digital
or non-digital).
2.Pay all required fees to agencies as required,excluding fees
permits or the cost oftraffic control required for subsurface ex
by Consultant.
3.Coordinate with the
project.
A-4
for each
EXHIBIT B
Sample Invoice Format (Summary)
Firm Name
Address
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO:
Accounts Payable
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2004
JOB DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT NAME:As-Needed Engineering Design
Services Contract
Otay Project Manager:Hossein Juybari
Capital Improvement Project No:Pxxxx-OOxxxx
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RELATE
Perform geotechnical investigation and attend
AUTHORIZED AND INVOIC
Original Fee Amount Authorized
Total Fee Amount Authorized
Amoun
Amount
Total Amount Invoiced to Date
Amount Previously:mffid
Authorized Fee Amount Remaining
Percent Complete
DATE OF INVOICE:
INVOICE NO.
AUTHORIZATION:
40,000.00
$250.00
$1,350.00
$41,600.00
$5,433.00
$32,456.00
$37,889.00
$32,456.00
$3,711.00
91%
CONTRACTED DATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION:November 7,2007
Invoice has been reviewed and found correct.
[Name],Project Manager
EXHIBIT C
Sample Invoice Format (task detail)
Otay Water District As-Needed Engineering Design Services
MMlDDIYY WO xxxx /elP PXXXX-OOXXXX
DESCRIPTION THIS INVOICE INVOICED CONTRACT TOTAL %
HRS/$'s RATE AMOUNT I TO DATE AMOUNT I BILLED COMPLETEI
PROJECT TOTAL $5,763.35 $20,884.30 45%37%
TASK 1-Project Management and Administration $3,955.25 75%88%
Sub-Task 1.1 Data Acquisition $951.00 100%
Project Manager Smith 16.0 hr 41.00 $/hr
Drafter Williams 5.0 hr 35.00 $/hr
Secretary Allred 6.0 hr 20.00 $/hr
Sub-Task 1.2 Report Preparation $931.50 $8,865.00 $13,000.00 68%75%
Principle James 2.5 hr
Project Manager Smith 4.0 hr
Drafter Williams 14.0 hr
Secretary Allred 2.0 hr
Direct Expenses $3,000.00 81%81%
Reproduction $17.50
Subconsultant #1 B&K $610.00
Subconsultant #2 CEW $1000.00 5%
TASK 2-Review Existing Doc $1,808.10 $5,463.40 $15,700.00 35%22%
$951.00 $2,944.00 $12,000.00 25%22%
Project Manager Smith 16.0 hr 41.00 $/hr $656.00
Drafter Williams 5.0 hr 35.00 $/hr $175.00
Secretary Allred 6.0 hr 20.00 $/hr $120.00
Direct Expenses $762.00 $2,225.00 $2,500.00 89%89%
Reproduction
Subconsultant #2 CEW
$120.00
$600.00
10%
5%
$132.00
$630.00
Note:1)Consultant to edit,update,and add lines as necessary.
2)Rates shown above are to remain in effect throughout the life of the contract
EXHIBIT D
(Consultant's Insurance Certificate)
ATTACHMENT C
PROPOSAL RANKING
AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
(WRITTEN )
Knowledge of
Qualifications,Experience jurisdictional Consultant's TOTAL AVERAGE REFERENCESexperienceofrelevanttoProposedagencies,localarea Completeness.Abilityto complete commitment SCORE SCORE
Consultant's type ofproject methodto environmental ProposedFee addressedrequested projects on schedule to ESE,DBE,accomplishwork concerns,and infonnationassignedpersonnelbeingconsideredregulatory MBE,SBE
requirements
Reviewer:15 15 10 10 20 15 10 5 100
12 12 8 8 11 9 81
Boyle Engineering Hossein Juybari 14 14 9 9 14 9 90
Richard Acuna 13 12 8 8 12 9 83 87
Corporation Daniel Kay 15 15 9 9 14 10 93
LisaCoburn-Bo d 14 15 9 10 14 5 88
Ron Ripperger 13 12 8 7 11 8 76
Hossein Juybari 12 13 7 6 12 8 75
Carollo Engineers Richard Acuna 13 11 7 8 12 7 75 75.4
Daniel Kay 13 13 8 6 13 8 78
Lisa Coburn-Bo d 13 13 10 3 12 5 73
Ron Ripperger 11 12 8 7 10 8 72
David Evans and Hosseln Juybari 12 10 5 4 12 6 65
Richard Acuna 12 12 8 8 10 7 73 64Associates,Inc.DanielKay 13 10 4 2 10 5 60
Lisa Coburn-Bo d 8 7 4 4 6 5 50
11 11 7 7 10 8 71
Hossein Juybari 12 13 7 8 13 9 79
DBE Psomas Richard Acuna 11 13 9 7 12 8 n 79.4
DanielKay 14 14 9 8 15 10 87
Lisa Coburn·Bo d 14 14 10 10 13 5 83
Ron Ripperger 12 11 7 7 10 8 73
Hossein Juybari 14 13 8 8 13 9 83
Dudek Richard Acuna 13 13 8 8 13 9 82 81
DanielKay 14 12 8 7 15 9 83
Lisa COburn-Bo d 14 15 9 8 15 5 84
RonRipperger 11 11 7 7 11 8 73
Hossein Juybari 14 14 9 9 14 9 87
Harris&Associates Richard Acuna 12 13 8 8 13 8 80 80
DanielKay 14 14 9 8 15 9 87
Lisa Coburn-Bo d 14 13 7 3 13 5 73
RonRipperger 11 10 7 7 10 8 71
Hossein Juybari 14 14 8 9 12 9 84
HDR Richard Acuna 13 14 8 7 12 8 80 79.2
DanielKay 14 15 7 9 12 9 84
Lisa Coburn-Bo d 15 14 9 3 13 5 n
RonRipperger 11 11 7 8 10 8 76
Infrastructure Hossein Juybari 13 15 8 9 13 9 88
Engineering Richard Acuna 12 14 9 8 14 8 86 85.6
Corporation DanielKay 13 15 8 10 12 10 89
Lisa Coburn-Bo d 15 15 10 9 14 5 89
RonRipperger 11 11 7 7 10 8 74
Kennedy/Jenks Hossein Juybari 14 14 9 9 14 9 89
Richard Acuna 12 12 7 7 12 7 77 83ConsultantsDanielKay14149814988
Li 15 15 14 5 87
RonRipperger 13 13 9 9 11 9 85
Hossein Juybari 15 15 10 10 15 10 96
Lee &Ro,Inc.Richard Acuna 13 13 8 8 12 9 84 89.8
DanielKay 15 15 9 9 15 9 93
rn-Bo d 15 15 10 10 15 5 91
Ron Ripperger 11 12 8 8 9 9 78
HosseinJuybari 15 15 9 10 15 9 94
RBF Consulting Richard Acuna 14 12 8 7 12 8 82 85.6
Daniel Kay 14 14 9 9 13 9 89
Usa Coburn-Bo d 15 14 8 8 14 5 85
Ron Ripperger 10 10 8 9 10 8 72
HosseinJuybari 14 14 8 9 14 9 85
Winzler&Kelly Richard Acuna 12 12 8 7 12 8 76 80.2
Daniel Kay 14 15 8 10 13 8 85
Lisa Coburn-Bo d 14 14 10 9 14 5 83
P:IWORKINGlAs NeededSVC5DesignlEngineerin9 Desi9nlForm-RFPRating-final_2-12-07.xls
AGENDA ITEM 5f
5TAFF REPORT
5
NO.
DIV.P2172/
001101
MEETING DATE:March 7,2007
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT
Daniel Kay I¥-Yt f)J<.
Associate Civil Engineer
Hossein Juybari fZM-/d11Jtr
Senior Civil ~gineerROdPosad~~"bb\~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~-
Assistant Gene~.l a ager,Engineering and Operations
Award of a Professi nal Structural Engineering and
Architectural Services Contract for the 1485-1 Pump Station
Replacement
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board awards a professional structural engineering and
architectural services contract to Simon Wong Engineering (SWE),
for the 1485-1 Pump Station and to authorize the General Manager
to execute an agreement with SWE in the amount of $54,765.(See
Exhibit A for project location.)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization to award a professional structural
engineering services contract to SWE for the 1485-1 Pump
Station.
ANALYSIS:
The 1485-1 Pump Station currently takes suction from the 1296
Reservoirs and pumps to the 1485 Pressure Zone and the 1485
Reservoirs.The existing 1485-1 Pump Station is showing
significant signs of corrosion and age and is in need of
replacement.
The new 1485-1 Pump Station shall
the existing pumps and equipment.
improve the existing drainage and
be constructed to the south of
The site will be graded to
provide a location for the new
pump station.The station will be an enclosed pump station to
protect the pumps and equipment from rain and direct sunlight
and reduce permanent noise impacts to the community.The
existing pump station will remain in service as long as possible
during construction.There will be a short period of time
during construction when a portable pump will be required during
the tie-in of the new pump station.
As part of the design phase,staff will require the services of
a structural engineering firm to prepare structural
calculations,structural drawings and specifications for the
1485-1 Pump Station.These services include architectural
design,noise abatement,community approval,structural design,
seismic design,and design of a bridge crane to remove and/or
maintenance the new pumps.
On November 2,2006,the District issued a formal Request for
Proposal (RFP)to six (6)consulting firms for professional
structural engineering services.On November 30,2006,four (4)
proposals were received from the following firms:
•Nolte Associates
•Stedman &Dyson Structural Engineers
•Simon Wong Engineering
•SMR-ISD Consulting Structural Engineers INC.
Two (2)firms (Beyaz &Patel,O'Connor C.M.INC.)chose not to
submit a proposal.
In accordance with the District's Policy 21,staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals.SWE received the high-test score
for their services,based on their experience,proposed method
to accomplish the work,and their ability to complete projects
on schedule.SWE was the most qualified consultant with the
best overall proposal.A summary of the complete evaluation is
shown in Exhibit B attached.
The District has worked with SWE before on the 15 million gallon
pre-stressed concrete 980-3 Reservoir.SWE's engineering staff
worked well with the District's staff and delivered an accurate
and complete design on time to the District.
Fee negotiations with SWE were concluded on January 22,2007.
Staff recommends the award of a professional services contract
to SWE for a not-to-exceed amount of $54,765.
2
FISCAL IMPACT:
.....:2
;f?7
The total budget for CIP P2172 is $1,997,000.Total commitments
to date are $419,208,including SWE's contract of $54,765.See
Attachment B for budget detail.
The Project Manager anticipates that based on the attached
financial analysis that the budget will be sufficient to support
this project.Finance has determined that 50%of the funding
will be available from the Betterment Fund and 50%of the
funding from the Replacement Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's Mission statement,"To
provide safe,reliable water,recycled water and wastewater
services to our community in an innovative,cost efficient water
wise and environmentally responsible manner",as well as the
General Manager's vision,"...prepared for the future..."by
guaranteeing that the District will always be able to meet
future water supply obligations and plan,design and construct
new facilities.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Gen~al Manager
DK/HJ/RP
Exhibit
Attachments
P:\WORKING\CIP P2172\Staff Reports\Staff Report-Structural Services.doc
3
WO 30138
~
SCALE:1"300'
DTAY WATER DISTRICT
1485-1 PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT
VICINITY MAP
IMPERIAL
BEACH
~
(')
r'~~~~~----I.--1.-r--l---.l_-,----,j;g__-l
l-V)
0...
2:
<I:
+':i2s::xw,/
\11OJ'-:;
OJ
l.L
1
\11+':i2s::xw,/
\11
Us::D-o
'-L:J
,/
QJ
I'-
~~1-_a.lo ""...""__""'__.....1...__.....iil-__.1-_"""'__"''''''
i 0~
;2 ~'illlilit0<:CI.>-~\0of':R DI s~?:
;;CIP#P2172 LOCATION MAP
Ii.....~~~~~---------------..EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS BY PANEL MEMBERS
1485-1 PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT,PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Project I Subproject Nos.:[P2172-00101j
(WRITTEN
Knowledge of TOTAL AVERAGE
Qualifications,Experience jurisdictional Consultant's SCORE References
Proposed agencies.local area Completeness,SCOREexperienceofrelevanttoAbilitytocompletecommitment
Consultant's type of project method to environmental Proposed Fee addressed requested projects on schedul to EBE,DBE,
assigned personnel being considered accomplish work concerns,and information MBE,SBEregulatory
requirements
SCORE 15 15 10 10 20 15 10 5 100 ./
Hosseln Juvbari 13 13 10 9 9 13 10 5 82
Lisa Coburn-Boyd 14 14 9 5 g 13 10 5 79
Nolte Jake Valencia 14 14 8 9 9 12 9 5 80 79.4
Richard Shackley 13 13 9 '7 9 12 9 5 77
Daniel Kay 14 15 7 9 g 11 9 5 79
Hossein Juvbari 9 9 6 6 11 11 8 5 65
Lisa Coburn-BoYd 11 10 7 2 11 11 10 5 67
SDSE Jake Valencia 14 13 8 9 11 13 9 5 82 72.6
Richard Shackley 11 12 8 6 11 11 7 5 71
Daniel Kay 12 13 8 7 11 14 8 5 78
HosseinJuvbari 13 14 10 10 15 13 10 5 90
Lisa Coburn-Boyd 15 15 6 8 15 13 10 5 87
Simon Wong JakeValencia 14 14 9 9 15 13 9 5 88 89 ./
Richard Shackley 15 15 9 8 15 14 9 5 90
Daniel Kay 14 14 9 9 15 14 10 5 90
HosseinJuybari 10 10 7 7 17 12 9 5 77
Lisa Coburn-Boyd 12 13 7 5 17 12 10 5 81
SMR-ISD Jake Valencia 14 13 8 9 17 12 9 5 87 84.6
Richard Shackley 14 15 9 8 17 14 8 5 90
Daniel Kay 13 13 8 9 17 13 10 5 88
P:IWORKINGICIP P2172\Agreements-Contracts-RFPsIStructuraIISelection ProcesslRFP Rating-AII.xls
ATTACHMENT A
l SUBJECTIPROJECT:Award of Professional Structural Engineering Services
Contract in the Amount of $54,765 for the 1485-1 Pump
Station
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The
following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting the board's approval of a
Professional Structural Engineering and Architectural
Services contract for the 1485-1 pump station.
•The pump station is at the end of its useful life and
is in need of replacement.
•Staff indicated that the pump station will be
increased in size as per the water resources master
plan and will be enclosed to protect it from the
elements and provide security.
•The District issued a Request for Proposals to six
consulting firms on November 30,2006 and received
four proposals.
•Staff reviewed and scored the proposals and recommends
that the Professional Structural Engineering and
Architectural Services contract be awarded to Simon
Wong Engineering for an amount not to exceed $54,765.
•It was noted that the District has worked with Simon
Wong Engineering on the 15 million gallon 980-3
reservoir and was happy with their work.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported
staff's recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors
on the consent calendar.
4
_._,
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Award of
Contract
Station
ATTACHMENT 8
Professional Structural Engineering Services
in the Amount of $54,765 for the 1485-1 Pump
Budget Detail
Otay WaterDistrict
P2172 -PS -1485-1 Pump Station Improvements
Date Updated:Feb_01,2007
Outstanding Vendor/Budget Committed Expenditures Commitment&ProjectedFinalCosl
$1,997,000 CommentsForecast
Planning
In House/Labor 76,046 76,046 76,046
Books,Periodicals &Subscription 276 276 276 University of California
ConsultantContracts 3,813 3,813 3,813 Cass Construction Inc.
16,334 16,334 16,334 Daniel BoyleEngineering,Inc
5,936 5,936 -5,936 DV Assocaites,Inc.
500 500 500 ChicagoTitle Company
9,500 6,000 3,500 9,500 Randall H.Blaesi,ASA
41,255 41,255 41,255 PBS&J
Advertise &Awards 226 226 -226 San Diego Daily Transcript
353 353 -353 Union Tribune Publishing Co.
Mileage 10 10 10 PettyCash Custodian
Professional &Legal Fees --61 61 61 Garcia,Calderon &Ruiz
LandtEasement Acquisition
Total Planning $154,309 $109,555 $44,755 $154,310
Design -~In House/Labor 122,000 78,087 43,913 122,000
Consultant Contracts 9,684 7,810 1,874 9,684 Geotechnics Inc.
12,330 12,330 12,330 HVAC Engineering Inc.
24,120 24,120 24,120 Engineering PartnersInc.
54,765 54,765
_.
54,765 Simon Wong Engineering
Advertiseand Award 2,000 73 1,928 2,000 San Diego Daiiy Transcript
Regulatory Agency Fee -
In House/Labor -
Materials
Service Contracts --
-
Total Design $224,899 $85,970 $138,929 $224,899
Construction
In House/Labor 20,000 499 19,501 20,000 -
Materials
Temporary Labor --Shipping -
Consultant Contracts
Construction Contracts 1,443,000 1,443,000
SelVice Contracts 134,791 134,791 Construction Management
Professional &Legal Fees --
OWD to PayCWA for FCF 14
Accptlclose-out 20,000 20,000 20,000
Total Construction $40,000 $499 $1,617,292 $1,617,791
Grand Total $419,208 $196,024 $1,800,976 $1,997,000
5
AGENDA ITEM 59
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:March 7 /2007
ALLDIV.NO.N/APROJECTI
SUBPROJECT
Hossein Juybari f1."'\~Ef':l
Senior Civil Engineer
Rod posa~~~.
Chief/Engineering
Manny Magana~:fT:
Assistant Genera anager/Engineering and Operations
Award of As-Neede Electrical Services Contract/Fiscal Years
06-07 and 07-08
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:
GENERAL MANAGER/S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the General Manager to enter into an
Agreement for Professional Services for As-Needed Electrical
Services with The Engineering Partners/Inc.(Engineering
Partners)for an amount not to exceed $100/000 during Fiscal
Years 06-07 and 07-08.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the award of a professional
services contract to obtain electrical services on an as-needed
basis in support of the District/s Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).The contract amount is not to exceed $100/000 for a two-
year period commencing upon Board approval (see Attachment B).
ANALYSIS:
The District will require the professional services of an
electrical consultant to perform studies in support of the
District/s CIP projects for a period of two years.The As-Needed
Electrical Services contract will provide the District with the
ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and efficient
manner and on an as-needed basis.
The District will require the expertise of an electrical
consultant to design electrical systems for a variety of CIP
projects.The costs for these electrical designs typically
range between $8,000 and $25,000,depending on the scope of the
project.The District incurs expenses in requesting,reviewing
and ranking proposals;checking references;and preparing staff
reports for Committee and Board approval.The electrical design
services,individually,are small enough that preparation of
formal proposals by consultants becomes expensive and these
costs are passed on to the District.For these reasons,the
District began using similar contracts for as-needed
environmental consulting services in Fiscal Year 05-06 and as-
needed geotechnical services in Fiscal Year 06-07.
The District will issue task orders to the Consultant for
specific projects during the contract period.The Consultant
will then prepare a detailed scope of work,schedule,and cost
estimate for each task order assigned under the contract.Upon
written task order authorization from the District,the
Consultant shall then proceed with the project as described in
the scope of work.
The ClP projects that are estimated to require electrical
services for Fiscal Years 06-07 and 07-08,at this time,are
listed below:
ESTIMATED
CIP DESCRIPTION COST
P2143 1296-3 Reservoir,2.0 MG $14,000
P2191 850-4 Reservoir,2.2 MG $12,000
S2015 Calavo Sewer Lift Station $12,500
R2034 860-1 Recycled Water Reservoir,$17,0004.0 MG
TOTAL:$55,500
The electrical scopes for the above projects are estimated from
preliminary information and past projects.Future crp projects
may require the need for electrical engineering services during
Fiscal Years 06-07 and 07-08.Therefore,staff believes that a
$100,000 cap on the As-Needed Electrical Services contract is
adequate.
The As-Needed Electrical Services contract would have a one-year
base period commencing upon Board approval,and a one-year
extension based on the District's ClP schedule and the
consultant's successful performance.The contract is not to
exceed $100,000 for all task orders.Fees for professional
2
services will be charged to the CIP Projects for which the
electrical designs are performed.
This As-Needed Electrical Services contract does not commit the
District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to
perform work on a CIP Project.The District does not guarantee
work to the consultant,nor does the District guarantee to the
consultant that it will expend all of the funds authorized by
the contract on professional services.
On October 10,2006,the District issued a formal Request for
Proposal (RFP)for professional as-needed electrical services.
On November 1,2006 seven (7)proposals were received from the
following firms:
•BSE Engineering,Inc
•Kanrad Engineering,Inc
•Tetra Tech,Inc
•DL Engineering &Controls,Inc
•Engineering Partners,Inc
•ERJ Engineering Consultants
•Dahl,Taylor,&Associates
Two (2)firms (ILA Zammit and P2S Engineering)chose not to
.submit a proposal.
In accordance with the District's Policy 21,staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals.Engineering Partners received the
highest score for their services based on their experience,
proposed method to accomplish the work,and their ability to
complete projects on schedule.A summary of the complete
evaluation is shown in Attachment C.
The District has worked with Engineering Partners before on both
the 803-4 Reservoir and the 1485-2 Reservoir.Their engineering
staff worked well with the District's staff and delivered an
accurate and complete design on time.
Staff recommends award of the As-Needed Electrical Services
contract to Engineering Partners for a two-year period
commencing upon Board approval for an amount not-to-exceed
$100,000.
3
FISCAL IMPACT:~
The funds for this ~ontract will be expended from the CIP
projects noted previously.The fees for professional services
requested herein are available in the authorized CIP project
budgets.This contract is for professional services based on
the District's need and schedule,and expenditures will not be
made until a task order is approved by the District for the
consultant's professional services on a specific CIP project.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's strategic goal to meet
current and future potable water demands and the strategy to
become a recycled water leader.
LEGAL IMPACT:
Consulting services would be subject to the terms of the
District's standard agreement for Professional Services
(Attachment B).
Attachments
HJ/RR/RP
P:\WORKING\As Needed Svcs Design\Electrical\BD 03-07-07,As-Needed Electrical Services.doc
4
ATTACHMENT A
Award of As-Needed Electrical Services Contract,FY 06-07
SUBJECT/PROJECT:and 07 - 08
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The following
comments were made:
•Staff is requesting the board's approval of an As-Needed
Electrical Services contract for Fiscal Years 2007 and
2008.
•The District will require electrical consultants to design
electrical systems for a variety of CIP projects.
•Both the District and the vendor incurs expenses to prepare
and respond to Requests for Proposals (RFP)for each CIP
project requiring electrical expertise.
•For efficiency to both the District and contractor,staff
recommends that a vendor be identified to provide such
electrical expertise on an as-needed basis.
•An RFP was issued on October 10,2006 and the District
received seven proposals.
•Staff reviewed and scored the proposals and recommends that
The Engineering Partners,Inc.be awarded a contract for an
amount not to exceed $100,000 in Fiscal Years 2007 and
2008.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported staff's
recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors on the
consent calendar.
ATTACHMENT 8
Award of As-Needed Electrical Services Contract,FY 06-07
SUBJECT/PROJECT:and 07 -08
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
AND
THE ENGINEERING PARTNERS,INC.
FOR
AS-NEEDED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
This Agreement (Agreement)is made and entered into this __day of by and
between the OTAY WATER DISTRICT,a municipal water district,formed and existing
pursuant to CaliforniaMunicipal Water District Act of1911,as amended,hereinafter referred to
as "DISTRICT,"and THE ENGINEERING PARTNERS,INC.,hereinafter referred to as
"CONSULTANT."
WIT NESS E T H
WHEREAS,the DISTRICT requires the services ofan electrical engineering consultant
to render certain technical and professional services described below;and
WHEREAS,the CONSULTANT has available,and offers to provide,personnel and
facilities necessary to accomplish the work within the required time.
NOW,THEREFORE,DISTRICT AND CONSULTANT agree as follows:
I.Scope ofElectrical Engineering Services
The CONSULTANT agrees to perform those services described in the scope ofwork set
forth in Exhibit 'A'attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.The scope of
consulting services shall include meetings with District staffand review ofprevious technical
documentation.
II.Authorization
General authorization to proceed with the work described in Exhibit'A'is hereby granted
upon full execution ofthe Agreement.However,CONSULTANT shall not proceed with any
work described in Exhibit 'A'until the receipt of a request for specific services or "task order"
from the District's Designated Agent.Upon receipt ofsuch a request for specific services,
CONSULTANT shall provide the the District's Designated Agent with an estimated budget for
the requested services and an estimated time for completion.The District's Designated Agent
shall then provide the CONSULTANT with authorization to proceed.No work shall be
commenced until the CONSULTANT receives the authorization to proceed.
1/1.Compensation
- I -
In return for providing the services described in Exhibit'A',which are to be performed
by the CONSULTANT,the DISTRICT agrees to pay,and the CONSULTANT agrees to accept,
compensation for all executed service requests up to an amount not-to-exceed ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00),payable as agreed to by the parties per service request.
Total compensation for all Professional Services provided under this agreement shall not exceed
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00)during the term ofthis agreement
without prior written authorization from the DISTRICT.
The CONSULTANT shall invoice the DISTRICT on a monthly schedule in the format
shown in Exhibits 'B'and 'C'.The CONSULTANT shall not invoice the DISTRICT for work
that has not been completed at the time the invoice is prepared.The DISTRICT shall have forty-
five (45)days from the date ofreceipt oferror-free invoices prepared in accordance with Exhibits
'B'and 'C'to make payment without incurring interest and/or penalty charges.
IV.Standard of-Care
The CONSULTANT is employed to render electrical engineering consulting services
only,and any payment made to the CONSULTANT is compensation solely for such services as
the CONSULTANT may render and recommendations the CONSULTANT may make.The
CONSULTANT'S services shall be furnished in accordance with generally accepted electrical
engineering consulting principles and practices.
V.Documents
All original drawings,.spreadsheets and documents,including digital photographs and
files developed for the project,shall,upon payment in full for the services described in this
Agreement,be furnished to and become the property ofthe DISTRICT,except as otherwise
provided in Section VIII:Termination or Abandonment.
The CONSULTANT shall provide final documents on high-density media such as ZIP®
disk 100/250 MB or compact disk (CD).Final drawings and details shall be in AutoCAD®2000
format or more recent.Final Contract Specifications,reports,and spreadsheets shall be in
Microsoft®Office 2000 format or more recent.Any other electronic format documents provided
to the DISTRICT must be formatted to the same software version or release as that ofthe
DISTRICT.
VI.Perlormance and Schedule
The CONSULTANT agrees to coordinate project work to ensure its timely completion
and shall promptly notify the DISTRICT ofany anticipated delays,which may affect the work
schedule.In the event the time for completing the scope ofwork is exceeded due to
circumstances beyond the control ofthe CONSULTANT,the CONSULTANT shall have an
additional amount oftime to be agreed upon in writing between the parties in which to complete
the work.
VII.Change in Scope of Work
Work under this agreement is to be performed on a task order basis and shall be pre-
approved by the DISTRICT.Each task order shall specify the services requested,the time for
- 2 -
performance and an estimated cost for such services.Ifthe services requested require a change,
addition or modification,such change,addition or modification shall require prior approval of
the DISTRICT.In the event that the services requested are outside ofthe Scope ofServices
specified in Exhibit'A',CONSULTANT shall bring it to the attention ofthe DISTRICT
immediately,and no such work shall be done prior to obtaining written approval from the
DISTRICT.
Ifthe DISTRICT changes the Scope ofWork,or ifchanges in regulations after execution
ofthis Agreement necessitate changes in the Scope ofWork,or ifthe CONSULTANT is
requested to perform services not detailed in the Scope ofWork,the parties shall execute an
amendment to Exhibit 'A',Scope ofWork.-
All work performed without proper authorization shall be considered part ofthis
Agreement for no additional compensation.
VIII.Termination-or Abandonment
Ten (l0)calendar days from the date ofa written notice to terminate,the DISTRICT has
the right to terminate or abandon all or any portion of a work order.The District is under no
obligation to require all the services described under the Scope of Work and shall be able to
select only those services needed from time to time,as provided in each work order.In the event
that the District abandons or terminates any services requested as provided hereunder,the
DISTRICT will have the right to take possession and shall own immediately all original
specifications,drawings,and other documents developed for that portion ofthe work completed
and/or being abandoned.The DISTRICT will pay the CONSULTANT for services for any
portion ofthe work being terminated which were rendered prior to termination.Ifsaid
termination occurs prior to completion ofany task ofthe project for which a payment request has
not been received,the fee for service performed during such task shall be based on an amount
mutually agreed to by the DISTRICT and the CONSULTANT for the portion ofsuch task
completed but not paid prior to said termination.The DISTRICT will not be liable for any costs
other than the fees or portions thereof,which are specified herein.Ifall work is abandoned as
herein provided,this Agreement shall automatically terminate on the 10th day from the date of
notice.
IX.Indemnification
A.CONSULTANT agrees to the following:
1.Indemnification for Professional Services.CONSULTANT will save harmless
and indemnify and,at DISTRICT's request,defend DISTRICT and all its
officers,volunteers,employees,and representatives from and against suits,
actions,or claims brought for,or on account of,injuries or damages sustained
by any person or property directly resulting from a negligent or wrongful act,
error or omission by CONSULTANT or any ofCONSULTANT's officers,
agents,employees,or representatives,in the performance ofthis Agreement.
2.Indemnificationfor other Damages.CONSULTANT indemnifies and holds
DISTRICT harmless from and against a claim,action,damages,costs
(including reasonable attorney's fees),injuries,or liability,directly resulting
- 3 -
from this Agreement,for its negligent performance.Should DISTRICT be
named in a suit,or should a claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise,
directly resulting out of this Agreement,for the CONSULTANT's negligent
performance,CONSULTANT will defend DISTRICT (at DISTRICT's request
and with counsel satisfactory to DISTRICT)and will indemnify DISTRICT
for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or
otherwise.
B.For purpose of this section "DISTRICT"includes DISTRICT's officers,officials,
employees,agents,representatives,an~certified volunteers.
C.It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive
termination ofthis Agreement.
D.The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be
maintained by CONSULTANT as required by this Agreement and any approval of
said insurance by DISTRICT,are not intended to and will not in any manner limit
or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT
pursuant to this Agreement,including,without limitation,to the provisions
concerning indemnification.
x.Insurance Requirements
A.Before commencing performance under this Agreement,and at all other times this
Agreement is effective,CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following
types ofinsurance with coverage limits complying,at a minimum,with the limits set
forth below:
Type ofInsurance
Commercial general liability
Professional liability
Business automobile liability
Workers compensation
Limits (combined single)
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Statutory requirement
B.Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements ofISO-
COL Form No.CO 12 10 11 97.The amount ofinsurance set forth above will be a
combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury,and property
damage for the policy coverage.Liability policies will be endorsed to name
DISTRICT,its officials,and employees as "additional insureds"under said
insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed "primary"such
that any other insurance that may be carried by DISTRICT will be excess thereto.
Such insurance will be on an "occurrence"basis,except professional liability shall
be on a "claims made"basis,and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction
except upon a thirty-(30)day prior written notice to DISTRICT.
-4-
C.Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form
CA 00 01 10 01,including symbol 1 (Any Auto).
D.CONSULTANT will furnish to DISTRICT duly authenticated Certificates of
Insurance and Endorsements evidencing maintenance ofthe insurance required
under this Agreement and such other evidence ofinsurance as may be reasonably
required by DISTRICT from time to time.Insurance must be placed with insurers
with a current A.M.Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of
"A:VII."Originals ofthe duly authenticated Certificates ofInsurance and
Endorsements shall be included with this Agreement as Exhibit D.
XI.Successors and Assigns
This Agreement and all ofthe terms,conditions,and provisions hereof shall inure to the
benefit ofand be binding upon the parties hereto,and their respective successors and assigns;
provided,however,that no assignment ofthis Agreement shall be made without written consent
ofthe parties to this Agreement.Any attempt by the CONSULTANT to assign or otherwise
transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent ofthe DISTRICT shall
be void.Since the primary consideration ofthe DISTRICT in entering this agreement is the
qualifications ofthe CONSULTANT,as opposed to a low bid,the DISTRICT will refuse to
consent to assignments ifit considers the assignee to have lesser qualifications.Any notice or
instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by
depositing the same in any United States Post Office,registered or certified,postage prepaid,
addressed to:
DISTRICT:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,California 91978-2004
Attention:Mark Watton
and shall be effective upon date ofmailing.
CONSULTANT:
The Engineering Partners,Inc.
7670 Opportunity Road,Suite 165
San Diego,CA 92111
Attention:Matt Long
XII.Project Organization
The CONSULTANT proposes to assign Bobby Eugenio as the Project Manager.The
Project Manager shall not be removed from the project or reassigned without prior approval of
the DISTRICT,which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.No subcontracting of
significant portions ofthe contracted environmental services shall be made without prior
approval ofthe DISTRICT.
XIII.Integration
This Agreement and the attached Exhibits represent the entire understanding by and
between the DISTRICT and the CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein.No prior
oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered
- 5 -
hereunder.This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both
parties hereto.
XIV.Execution
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
Mark Watton,General Manager
-
APPROVED AS TO FORM
General Counsel
THE ENGINEERING PARTNERS,INC.
_.~-
Romeo Flores,President
COPIEs:0 FILE (Orig.).0 CONSULTANT,0 PROJECT MANAGER.,0 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
P:\WORKING\As Needed Svcs Design\Geotechnical\As-Needed Geotechnical Services Agreement.dee
- 6 -
ATTACHMENT C
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS BY PANEL MEMBERS
AS-NEEDED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
<WRITIEN
Knowledgeof TOTAL AVERAGE
QualifICations,Experience jurisdictional Consultant's SCORE SCORE REFERENCES
experience of retevanllo Proposed agencies.local area Completeness.Ability 10complete commitment
Consultant's type ofproject method to environmental Proposed Fee addressedrequested projectson schedule 10 ESE,DBE,
assigned personnel beingconsidered accomplishwork concerns,and information MBE,SSEregulatory
requirements
SCORE REVIEWER 15 15 10 10 20 15 10 5 100 .-
DonAnderson 12 12 7 7 20 12 7 5 82
Marta Riendeau 14 13 10 8 20 13 10 I 5 93
BSE Engineering,Inc Ron Ripperger 13 12 7 7 20 12 7 5 83 89.8
Alfred Pedroza 14 15 10 10 20 15 10 5 99
ElmerAlex 15 15 7 7 20 15 8 5 92
Don Anderson 13 13 8 8 18 13 8 5 86
Marta Riendeau 8 10 3 6 18 5 10 5 65
Kanrad Englnering,Inc Ron Ripperger 12 10 6 7 18 12 8 5 78 79.4
Alfred Pedroza 13 13 8 10 18 12 10 5 89
ElmerAlex 13 13 2 7 18 13 8 5 79
Don Anderson 13 13 8 8 15 13 8 3 81
Marta Riendeau 14 15 10 10 15 15 10 3 92
Tetra Tech,Inc Ron Ripperger 12 13 7 8 15 13 8 3 79 87.4
Alfred Pedroza 14 15 10 10 15 15 10 3 92
ElmerAlex 15 15 10 10 15 15 10 3 93
DonAnderson 13 12 8 7 18 13 7 5 83
DL Engineering &Marta Riendeau 14 13 8 7 18 13 10 5 88
Ron Ripperger 12 12 8 7 18 13 9 5 84 88.2Controls,Inc Alfred Pedroza 15 15 9 8 18 14 10 5 94
ElmerAlex 14 14 9 7 18 15 10 5 92
DonAnderson 13 13 8 8 20 13 8 5 88
Engineering Partners,MartaRiendeau 14 13 7 8 20 13 9 5 89
Ron Ripperger 15 14 8 10 20 14 9 5 95 93 .-Inc Alfred Pedroza 15 15 10 10 20 15 10 5 100
ElmerAlex 15 14 7 8 20 15 9 5 93
Don Anderson 12 12 7 7 20 12 6 5 81
ERJEngineering Marta Riendeau 13 13 7 8 20 10 8 5 84
Ron Ripperger 12 7 6 7 20 10 7 5 74 82.4ConsultantsAlfredPedroza131388201310590
ElmerAlex 12 12 6 7 20 13 8 5 83
Don Anderson 13 11 8 8 17 12 8 5 82
Dahl,Taylor,&Marta Riendeau 15 14 10 9 17 15 10 5 95
Ron Ripperger 12 7 7 7 17 11 8 5 74 88AssociatesAlfredPedroza1514109171510595
ElmerAlex 15 15 10 8 17 14 10 5 94
P:\WORKING\AS NeededSvcs DesignlElectricallAS-Needed Electrical Panel Summary.xls
------_._--_._-
AGENDA ITEM 5h
STAFF REPORT
1DIV.
NO.
R2003/
001103
March 7,2007
PROJECT /
SUBPROJECT:
MEETING DATE:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod Posada I'1/-"-~l2f'
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magan~~
Assistant General Manag~,Engineering and Operations
Approve of Settlement Agreement and Reimbursement with The
EastLake Company and the City of Chula Vista for Capital
Improvement Program Water Facilities Associated with the 680-
1 Reservoir at Sunset View Park
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the General Manager to execute a settlement
agreement and reimbursement release in the amount of $199,764 to The
EastLake Company (EastLake)and the City of Chula Vista (City)for costs
associated with construction of the 680-1 Recycled Water Reservoir
project.(See attached Exhibit A for project location.)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authoriza~ion for the General Manager to execute a
settlement agreement with EastLake and the City in the amount of $199,764.
ANALYSIS:
Staff began the effort of siting the 680-1 Recycled Water Reservoir in the
EastLake ~rea when the Otay Water District's (District)Water Master Plan
was developed in 1995 by Montgomery Watson.As part of the planning
process,staff met with area developers and the City of Chula Vista (City)
to determine the exact ~ocation for the facilities.This process
consisted of a siting study where various combinations of alternatives
were considered and criteria developed.A screening process narrowed down
the various alternatives until the Sports Park (Sunset View Park),located
in EastLake,was recommended by the group.Some of the criteria used in
selecting and eliminating alternatives were proximity to the areas being
served and visual impacts.Utilizing an underground reservoir mitigated
the visual concerns as well as addressed the need to locate the on-site
facilities close to the 680 and 944 service zones.
Towards this effort,the District entered into two separate agreements.
The first agreement was executed on June 8,1998 between the District and
EastLake.This agreement provided for reimbursement to EastLake for
design and construction costs along with costs incurred for a construction
manager for the 680-1 Reservoir and 944-1 Pump Station.The second
agreement was executed on August 22,2000 between the City and EastLake.
This agreement provided for a joint use of the Sunset View Park site and
reimbursed the City for easements for the District's facilities at the
site.
During construction of the District's facilities within Sunset View Park
it became clear that the reservoir and pump station,along with
appurtenances,had some impact to the park.These impacts were discussed
at various project meetings and in letters,but were never formalized in
an agreement nor amended to the reimbursement agreement with EastLake.
Since these impacts to the park were hard to quantify until construction
was complete EastLake waited until May 4,2005 to send in the detail for
these costs.Staff reviewed EastLake's submitted costs and obtained a
construction Manager peer review from Hirsch &Company.After several
discussions and meetings with EastLake,staff negotiated the initial
request for reimbursement of costs from $497,290 down to $199,764.The
detail for a comparison of these costs is provided in the exhibit included
with Attachment B.The City is a signatory to the agreement,but EastLake
will receive 100%of the reimbursement because EastLake bore all the
costs.The City's involvement is as owner of the land the reservoir .is
sited on.All parties to the reimbursement and release agreement will
release each other from any further liability in connection with the
reimbursed costs.
In summary,staff's recommendation is to approve the reimbursement
agreement with EastLake and authorize the General manager to execute the
agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approved total budget for CIP R2022 is $4,350,000.Expenditures to
date are $4,072,946.Total commitments to date including this agreement
are approximately $4,274,075.See Attachment C for budget detail.
The Project Manager anticipates that based on the attached financial
analysis the budget will be sufficient to support this project.Finance
has determined that 100%of the funding will be available from the
Expansion Fund.The District anticipates up to a 25-percent reimbursement
from the Bureau of Reclamation.
2
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District's mission statement and the District's
Strategic Goal to:"Design and construct new infrastructure -satisfy
current and future water needs for Potable,Recycled,and Wastewater
Services."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None at this time.The General Counsel worked with staff,the City and
the developer in connection with the negotiation of the settlement and
prepared a form of settlement and release agreement.The release of
liability contained in the settlement and release agreement is intended to
protect the District from further claims in connection with the work
performed by EastLake and the impact of such work and the siting of the
water facilities in the park.
General Manager
Exhibit
Attachments
RR/RP
P:\WORKING\CIP R003\WO 8653\Staff Reports\BD 03-07-07,EastLake Agreement.doc
3
CIP R2003
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
680-1 RECYCLED WATER RESERVOIR
CENTRAL AREA
LOCATION MAPWO8653
Tijuana Estuary
IMPERIAL
BEACH
0>•."viW'":bro'">'til.p
Lo0-..'""-"-".p
Vl>'~"'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil"fIIIii~;"il.I..l.ii~ii;;iIii:li;;iWQ"'''''__IIIIIIIIiI~~_~~
ro
o:>>'~o'"0-U>''"z;;:
'"o:>
ri:..------....------------IIIIIII------------------_...EXHIBIT A
mC:ii IR .I I~CT~
R2003-001103
ATTACHMENT A
Reimbursement,Release and Settlement Agreement with The
EastLake Company for Capital Improvement Program Water
Facilities Associated with the 680-1 Reservoir at Sunset
View Park
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee reviewed this
item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The following comments were
made:
•Staff is requesting the board's approval of a Settlement Agreement
and Reimbursement with The EastLake Company in the amount of
$199,764.
•The reimbursement covers costS associated with the construction of
the 680-1 Recycled Water Reservoir and 944-1 Pump Station project
that had been sited as underground facilities at Sunset View Park
within the EastLake development.
•The siting of the reservoir beneath Sunset View Park was a
compromise with the City of Chula Vista (the landowner)who had
selected the same site for a community park.
•The building of underground facilities mitigated the visual
concerns/impacts and also addressed the need to locate the
facilities close to the 680 and 944 service zones.
•During construction,modifications needed to be made to the park
plan to accommodate the recycled facilities.There were also
additional changes required which included the enhancement of an
existing access road to accommodate the weight of trucks/vehicles
that the District would utilize to maintain the facilities.
•Such changes were discussed through meetings and correspondence
with The EastLake Company during the construction of the park and
facilities.The additional cost,however,could not be quantified
until construction was completed.
•On May 4,2005,The Eastlake Company submitted the costs associated
with the construction changes.Their original request was
negotiated down to $199,764 from $497,290.
4
•Staff believes this is a fair settlement and is recommending the
approval of the Settlement Agreement and Reimbursement with The
EastLake Company in the amount of $199,764.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported staff's
recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors on the consent
calendar.
5
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
R2003-001103
ATTACHMENT B
Reimbursement,Release and Settlement Agreement with The
EastLake Company for Capital Improvement Program Water
Facilities Associated with the 680-1 Reservoir at Sunset
View Park -Agreement
6
REIMBURSEMENT,RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND THE EASTLAKE
COMPANY,LLC FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE 680-1
RESERVOIR AT SUNSET VIEW PARK
(CIP R2003)
This Reimbursement,Release and Settlement Agreement (hereinafter,"Settlement
Agreement")is entered into as ofthis __day of 2007,by and between the Otay
Water District,a Municipal Water District formed under the Municipal Water District Act of
1911 (hereinafter,the "District"),the City of Chula Vista,a municipal corporation (the "City"),
and the EastLake Company,LLC,a California limited liability company (hereinafter,the
"Developer"),in view ofthe following facts and for the following purposes:
RECITALS
A.WHEREAS,the Board of Directors (the "Board")of the District has adopted a
Master Plan and approved a Capital Improvement Program (hereinafter,"CIP")for all regional
water facilities throughout the District;and
B.WHEREAS,on or about June 9,1998 the Developer and the District entered into
a reimbursement agreement entitled "The First Reimbursement Agreement Between Otay Water
District and the Eastlake Company"(the "Reimbursement Agreement")in connection with a park
referred to therein as the EastLake Neighborhood Park,which was later renamed the Sunset
View Park (the "Park");and
C.WHEREAS,pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement,the Developer agreed to
design and construct a 2.2 million gallon reservoir to be known as the 680 Reservoir,and the
infrastructure,including piping,for a pump station to be known as the 950 Pump Station
(together with the 680 Reservoir,the "Water Facilities"),within the Park and the District agreed
to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred in connection therewith;and
D.WHEREAS,on August 22,2000,the District,and the City entered into that
certain Joint Use and Grant of Easement Agreement,recorded in the official records of the
County Recorder of the County of San Diego on May 14,2003,as document number 2003-
0563958 (the "Easement Agreement"),pursuant to which the City granted the District an
easement for the maintenance,repair designed and constructed the Sunset View Park within the
City of Chula Vista;and
E.WHEREAS,on or about November of 2000,the District,the City and the
Developer agreed to increase the size ofthe reservoir to 3.4 million gallons;and
F.WHEREAS,on a letter dated November 30,2000,the City memorialized the
understanding ofthe parties,which included a proposal to amend the Reimbursement Agreement
and the Easement Agreement to reflect the change in size of the Water Facilities and to allocate
the increased design and construction costs;and
G.WHEREAS,due to the schedule of the project and other concerns,the District,
the Developer and the City did not finalize negotiations on the proposed amendments before the
design and construction had to be undertaken and finalized;and
H.WHEREAS,despite the lack of written amendments,the Developer incurred the
costs relating to the Water Facilities with the understanding that said projects are listed in the
District's CIP and the District would reimburse the Developer for the costs incurred in
connection with the Water Facilities;and
I.WHEREAS,having completed the construction of the Park,the Developer has
submitted a request for reimbursement to the District for costs related to the Water Facilities and
not previously reimbursed to Developer;and
J.WHEREAS,the District and Developer have reached an agreement concerning
the costs related to the Water Facilities for which the District will reimburse the Developer and
those costs are listed on Exhibit A hereto,which amount to $199,764;and
K.WHEREAS,the Developer has conformed to all ofthe conditions set forth in the
District's current Policy 26 governing reimbursement agreements with developers;and
L.WHEREAS,the Developer has provided assurances to the District that it
complied with all applicable provisions of the District's Code of Ordinances,Standard
Specifications and other applicable laws in connection with the Water Facilities;and
M.WHEREAS,the District believes that it is in the best interest of the District to
reimburse the Developer for the costs set forth on Exhibit A;
NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the recitals set forth above and the mutual
obligations ofthe parties herein expressed,the District and the Developer agree as follows:
1.Project.Pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement and the Easement agreement,
the Developer,the City and the District agreed to locate the Water Facilities
within the Park.Although the parties originally intended that the Water Facilities
would include a 2.2 million gallon reservoir,during the course of the project,the
parties agreed to increase the size ofthe reservoir to 3.4 million gallons.
2.Project Cost.The Developer designed and constructed the Water Facilities within
the Park and funded all costs related to the design and construction.The
Developer hereby provides the District with assurances and warrants that it has
constructed the facilities to District standards and in compliance with all
applicable laws,rules and regulations.
3.Reimbursement.
During the design and construction ofthe Water Facilities,the District processed and paid
certain invoices submitted by the Developer.However,the project is now operationally
complete and accepted and Developer is requesting reimbursement of certain costs,set forth on
Exhibit A (the "Additional Costs"),incurred by the Developer in connection with the increase in
size ofthe reservoir,which costs have not previously been reimbursed to the Developer.
ND:4851-5292-5697,v.1 2
4.Release.
For and in consideration of the reimbursement of the Additional Costs,as herein
contemplated,the Developer fully releases and discharges the District,each member ofits Board
ofDirectors,its officers,agents,servants,successors,employees,attorneys and assigns,from any
and all causes ofaction,claims,liens,demands,damages,obligations,litigation costs,expenses,
and attorney's fees,known or unknown arising directly or indirectly out of,or in any way related
to the Water Facilities,the Reimbursement Agreement and the Park.The Developer,the City
and the District also release and discharge each other from any liability in connection with the
construction ofthe Park.
Each of the parties hereto expressly waives the provisions of Sc;:ction 1542 of the Civil
Code ofCalifornia,which provides that:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does
not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of
executing the release which,if known by him or her,must have
materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the payment of the Additional Costs is in full
accord and satisfaction ofall potential and actual claims the Developer has or could have made to
the District in connection with the Water Facilities,the Reimbursement Agreement or the Park.
The parties further declare and represent that no promise,inducement or agreement not herein
expressed has been made and that this Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement
between the parties hereto.
5.Record Keeping.
The Developer has kept an accurate record of the actual cost to construct the Water
Facilities,for which reimbursement is requested,in accordance with generally accepted
accounting procedures.Upon request of the District,the Developer shall allow an authorized
District representative,during the Developer's regular business hours and upon reasonable
notice,to examine and duplicate any records relevant to verifying the actual cost to construct the
water facilities,including,without limitation,all contract bids and invoices.
Any changes that occurred during construction have been properly documented.Back-up
documentation shall be kept by the Developer for three (3)years from the date ofthe acceptance
by the District of the Water Facilities.Such documentation shall also be provided to the District
for its review upon its request.
6.Amendments.
No amendment,modification,supplement,termination or waiver ofany provision ofthis
Settlement Agreement shall be effective unless executed in writing by both parties and then only
in the specified instance and for the specific purpose given.
7.Notices.
Any demand upon or notice required or permitted to be given by one party to the other
party shall be in writing.Except as otherwise provided by law,any demand upon or notice
required or permitted to be given by one party to the other party shall be effective (a)on a
ND:4851-5292-5697,v.1 3
personal delivery,(b)on the second business day after mailing by certified or registered United
States mail,return receipt requested,or (c)on the succeeding business day after mailing by
Express Mail or after deposit with a private delivery service of general use (e.g.,Federal Express)
postage or fee prepaid as appropriate,addressed to the party at the address shown below:
Ifto the District:
Ifto the Developer:
If to the City:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,California 91978-2096
ATTN:General Manager
The EastLake Company,LLC
13520 Evening Creek Drive North,Suite 380
San Diego,California 92128
Telephone:(858)513-7800
Facsimile:(858)513-7805
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista,California 91910
Notice ofchange ofaddress shall be given bywritten notice in the manner set forth in this
paragraph.
8.Indemnity.
Each party agrees to defend,indemnify,protect,and hold harmless the other party and its
agents,officers,and employees from and against any and all claims asserted or liability
established for damages or injuries to any person or property,which arise from or are connected
with or are caused or claim to be caused by the performance of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement;provided,however,that each party's duty to defend,indemnify and hold harmless
shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligent acts or omissions or willful
misconduct ofthe other party,its agents,officers or employees.
9.Arbitration and Attorney's Fees.
If there is a dispute concerning this Settlement Agreement or ansmg out of this
Settlement Agreement,the parties agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable
fashion by direct discussion and then by non-binding mediation if direct discussion does not
resolve the dispute.Should both these efforts fail,the parties agree to submit the matter to
binding arbitration.Ifthe parties cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within thirty (30)days of
the conclusion of non-binding mediation,the arbitration shall be conducted by three (3)
arbitrators.Each party shall select one (1)arbitrator and the two (2)arbitrators shall then select
the third arbitrator.A decision shall be rendered by a majority vote ofthe three arbitrators.
In the event that arbitration is required,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
all reasonable costs and attorney's fees.In the event a settlement offer is made by any party in
the form provided by California Civil Procedure 998 and the opposing parties do not do better
ND:4851-5292-5697,v.1 4
than such offer at arbitration,the party making the settlement offer shall be deemed the
prevailing party for the purposes ofrecovery ofattorney's fees and costs.
10.Applicable Law;Venue.
This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of
California without regard to the principles ofchoice of law or conflicts of law ofthat state or of
any other jurisdiction.The forum for resolution of any dispute arising out of this Settlement
Agreement shall be in San Diego,California.The Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction ofthe
Federal Courts in the Southern District of California and the California State Courts for San
Diego County.
11.Drafting.
This Settlement Agreement is deemed to have been drafted jointly by the Parties,and the
Parties agree that the common-law principles of construing ambiguities against the drafter shall
have no application hereto.
12.Severability.
Ifany term,provision or covenant in this Settlement Agreement is held to be invalid,void
or unenforceable,(i)the remainder of the terms,provisions and covenants in this Settlement
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,impaired or
invalidated
13.Successors in Interest.
The Settlement Agreement and all rights and obligations contained herein shall be
in effect whether or not any or all parties to the Settlement Agreement have been succeeded by
another entity,and all rights and obligations ofthe parties signatory to this Settlement Agreement
shall be vested and binding on their successors in interest.
14.Headings.
The headings in this Settlement Agreement are for ease ofreference only.
15.Counterparts.
This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts,each of which shall be
deemed an original,but all ofwhich together shall constitute one and the same agreement.Any
facsimile counterpart ofthis Settlement Agreement shall be deemed an original.
THEBALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK;THE SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS
ND:4851-5292-5697,v.I 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Settlement Agreement is executed by the District and by
the Developer as ofthe date first above written.
THE EASTLAKE COMPANY,LLC
A California limited liability company
By:
William T.Ostrem
President
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
A California Municipal Water District
By
Mark Watton
General Manager
Approved as to Form:
General Counsel
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
A municipal corporation
By:
City of Chula Vista
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
ND:4851-5292-5697,v.1 6
Date
Date
EXHIBIT A
TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
COST TO BE REIMBURSED TO DEVELOPER
Eastlake Otay
Item Description ""Requests Recommends
Category 1 -Costs incurred before joint use concept (pre OWD reservoir)
Landscape Architect services in designing initial park.Work in 1996
A and 1997.$36,328.00 $0.00
Engineering an Surveying associated with grading and drainage
B construction.$13,526.86 $0.00
Geotechnical services associated with grading and drainage
C construction.$7,775.63 $0.00
0 Fine grading of park per initial design.$57,485.00 $0.00
E Site drainaQe system per initial design.$40,955.00 $0.00
Sub-Total $15~,Qi'O.49 $O.OQ
Category 2 -Consultant services for changes,re-design,etc.
Change Order #2 to ONA's design contract.ONA was/is the prime
consultant responsible for all Sunset View Park plans.This change
order covers revising the schematic plans for the park and
processing them through the City of Chula Vista Parks and
A Recreation Department.$35,400.00 $17,700.00
Portion of Change Order # 5 to ONA's design contract.This change
B order covers creatinQ a presentation drawinQ at OWD's request.$1,200.00 $1,200.00
Portion of Change Order # 5 to ONA's design contract.This covers
various tasks related to the reservoir as identified on the change
C order request.$8,875.00 $5,520.00
Change Order # 7 to ONA's design contract.This change order
covers revising the working drawings in response to the decision to
raise grades on the project to accommodate a predicted amount of
0 excess soil (from the reservoir construction)to stay on the site.$23,800.00 $23,800.00
Change Order #10 to ONA's design contract.This change order
covers revising the working drawings to reflect the actual "as-
graded"conditions left by the reservoir contractor.As you will recall,
the site was not left in accordance with the plan revisions generated
E earlier.$22,200.00 $11,100.00
Sub-Total $~1 ,4i'!).OO $59,3~O,OO
Category 3 -Park improvements due to reservoir,pump station,utilities and access roads
Added width of concrete walks -Reservoir service vehicles require a
12'wide access.City of Chula Vista requires only 10'wide walks.
A Results in 2'extra width.$13,572.00 $13,572.00
Construct concrete ADA ramps -The reservoir resulted in an
elevated portion of the site.Concrete ADA ramps were added in lieu
of decomposed granite walks.D.G.walks would have been used if
B the sites were flatter.$14,300.00 $14,300.00
Upgrade thickness of D.G.vehicle access roads -The service
vehicles for the reservoir is much heavier than the service vehicles
C for the park.H20 10adinQ was required on D.G.trails.$6,996.00 $6,996.00
D
E
F
G
H
J
Upgrade thickness of concrete vehicle access roads -OWD service
vehicles for the reservoir are much heavier than City service vehicles
for the ark.H20 loadin was re uired on concrete trails.
Pipe guardrail -Guardrail required around raised recreation area
over reservoir for safet .
Chain link fencing -Fencing required to prevent balls from rolling off
elevated basketball courts on to of reservoir.
Polygon shade structures -Providing shady areas around the
basketball courts through construction for structures in lieu of
planting shade trees was required due to inadequate soil depth over
reservoir.
Upgrade footing for basketball standards atop reservoir -Due to
shallow area for footings atop reservoir,special footings were
re uired.
U rade basketball court slab to ost-tensioned slab over reservoir.
Sod soccer fields in lieu of seeding -Due to delayed delivery of site
by OWD's reservoir contractor,soccer fields we sodded in lieu of
seeded to avoid len th row-in before ark could be 0 en to ublic.
$11,076.05
$3,740.00
$6,900.00
$111,500.00
$3,680.00
$8,460.00
$67,745.00
$11,076.05
$3,740.00
$6,900.00
$55,000.00
$3,680.00
$8,460.00
$33,872.00
K
Credit due OWD for their having certain finish grading performed by
reservoir contractor.This amount was previously agreed to between
Eastlake and OWD.
l
M
N
o
Cost remedy north ADA ramp -The ramp from the park down to the
pump station was incorrectly constructed be the reservoir contractor.
This cost (for only a portion of the ramp)was previously agreed to
between OWD and Eastlake.
Additional work over reservoir due to sub standard materials being
left by reservoir contractor.Crushed rock material failed to meet
required Cal trans specifications.Required purchase and placement
of fabric and urchase,lacement and com action of rock.
Costs for special qeotechnical consulting services associated with
analysis of undocumented fill areas left by reservoir grading
contractor.Consultant was Allies Geotechnical Services.This has
been reviousl a reed b OWD.
Additional support for Valley Crest costs.Many of the above items
are supported by various documents showing values of work done
b Valle Crest landsca in .
$9,500.00
$18,928.00
$7,200.00
$0.00
$249,745.05
$9,500.00
$0.00
$7,200.00
$0.00
$140,444.05
ND:4851-5292-5697,v.1 8
Settlement Agreement with The
Improvement Program Water
the 680-1 Reservoir at Sunset
ATTACHMENT C.............................................................................................................................................................................................................:,
Reimbursement,Release and
EastLake Company for Capital
Facilities Associated with
View Park Budget Detail
C::II~,I IECT:
R2003-001103
R2003-RecRes -680-1 Reservoir 3.4 MG
Budget
$4.350,000
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment&
Forecast
ProjectedFinal Cost Vendor/
Comments
Planning
-Subcontract
In House/Labor 48,761 48,761 48,761
ConsultantContracts 3,957 3,957 3,957 Recon
Software 859 859 859 Sage CAD Applications,Inc1~_~S"hC;;PC'Pc:ic::n9~==c::-_~-_-_-_-:_-_---------I----..-----~2~0+------"~2:~0+--------f----------=:02~0+.F~e:<d'-=-'=E=:X--=--====='-"-"-__,,1
Outside Services 149 149 149 Frank &Son Paving,Inc.
---------------1-------.,e4';,~~~~~~1-----_._4,,·~~~~~~-I---------II-------4,,·~~~~~~+~~:''-;,Oc'~ocO~Eftci:'~=-=~"~,:C~c=-'~M""oc;:to=-'=-S=erv=ic=-e=---
1,004 1,004 1,004 Boyle Engineering Corporation
2,710 2,710 2,710 Geotechnics Inc.
-----""""'4C'.;:;;~~~;+-----4-·.~;.o~~~+--------t-------CC4"'.;'O~~~+~~C::"'~=i~""::O:::::::::;e:::'~"'n,,;;~:~::::::'::c:lcc:~a'"'~=~s:::-~e,i7c'~':::c-.--I
1---------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~~~~~~~~~~~_68:;c·.".i95"'96cii30+------c68;c·."'95c;;96~30+---------1f--------c6"'."'9c;;9~3+cR~e:c9'C;o:;cn=a~'c::E"n:..;v;=;;';=::0:,;onc;,mieOicn;;;ta::::'18,560 Snipes-DyeAssociates
Advertise and Award 830 830 830 UnionTribune Publishing
Land/EasementAcqUisition
189 -189 189 Tempro Services Inc.
149,550 149,550 149,550 City ofChula Vista
2,996 2,996 2,996 Thomas M.Nutt
3,961 3,961 3,961 Andrew A.Smith Company
Total Planning $240,543.75 $240,543.66 $$240,544
Design
In House/Labor ----------I-----~~-I-------~~-I------------------c~_=-----.----.--------89,463 89,463 89,463
Consultant Contracts/ReimbursementAgreements 306,083 306,083 306,083 The Eastlake Co.LLC
Subcontract
1--~~~':oc~"'~Sc::S=sc::io"n=a""&=-=L=e~9=a::..'"'F=e=e=s I I-----.-----+------.---1 1
Advertise and A.,ew=a,,'d.......1---------
1,128 2,250 Hirsch &Co
1,114 Onesource Distributors Inc------+--------C'-:,c~0'''''7Petty CashCustodian
3,103
499
242 W W Grainger,Inc
2,200 Craig,Bulthuis &Stelmar
90 C.W.Mcgrath Inc.
40 McMaster-Carr Supply Co.
102 Hanson Aggregates Pacific
48 CountyofSan Diego
126 Atwork Personeel Service
569 Tiger Reprographics
204 C.W.Mcgrath Inc.
127 FLW Inc.
500 Alarm Center Inc
348 Larson-Metercraft Inc
550 Mag Systems Inc.
1,075 Newark Inone
4,608 GE Supply
14,955 San DiegoGas &Electric
360 Geotechnics Inc.
167,135
401,077 The Eastlake Co.LLC
436,532
3,596,999
4,274,074
$
o
201,128 $
201,128 $
436,531.87 $436,531.59 $
1-67,135 167,135
401,077 401,077
360 360
2,250 1,123
2,278,096 2,278,096
200,000
2,225 2,225
500,000 500,000
1,179 1,179
447 447
500 500
204 204
48 48127127
4,608 4,608
102 102
348 348
-550 550
40 40
1,075 1,075
1,114 1,114
107 107
569 569
242 242
1,090 1,090
1,060 1,060
126 126
90 90
1,685 1,685
9,790 9,790
2,200 2,200
14,955 14,955
499 499
3,103 3,103
3,596,999 $3,395,871 $
4,274,075 $4,072,947 $$
$
$
Temporary Labor
OutsideServices
Gas &Electric
Special Project
AccpUclose-out
Grand Total
Equipment Purchase
Consultant Contracts
Materials
Total Construction
Total Design
7
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 6a
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:March 7,2007
Engineering and Operations
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst GM)
.
Hossein Juybari 7J()
Sr.Civil Engineer
Rod posada~~~~
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana~~~~.
Assistant General Manager,
PROJECT:P2210 DIV.NO.ALL
SUBJECT:Informational Item ~FY 2007 Second Quarter
Capital Improvement Program (Crp)Report
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board accept the FY 2007 Second Quarter CIP Report for
review and receive a summary via PowerPoint presentation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A_
PURPOSE:
To update the Board about the status of all CIP project
expenditure highlights,significant issues,progress,and
milestones on major projects.
ANALYSIS:
To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers'expectations
to adequately deliver safe,reliable,cost-effective,and
quality water,each year Otay Water District (District)staff
prepares a six-year CIP Plan that identifies the District
infrastructure needs.The CIP is comprised of four categories
consisting of backbone capital facilities,maintenance projects,
developer's reimbursement projects,and capital purchases.
The quarterly update is intended to provide a detailed analysis
of progress in completing these projects within the allotted
time and budget.Expenditures in this Second Quarter of Fiscal
Year 2007.totaled approximately $5.8 Million.This equates to
40%of the Fiscal Year 2007 expenditure budget.It is expected
that the complete FY06-07 eIP budget will be spent.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The eIP supports the mission of providing the best quality of
water and wastewater service to the customers of the Otay Water
District in a professional,effective,efficient,and sensitive
manner,in all aspects of operation,so that public health,
environment,and quality of life are enhanced.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
General Manager
HJ/RR/RP
Attachment
P:\ENGRSEC\REPORTS\ClP Qtrly Report\2007\BD 03-07-07,FY 2007 Second Quarter ClP Report.doc
ATTACHMENT A
,....
SUBJECTIPROJECT:Informational Item -FY 2007 Second Quarter CIP Report
(Project P2210)
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item in detail at a meeting held on February 21,
2007 and supported presentation to the full board.
IiI:
I
1
450-1
Reservoir &
680-1 Pump
Station
680-1
Recycled
Water Pump
Station -
Interior
I-905 Utility
Relocations
Fiscal Year 2007
Second Quarter
(through December 31, 2006)
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
2
Background
To keep up with growth and to meet our customers’
expectations, District Staff prepared a six-year rolling CIP
Report. The CIP report contains information about budget,
allocations of funds, project costs, locations, descriptions,
justifications and schedules.
The approved CIP budget for FY07 consists of 91 projects that
total $37.1 million. These projects are broken down into four
categories:
1. Capital Facilities:$ 28.1 million
2. Replacement/Renewal:$ 3.9 million
3. Capital Purchases:$ 1.7 million
4. Developer Reimbursement:$ 3.4 million
3
(continued)
Highlights
Overall expenditures through the Second Quarter of Fiscal
Year 2007 totaled approximately $14.9 million, which is 80%of
our target expenditures through the second quarter.
Construction change orders are at - 0.97%.
4
FY07 Second Quarter Report
(through December 31, 2006)
37%$91,582,000 $248,767,00040%$14,961,000$37,122,000Total:
18%$3,656,000$19,882,0001%$21,000$3,409,000
Developer
Reimbursement
4
74%$11,833,000 $15,911,000 46%$793,000$1,725,000
Capital Purchases3
26%$4,149,000$15,911,00017%$683,000$3,930,000 Replacement/Renewal2
37%$71,945,000$197,063,000 48%$13,464,000$28,058,000Capital Facilities1
%
Budget
Spent
Total
LTD
Expenditures
% FY07
Budget
Spent
FY07
Expenditures
FY07
Budget
CIP
Cat
Total
LTD
Budget
Description
5
Major CIP Projects
6
Flagship CIP Projects in Construction
Reservoir and the Pump Station are under
construction. Project is expected to be complete
in the Spring of 2007.
680-1 RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION - INTERIOR450-1 RESERVOIR AND 680-1 PUMP STATION
7
Project started on 9/7/06 and is expected to be
completed in May 2007. This project includes the
relocation of two pipelines crossing under SR-905 and
the abandonment of one pipeline, and the reconditioning
of two seismic valve vaults.
Project was awarded to Ortiz for construction in May
2005. This pipeline will deliver recycled water from
South Bay to the 450/680 Reservoir and Pump Station.
Project is expected to be completed at the end of 2006.
(continued)
I-905 UTILITY RELOCATIONS 30-INCH RECYCLED PIPELINE
FINAL TIE-IN – OLYMPIC PARKWAY
8
This project was awarded to Blair Rasmussen. The
project is expected to be completed in January 2007.
(continued)
METER SHOP REMODEL
9
30-Inch Recycled Water Pipeline Project:
All connections have been made to existing systems. Start up is expected in Spring 2007. Significant
Issues:
The construction project budget is 98% spent –$14.5 million out of a total budget of $14.7 million.Cost:
Full Notice to Proceed given on September 28, 2005. Contract completion date was December 23, 2006.Notice of substantial completion has been provided to the contractor.
Schedule:
Approximately 6 miles of 30-inch pipeline for recycled water from City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) to Otay’s 450-1 Reservoir and 680-1 Pump Station.
Key
Component:
Progress on Major Projects
10
(continued)
450-1 Recycled Reservoir and 680-1 Recycled Pump Station:
Construction is expected to be complete in the Spring of 2007. Start up and testing will coordinated with the 30-Inch Recycled Water Pipeline Project.
Significant
Issues:
The construction project budget is 87% spent -$11.7 million out of a total budget of $14.7 million.Cost:
Construction started in late November 2005. Contract completion date is April 1, 2007. Schedule:
12,000 GPM (17.3 MGD) pump station delivering recycled water from 450-1 Reservoir to the 680 and 944 recycled water pressure zones.
Key
Component:
11
(continued)
City of San Diego’s Water Treatment Plant, Capacity:
The City will supply “Surplus Water” from Otay WTP to Otay
per the current 1999 agreement.
The City has an opportunity to obtain a $10,000,000
Matching Proposition 50 Grant for SD17 consisting of a pump
station at the Alvarado WTP to pump up to 60 MGD into
SDCWA Pipeline No. 4. SD17 is estimated to cost
$20,000,000. The District desires to acquire 50 MGD
capacity. This project will provide an opportunity to the City
to generate revenue from surplus capacity. To the District,
this is an opportunity to save cost on water treatment while
providing an additional source of water supply.
Significant
Issues:
Only staff time has been budgeted; project cost is dependent upon negotiations outcome.Cost:
Otay Board approved the SD17 POU with the City, SDCWA and Otay.Schedule:
Acquire at least 30 MGD and up to 50 MGD of local treatment capacity from City of San Diego (City).Key
Component:
12
(continued)
640-1 and 640-2 Reservoir Project (20.0 MG):
Construction of two (2) 10-MG prestressed circular reservoirs and associated piping.Key
Component:
Notice to Proceed will be issued in January 2007. Project completion expected August 2008.
Board awarded the construction to Pacific HydrotechCorporation in December 2006.
Total budget: $29.5 million
Schedule:
Significant
Issues:
13
(continued)
36-Inch Pipeline From FCF No. 14 to Regulatory Site Project:
Design is on schedule.Significant
Issues:
The project budget is $18.5 million.Cost:
Preparing preliminary design report and reviewing alternative alignments.Schedule:
Approximately 5 miles of 36-inch pipeline for potable water from Otay’s FCF No. 14 to the Regulatory Site.
Key
Component:
14
Consultant Contract Status
(through December 31, 2006)
CIP NO. PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT
OPENED
DATE
ORIGINAL
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL
CHANGE
ORDERS
REVISED
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
APPROVED
PAYMENT
TO DATE
% CHANGE
ORDERS
% CONTRACT
COMPLETE
EST.
COMP.
DATE
PLANNING
P1000 OWD SCADA
Documentation Westin 1/26/2005 $420,000 $0 $420,000 $418,946 0% 99% 06/30/07
P1210 Integrated Resources Plan CDM 2/16/2006 $225,000 $0 $225,000 $193,500 0% 86% 06/30/07
PLANNING TOTALS $645,000 $0 $645,000 $612,446 0%95%
DESIGN
P1043 Cathodic Protection DeC 12/20/2005 $162,418 $2,500 $164,918 $73,835 2% 45% 06/30/07
P1043 La Presa 36" Pipeline
Inspection Schiff Assoc 10/15/2005 $110,000 $0 $110,000 $7,451 0% 7% 06/30/07
P2009
36-inch Pipeline, SDCWA
Otay FCF No. 14 to Reg
Site
Infrastructure
Engineering
Corp
1/19/2006 $1,333,808 $0 $1,333,808 $51,669 0% 4% 12/09/09
P2022 30" Recycled Water
Pipeline Lee & Ro 9/22/2003 $1,585,000 $245,136 $1,830,136 $1,775,665 15% 97% 06/30/07
P2028 1485-2 Reservoir - Design
Daniel Boyle
Engineering 5/10/1999 $132,700 $158,215 $290,915 $246,890 119% 85% 06/30/07
P2037 980-3 Reservoir -
Structural Simon Wong 10/31/2005 $49,700 $0 $49,700 $33,713 0% 68% 06/30/07
P2037 980-3 Reservoir -
Construction Review
Infrastructure
Engineering
Corp
2/16/2006 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $2,292 0% 46% 06/30/07
P2037 980-3 Reservoir - Electrical
Services
Engineering
Partners Inc 3/13/2006 $13,220 $0 $13,220 $6,325 0% 48% 06/30/07
P2053 RWCWRF- R.O. Building
Remodel
Awbrey, Cook,
McGill
Architects
1/4/2006 $12,250 $0 $12,250 $6,413 0% 52% 06/30/08
P2185 640-1 and 2 Reservoirs
Infrastructure
Engineering
Corp
11/1/2005 $722,000 $120,000 $842,000 $738,960 17% 88% 12/30/08
P2191 850-4 Reservoir -
Structural Nolte 12/7/2005 $15,695 $0 $15,695 $4,195 0% 27% 06/30/07
P2191 850-4 Reservoir -
Appraisals Bowen & Assoc 6/9/2006 $8,500 $0 $8,500 $6,500 0% 76% 06/30/07
15
(continued)
P2416 Sweetwater Authority - SR-
125 Utility Relocation
Sweetwater
Authority 2/23/2006 $4,800 $5,000 $9,800 $6,917 104% 71% 06/30/07
P2440 SR-905 Utility Relocations HDR 7/9/2004 $200,000 $26,900 $226,900 $215,815 13% 95% 06/30/07
R2001/
R2004
450-1 Rec Reservoir / 680-
1 Pump Station MWH 3/1/2002 $1,030,000 $106,000 $1,136,000 $1,093,693 10% 96% 06/30/07
N/A As-Needed Drafting
Services RBF 12/6/2006 $45,000 $0 $45,000 $0 0% 0% 06/30/07
N/A As-Needed Drafting
Services
J.C. Heden &
Assoc 12/6/2006 $45,000 $0 $45,000 $0 0% 0% 06/30/07
DESIGN TOTALS $5,480,091 $670,551 $6,150,642 $4,279,443 12%70%
PUBLIC SERVICES
P2258
Recycled Water Irrigation
Plancheck & Inspection
(Ph. 1)
Berryman /
Hennigar 3/30/2003 $250,000 $30,000 $280,000 $265,050 12% 95% 06/30/07
P2258
Recycled Water Irrigation
Plancheck & Inspection
(Ph. 2)
Boyle Eng 12/20/2004 $230,000 $40,000 $270,000 $210,561 17% 78% 06/30/07
P2258
Recycled Water Irrigation
Plancheck and Inspection,
Ph. 1
Boyle Eng 10/11/2005 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $96,323 0% 39% 06/30/07
PUBLIC SERVICES TOTALS $730,000 $70,000 $800,000 $571,934 10%71%
CONSTRUCTION /
INSPECTION
R2022 30" Recycled Pipeline CM
Services RBF / Hirsch 6/28/2005 $1,244,201 $0 $1,244,201 $541,477 0% 44% 06/30/07
R2001/
R2004
450-1 Rec Reservoir / 680-
1 Pump Station CM
Services
Jacobs 12/15/2005 $825,000 $0 $825,000 $364,377 0% 44% 06/30/07
$2,069,201 $0 $2,069,201 $905,854 0%44%CONSTRUCTION/INSP. TOTALS
CIP NO. PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT
OPENED
DATE
ORIGINAL
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL
CHANGE
ORDERS
REVISED
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
APPROVED
PAYMENT
TO DATE
% CHANGE
ORDERS
% CONTRACT
COMPLETE
EST.
COMP.
DATE
16
(continued)
CIP NO. PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANT
OPENED
DATE
ORIGINAL
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL
CHANGE
ORDERS
REVISED
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
APPROVED
PAYMENT
TO DATE
% CHANGE
ORDERS
% CONTRACT
COMPLETE
EST.
COMP.
DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL
Various On-Call Environmental
Services Jones & Stokes 8/22/2006 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $41,098 0% 41% 08/22/09
P1253 HMA & Associated
Mitigation Projects Jones & Stokes 4/20/2006 $566,444 $0 $566,444 $118,038 0% 21% 03/01/08
P1253 Waste Discharge Permit PBS&J 8/10/2006 $119,580 $0 $119,580 $48,429 0% 60% 06/30/07
P2037 980-3 Reservoir BRG 9/30/2004 $54,000 $7,319 $61,319 $56,908 14% 93% Complete
P2143 1296-3 Reservoir BRG 5/8/2006 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $33,697 0% 27% 09/30/07
P2172 1485-1 Pump Station -
Environmental PBS&J 10/4/2006 $41,255 $0 $41,255 $0 0% 0% 06/30/07
S2015 Calavo Sewer Lift Station -
Geotech Ninyo & Moore 9/7/2006 $8,770 $0 $8,770 $8,770 0% 100% Complete
$1,015,049 $7,319 $1,022,368 $306,940 1% 30%
$9,939,341 $747,870 $10,687,211 $6,676,617 8%62%
ENVIRONMENTAL TOTALS
GRAND TOTAL
17
Contract Status
(through December 31, 2006)
* Change orders for projects this fiscal year continue to be below the industry
average of 5-12%, which is an outstanding accomplishment.
CIP NO. PROJECT TITLE
CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR
ORIGINAL
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL
CHANGE
ORDERS
REVISED
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
TOTAL EARNED
TO DATE
%
OF CHANGE
ORDERS *
% CONTRACT
COMPLETE
EST. COMP.
DATE
P2440 SR905 Utility
Relocations Zondiros $930,316 ($2,200) $928,116 $106,979 -0.24% 7% May 2007
P2359 Meter Shop Remodel Blair Rasmussen $60,747 $1,823 $62,570 $0 3.00% 90% Jan 2007
P2022 30" Recycled Water Ortiz Corp $14,747,600 ($41,141) $14,706,459 $14,529,273 -0.28% 98% March 2007
P2185 640-1 & 640-2
Reservoirs
Pacific Hydrotech
Corp $24,894,000 $0 $24,894,000 $0 0.00% 0% Aug 2008
P2258 LOPS Access Road
Paving Koch-Armstrong $76,800 $0 $76,800 $0 0.00% 0% March 2007
R2001/
R2004
450-1 Recycled
Reservoir / 680-1
Recycled Pump Station
TC Construction $14,740,000 ($497,778) $14,242,222 $10,549,577 -3.38% 87% April 2007
TOTALS: $55,449,463 ($539,296) $54,910,167 $25,185,829 -0.97%46%
18
Expenditures
(through December 31, 2006)
($000)
CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS
008 P2008 PS - 980-2 Pump Station (25,000 GPM) Ripperger 5 8,055 8,051 4 100%
Complete and accepted. Pending
contractor claims and litigation
009 P2009
PL - 36-Inch, SDCWA Otay FCF No. 14 to Regulatory
Site Juybari 675 18,490 262 18,228 1%
IEC is gathering all necessary data for the
pre-design report.
028 P2028 Res - 1485-2 Reservoir 1.6 MG Ripperger 50 3,250 3,190 60 98%
Complete and accepted. Pending
contractor claims and litigation
W033 P2033 PL - 16-Inch, 1296 Zone, Melody Rd. - Campo/Presilla Ripperger 6 1,826 4 1,822 0% Project deferred to future yers.
037 P2037 Res - 980-3 Reservoir 15.0 MG Ripperger 50 13,204 542 12,662 4%
Project on hold due to toher higher
priorities.
038 P2038
PL - 12-Inch, 978 Zone, Jamacha and Hidden Mesa
Road Upsize and Replace. Ripperger 80 1,575 85 1,490 5%
Project on hold pending RFP approval for
consultant assistance.
040 P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Ripperger 45 2,055 475 1,580 23% Developer driven.
129 P2129 Groundwater Exploration Program Peasley 25 2,530 554 1,976 22%
FY total expenditures likelyl to be less than
$10,000.
143 P2143 Res - 1296-3 Reservoir 2.0 MG Ripperger 345 3,379 202 3,177 6% 60% design in process.
168 P2168 Res - 803-4 Reservoir 6.0 MG Ripperger 265 4,465 4,123 342 92% Complete and accepted
172 P2172 PS - 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement Ripperger 237 1,997 192 1,805 10% 30% design in progress.
185 P2185 Res - 640-1 Reservoir 20.0 MG Ripperger 3,500 29,500 1,819 27,681 6%
Board approved a budget increase of
$2.5M in December 2006
190 P2190
PL - 10-Inch, 1485 Zone, Jamul Highlands Road to
Presilla Drive Ripperger 2 120 3 117 2% Developer driven.
W191 P2191 Res - 850-4 Reservoir 2.2 MG Ripperger 1,258 2,988 562 2,426 19% Mitigation easement acquired.
W258 P2258 PS - Lower Otay Pump Station Ripperger 105 7,805 1,980 5,825 25%
Access Road portion of project is
underway.
295 P2295
624-1 Reservoir Disinfection Facility,
Inlet/Outlet/Bypass and 613-1 Reservoir Demo. Ripperger 500 4,500 3,936 564 87%
Complete and accepted. Pending
contractor claims and litigation
W318 P2318
PL - 20-Inch, 657 Zone, Summit Cross-Tie and 36-
Inch Main Connections Ripperger 75 600 56 544 9% On hold pending resources; lower priority.
W356 P2356
PL - 12-Inch, 803 Zone, Jamul Drive Permastran
Pipeline Replacement Ripperger 55 660 64 596 10% 30% plans in progress.
W357 P2357 PS - 657-1/850-1 Pump Station Demolition Ripperger 5 300 0 300 0% On hold pending resources; lower priority.
W370 P2370
Res - Dorchester Reservoir and Pump Station
Demolition Ripperger 23 100 13 87 13% On hold pending resources; lower priority.
W387 P2387
PL - 12-Inch, 832 Zone, Steele Canyon Road - Via
Caliente/Campo Ripperger 25 400 47 353 12% 30% plans in progress.
CommentsCurrent CIP
No.Description Project
Manager
FY 07
Budget
Total Project
Expenses
Remaining Total
Project Balance
Total Percent
Project
Budget
Spent
Total Project
Budget
Former CIP
No.
19
(continued)
Total Project
Expenses
Remaining Total
Project Balance
Total Percent
Project
Budget
Spent
Total Project
Budget
Former CIP
No.CommentsCurrent CIP
No.Description Project
Manager
FY 07
Budget
W399 P2399
PL - 30-Inch, 980 Zone, 980 Reservoirs to Hunte
Parkway Ripperger 1 2,740 2,736 4 100%
Complete and accepted. Pending
contractor claims and litigation
W422 P2422 Agency Interconnections Ripperger 160 308 229 79 74% Sweetwater interconnection completed.
W425 P2425 Otay WTP Capacity Purchase Agreement Negotiations Peasley 20 100 48 52 48%
SD17 pump station roving water treatment
supply POU under negotiation.
P2441 NG/RAMAR Meter Replacements Henderson 1,250 1,519 1,731 -212 114% To be completed (100%) by 06/30/07
W447 P2447 Information Technology Meter Routing Stevens 80 80 22 58 28% Awaiting analysis of Phase 1 results.
W449 P2449 Information Technology Business Continuity Stevens 225 300 47 253 16%
Accounting to add changes for data center
completion.
W450 P2450
Otay River Groundwater Well
Demineralization/Development Peasley 5 5,000 0 5,000 0%
SWA awarded Prop 50 grant and scope of
work to be developed by SWA about March
2007.
W451 P2451 Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance System Peasley 2 1,000 0 1,000 0%
Proposition 50 grant for feasibility study
effort was not awarded to Otay hence no
expenditures for this FY contemplated.
W453 P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Ripperger 5 2,300 0 2,300 0% CalTrans driven.
W454 P2454 Vaults and Meter, Alta Road and Use Area Ripperger 253 465 49 416 11% In construction.
W457 P2457 Groundwater Development Otay Mountain Peasley 50 6,500 0 6,500 0%
Pending outcome of Otay Mountain Well
exploration effort per terms of an existing
agreement, expenditures in FY 07 may not
occur.
W441 P2458 AMR/Manual Meter Replacement Henderson 361 7,513 142 7,371 2% 100% completed for FY-07.
R001 R2001 RecRes - 450-1 Reservoir 12.0 MG Ripperger 4,300 9,967 7,654 2,313 77% On schedule.
R003 R2003 RecRes - 680-1 Reservoir 3.4 MG Ripperger 250 4,350 4,073 277 94%
Project complete and accepted. Negotiating
reimbursement.
R004 R2004 RecPS - 680-1 Pump Station (11,500 GPM) Ripperger 4,300 8,333 6,677 1,656 80% On schedule.
R022 R2022
RecPL - 30-Inch, 450 Zone, Otay Valley - Dairy
Mart/450-1 Reservoir Ripperger 7,500 23,600 21,944 1,656 93% Project ahead of schedule.
R034 R2034 RecRes - 860-1 Reservoir 4.0 MG Ripperger 120 3,800 1 3,799 0% Lower priority project.
R053 R2053
RWCWRF - R.O. Building Remodel and Office
Furniture Juybari 289 422 123 299 29%
Completed the contract document and
advertised for construction.
R077 R2077
RecPL - 24-Inch, 860 Zone, Alta Road - Alta
Gate/Airway Ripperger 50 3,000 21 2,979 1% Delayed due to higher priorities.
R081 R2081
RecPL - 16-Inch, 944 Zone, Lane Avenue - Proctor
Valley/Pond No. 1 Ripperger 150 350 34 316 10% Consultant working on 30% design.
R086 R2086
RWCWRF Force Main AirVac Replacements and
Road Improvements Ripperger 793 874 153 721 18% Working on Section 7 consultation.
20
(continued)
Total Project
Expenses
Remaining Total
Project Balance
Total Percent
Project
Budget
Spent
Total Project
Budget
Former CIP
No.CommentsCurrent CIP
No.Description Project
Manager
FY 07
Budget
R087 R2087
RecPL - 16-Inch, 944 Zone, Wueste Road - Olympic
Parkway/Otay Treatment Plant Ripperger 100 3,598 12 3,586 0% Delayed due to higher priorities.
R088 R2088
RecPL - 24-Inch, 860 Zone, County Property - Roll
Reservoir/860-1 Recycled Reservoir Ripperger 50 1,500 0 1,500 0% Delayed due to higher priorities.
R2089
North District Recycled Water (Regulatory
Compliance) Peasley 100 415 0 415 0%
Project is scheduled to begin within the 4th
quarter of FY-07. Expenditure of $10,000
for FY-07 expected.
R2090 Water Recycling Facility Feasibility Study Juybari 80 80 0%
RMC Water and Environmental has been
selected to prepare the feasibiltiy study.
S015 S2015 Calavo Lift Station Replacement Ripperger 133 675 81 594 12% Consultant working on 60% design.
W452 S2016 Pilot Study / Solar Panel Installation Juybari 100 475 8 467 2%
Project on hold due to other higher
priorities.
Total Capital Facilities Projects Total:28,058 197,063 71,945 125,038 37%
RENEWAL & REPLACEMENTS
W267 P2267
36-Inch Main Pumpouts and Air/Vacuum Ventilation
Installations Henderson 150 195 56 139 29% Work is to begin 1/07.
W359 P2359
Operations EOC and Meter Shop Remodels and EOC
Maps Juybari 71 190 171 19 90% This project is completed.
W366 P2366 APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits Coburn-Boyd 150 2,438 1,394 1,044 57% The project is on track.
W382 P2382 Safety and Security Improvements Burpeau 392 1,317 958 359 73%
Budget is understated in the District's
Budget Book by $625,000. This is an
administrative error that will be corrected by
Finance at mid-year.
W416 P2416 SR-125 Utility Relocations Ripperger 210 700 553 147 79% In construction.
W440 P2440 I-905 Utility Relocations Ripperger 1,191 2,260 575 1,685 25% In construction.
W456 P2456 District-Wide Air Vac Upgrades Henderson 500 3,510 234 3,276 6.7% On target.
P2459 General Utility Relocation - Olive Vista Rd. Ripperger 350 420 58 362 14% Consultant working on 100% design.
S012 S2012
SVSD Outfall and RSD Replacement and OM
Reimbursement Peasley 916 4,881 151 4,730 3%
Expenditure typically is billed by SVSD in
third quarter of the fiscal year.
Total Renewal & Replacments Total:3,930 15,911 4,149 11,762 26%
CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS
W282 P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Porras 266 2,172 1,140 1,032 53%
Cab and chassis have been ordered;
however, the purchase of regular vehicles
is pending due to possible vehicle-lease
agreement.
W286 P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Porras 59 1,170 551 619 47%
All equipment has been purchased, except
the 2,000 gallon stainless steel water tank.
21
(continued)
Total Project
Expenses
Remaining Total
Project Balance
Total Percent
Project
Budget
Spent
Total Project
Budget
Former CIP
No.CommentsCurrent CIP
No.Description Project
Manager
FY 07
Budget
W353 P2353
Information Technology System Enhancements and
Replacements Stevens 385 3,762 2,905 857 77% Enhancements in progress.
W361 P2361 Information Technology GIS Enhancements Stevens 315 1,795 1,267 528 71% Staffing vacancies - on hold.
W363 P2363
Information Technology Utility Billing, Data
Management, and Financial System Stevens 300 6,300 5,595 705 89% IT enhancements in process.
W443 P2443 Information Technology Moblie Services Stevens 100 412 263 149 64% FY-06 purchases delayed until FY-07.
W455 P2455 Data Cleansing Project Stevens 300 300 111 189 37% On track.
Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:1,725 15,911 11,833 4,078 74%
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS
026 P2026
PL - 20-Inch, 850 Zone, Jamacha Boulevard -
Regulatory Site/Trace Road Ripperger 50 1,100 1,044 56 95% Project Accepted
W070 P2070
PL - 16-Inch, 980 Zone, Pacific Bay Homes Road-
Proctor Valley/1296 Hydro PS Ripperger 500 500 0 500 0%
This project is operationally complete but
not yet accepted.
W081 P2081
PL - 36-Inch, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - PB
Road/PB Bndy Ripperger 1 546 299 247 55% Complete, accepted, and reimbursed.
W104 P2104
PL - 12-Inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock
Mountain Ripperger 110 833 0 833 0% This project has not yet started.
W107 P2107
PL - 12-Inch, 711 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La
Media/SR 125 Ripperger 195 722 0 722 0% This project has not yet started.
W121 P2121
PL - 16-Inch, 711 Zone, Hunte Parkway -
Olympic/EastLake Ripperger 600 1,174 0 1,174 0%
Multiple projects within this CIP. Projects
complete and accepted, processing
reimbursements.
W133 P2133
PL - 16-Inch, 711 Zone, EastLake Parkway -
Olympic/Brich Ripperger 190 750 0 750 0%
Multiple projects within this CIP. One
project accepted, one project 75%
complete.
W134 P2134
PL - 16-Inch, 711 Zone, Birch Road - SR
125/EastLake Ripperger 65 412 0 412 0%
Multiple projects within this CIP. One
project accepted, one project 75%
complete.
W164 P2164
PL - 20-Inch, 980 Zone, EastLake Parkway -
Olympic/Birch Ripperger 200 500 0 500 0%
Multiple projects within this CIP. One
project accepted, one project 75%
complete.
W205 P2205 PS - Rolling Hills Hydro Pump Station (1,400 GPM) Ripperger 300 1,900 1,617 283 85% Complete, accepted, and reimbursed.
W325 P2325
PL - 10" to 12" Oversize, 1296 Zone, PB Road -
Rolling Hills Hydro PS/PB Bndy Ripperger 45 46 0 46 0%
This project is operationally complete but
not yet accepted.
22
(continued)
Total Project
Expenses
Remaining Total
Project Balance
Total Percent
Project
Budget
Spent
Total Project
Budget
Former CIP
No.CommentsCurrent CIP
No.Description Project
Manager
FY 07
Budget
W367 P2367
PL - 16-Inch, 980 Zone, Olympic Parkway - East
Palomar/EastLake Ripperger 1 1,500 235 1,265 16%
Three projects within this CIP. All
complete and accepted, waiting for
reimbursement request.
W402 P2402
PL - 12-Inch, 624 Zone, La Media Road - Village
7/Otay Valley Ripperger 50 444 0 444 0% This project has not yet started.
W414 P2414
PL - 12" to 16" Oversize, 803 Zone, Dehesa Road -
Dehesa Meadow/OWD Bndy Ripperger 25 275 142 133 52%
Project accepted. Potential litigation of
claims.
W101 P2435
PL - 16-Inch, 711 Zone, Birch Road - La Media/SR
125 Ripperger 250 531 0 531 0%
Three projects within this CIP. All are 75%
complete.
R031 R2031
RecPL - 12-Inch, 944 Zone, EastLake Parkway -
Olympic/Birch Ripperger 160 229 0 229 0%
Multiple projects within this CIP. One
project accepted, one project 75%
complete.
R033 R2033
RecPL - 12-Inch, 944 Zone, Birch Road - La
Media/EastLake Ripperger 230 788 0 788 0.0%
Multiple projects within this CIP. All are
75% complete.
R040 R2040
RecPL - 12-Inch, 680 Zone, Hunte Parkway -
Olympic/EastLake Ripperger 200 1,059 0 1,059 0%
Three projects within this CIP, two are
complete and accepted, one is 75%
complete.
R041 R2041
RecPL - 8-Inch, 944 Zone, EastLake Parkway -
Birch/Rock Mountain Ripperger 130 282 0 282 0% Project is 75% complete.
R042 R2042
RecPL - 8-Inch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR
125/EastLake Ripperger 1 141 0 141 0% This project has not yet started.
R043 R2043
RecPL - 8-Inch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La
Media/SR 125 Ripperger 1 235 0 235 0% Project is 75% complete.
R047 R2047
RecPL - 12-Inch, 680 Zone, La Media Road -
Birch/Rock Mountain Ripperger 100 435 0 435 0% This project has not yet started.
R058 R2058
RecPL - 16-Inch, 860 Zone, Airway Road - Otay
Mesa/Alta Ripperger 1 2,000 319 1,681 16%
Multiple projects within this CIP. Two of
many are complete, accepted, and
reimbursed.
R082 R2082
RecPL - 24-Inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Village
2/Heritage Ripperger 1 1,747 0 1,747 0% This project has not yet started.
R083 R2083
RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Heritage Road - Village
2/Olympic Ripperger 1 340 0 340 0% This project has not yet started.
R084 R2084
RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La
Media Ripperger 1 971 1 970 0% This project has not yet started.
R085 R2085
RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - High
School/Olympic Ripperger 1 422 0 422 0% This project has not yet started.
Total Developer Reimbursment Projects Total: 3,409 19,882 3,656 16,226 18%
GRAND TOTAL $37,122 $248,767 $91,582 $157,105 37%
AGENDA ITEM 6b
STAFF REPORT
5DIV.
NO.
March 7,2007
N/A
MEETING
DATE:
PROJECT/
SUBPROJECT:
Regular Board
Hossein Juybari t'»-/r.{ff
Senior Civil Engineer
Rod Posada ~~.
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magana ,....r..--=-
Assistant General~anager,Engineering and Operations
Informational Item on the Regional Training Facility
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.8M):
TYPE MEETING:
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational item only.No Action is required on the
part of the Engineering and OP~rations Committee or the Board.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
This is an informational item only,to update and inform the
Board on the status of the proposed regional training facility.
ANALYSIS:
During calendar year 2006,Otay Water District's General Manager
and San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection Fire Chief had
several discussions on the creation of a Regional Training
Facility.Preliminary discussions indicated that both agencies
can share resources and build a training facility at the Otay
Water District (District)Regulatory Site,located at 11880
Campo Road in Spring Valley,California (Exhibit A).This
training facility will be used by the District,the San Miguel
Consolidated Fire Protection District (San Miguel Fire),and San
Diego Gas &Electric for personnel training purposes.
The proposed 2.5 acre training facility site is located within
the District's 70 acre Regulatory Site.The Training Center
will be comprised of separate training areas to include confined
space training,trench and shoring training,and a fire
department training facility (burn building).Additional
components to the site would include a portable classroom and
parking for large and passenger vehicles.
Two alternative access routes from Campo Road to the Regional
Training Facility Site were studied by District staff (Exhibit
B)in August 2006.Alternative 1 uses the west gate as an
entry.Alternative 2 uses the east gate as an entry.Both
alternatives use existing access roads and both will require
construction of a new access road.
Alternative 1 requires the construction of a 900 linear foot
(If)access road that begins at the existing access road,600
feet north of Campo Road.Its alignment follows the path of an
existing unpaved road and connects to an existing gate located
between the 520-1 and 520-2 Reservoirs.An additional "radius
easement"will need to be acquired for this alternative.
Alternative 2 requires the construction of a 475 If access road
that will begin just north of the Regulatory Site security gate.
Its alignment accommodates a 40'turning radius and runs through
the proposed demolition site of the 520-1 Reservoir.This
alignment requires relocation of critical existing water
pipelines and appurtenances.Also,in the vicinity of this
access road the 640 Reservoirs Project's (CIP P2185)Scope of
Work includes demolition of the 520-1 Reservoir and some
existing piping and appurtenances.The complete removal of
these abandoned facilities will be requ~red for this
alternative.
Alternative 1 was selected as the proposed access route to the
Regional Training Facility.This decision was based primarily
on the amount of existing utility relocation work involved,the
critical nature of existing water pipeline relocation work and
access road construction costs.
The existing access roads that will be used for Alternative 1
are within District property.The proposed 900 If access road,
however,is within an existing easement (refer to E of Exhibit
B).This easement was granted to the District from Pacific
Southwest District of the Wesleyan Church (Wesleyan Church)for
pipeline purposes and rights of ingress and egress for water and
sewer operations.It will need to be renegotiated to include
the Regional Training Facility as a "use"area and also to allow
the construction and maintenance of the new access road.In
addition,a small portion of the proposed access road is outside
of this easement.Negotiations with Wesleyan Church will also
2
include the acquisition of a "radius easement"for this portion
of the road (refer to F of Exhibit B).As shown in Exhibit B,
Wal-Mart is the current owner of assessor parcel maps 506-010-
56,506-010-62, 506-010-63, 506-010-65.
San Miguel Fire has two major sources of funding for design and
construction of the Regional Training Facility project.They
have acquired $700,000 from the SB 288 Indian Gaming Grants in
April 2006,as well as a $2.5 million commitment from a separate
tribe associated with mitigation funds.
Architectural services and civil engineering services were
acquired by San Miguel Fire for the design work during October
2006.Site design will also include offsite improvements to
existing access roads.These access roads,where the desired
access traffic will occur,vary in size from 14 feet to 18 feet
wide.They will be widened to a minimum of 24 feet to comply
with the fire apparatus access road requirements under the
County Fire Code of the San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances.
In addition,coordination with the 640 Reservoirs project will
be required,as it is likely there will be concurrent
construction.
San Miguel Fire will be ,the lead agency on this project.Otay
staff will provide technical support to obtain all necessary
permits and easements for the project.Otay staff also will work
with San Miguel Fire department to negotiate an agreement
between both agencies for this joint venture.The District will
not have the responsibility to reimburse San Miguel Fire for the
construction of the access road and training facility.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.A CIP budget will be established during the
FY 2008 budget process so that Otay staff can charge their time
to the project.
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,
efficient,and sensitive manner ...".This project fulfills the
District's strategic goals to "Train and Develop at all levels."
3
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Gen ral Manager
HJ/RR/RP
Exhibits
Attachment
P:\WORKING\Fire Dept Training Facility\Staff Reports\BD March 2007 -Training F.doc
4
ECTIPROJECT:
ATTACHMENT A
Informational Item on Regional Training Facility
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The following
comments were made:
•The Regional Training Center was initiated from discussions
between Otay's General Manager and San Miguel Consolidated
Fire Protection's Fire Chief.
•The facility will be utilized by Otay,San Miguel Fire and San
Diego Gas &Electric for training purposes.
•The proposed training facility would be built on a 2.5 acre
parcel located in the District's 70 acre Regulatory Site.
•Otay will lease the land to San Miguel Fire and they will be
responsible to build,maintain and secure the facilities /
property.
•Staff reviewed with Committee the two possible access roads
proposed for the facilities and the easements that will be
required.
•San Miguel Fire has secured two grants in the amount of
$700,000 and $2.5 million for the training facility project.
•The training facility will include a 3,000 sq.foot office
building,5-story training tower with a 2-story residential /
commercial structure,fire rescue helicopter training,trench
and confined space rescue.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported staff's
recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors as an
information item.
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
SAN DIEGO COUNTYREGIONALTRAININGFACILITY SITE
SITEPLAN EXHIBIT A
•JAMACHA _
.JUNCTION,INC
APN S?;6~020-2S
EXHIBITB
GROSSMONT-GUYIjl11ACA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
APN 506.{)20-31
WAL-MART
APN506-020-02
EAST GATE
GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA
COMMUNITY'COLLEGE
APN502 040 05,
dALTERNATIVE 2 1.
.
,475 LINEAR FOOT
.ACCESS ROAD
'--.,.,......
..--......J---..WESTGATE 7"'-...-"o \~'1
O (\
F J:'I,
,/
ALTERNATIVE 1
900 LINEAR FOOT
ACCESS ROAD
520-2
Reservoir
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REGIONAL TRAINING FACILITY SITE
EASEMENTANDPARCEL OWNERSHIP
l
WESLEYAN
CHURCH
APN506-140-01
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
APN 502-030-51
o HOME CAPITALGRANTS TO OWD A
20'WIDE EASEMENTADJACENT TO
"B"FOR PIPELINE PURPOSES WITH
RIGHTOF INGRESS/EGRESS (1986).
EASEMENTS
A OWD GRANTS COUNTY 72'EASEMENT
OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING INGRESS/EGRESS (1995).
OWD GRANTS 42'WIDE EASEMENT
TO WESLEYAN CHURCH WITH RIGHTS
TO IMPROVEAND MAINTAIN ROAD
ANDASSIGN TO OTHERS (1995).
C SHARP GRANTS EASEMENT FOR
PIPELINE AND RELATED PURPOSES
WITH RIGHT OF INGRESS/EGRESS
(1964).
~~~i '
o:~;E WESLEYAN CHURCH GRANTS TO OWD 0
EASEMENT FOR PIPELINE PURPOSES
WITH RIGHT OF INGRESS/EGRESS!(1995).WAL-MART 0'!!J APN 506-010-65~F RADIUS EASEMENT TO BE ACQUIRED
::I FROM WESLEY~A=N=C~H~U~R~C~H====~__~----_l~~~~~~~L~:~:~:~::"'"=-llf~1-~N~_~O:'~75k~15~O~~~3~O~~e=e'!.t _~~__~C:A~.·~M~P:.'O~.~...R:··D~.·~i~S:'R:..~9=4:.-__~DR_IV_E_W._'AY_ErN7"TRAINCIE~:ll
'2 ~
u.
2'.........----~....-----------......------.....---.....-....----......-..--....'c~
~
I!!~~~ii::..._---_..._-------------------------_--..
AGENDA ITEM 7a
W.O.lG.F.NO:
MEETING DATE:TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
STAFF REPORT
Regular Board _
Sean Prendergast,~
Payroll/AP Supervisor ~
Joseph R.Beachem,Ch~Financial Officer
German ~Assistant General Manager
March 7,2007
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:Director's Expenses for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2007
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To inform the Board of the Director's expenses for the 2nd
quarter of Fiscal Year 2007.
ANALYSIS:
The Director's expense information is being presented in order
to comply with State law.(See Attachment B for Summary and C-H
for Details.)
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Prudently manage District funds.
LEGAL IMPACT:
law.
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Director's Expenses and per Diems
C-H)Director's Expenses Detail
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECTIPROJECT:Director's Expenses for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2007
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
received staffs'report at a meeting held on February 21,2007
and supported presentation to the full board.
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgDirExp030707rev.doc
Attachment B
BOARD OF DIRECTORS'
EXPENSES AND PER-DIEMS
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 21,2007
Policy 8 requires that staff present the Expenses and
Per-Diems for the Board of Directors on a Quarterly
basis:
•Fiscal Year 2007,2nd Quarter
•The expenses are shown in detail by Board
member,month and expense type.
•This presentation is in alphabetical order.
•This information was presented to the Finance and
Administration Committee on February 21,2007
Board of Directors'Expenses and Per-Diems
Fiscal Year 2007 Quarter 2 (Oct 06-Dec 06)
•Director Bonilla
•Director Breitfelder
•Director Croucher
•Director Lopez
•Director Robak
•Total
0.00
$1,372.05
$800.00
$1,271.65
$2,105.53
$5,594.23
.---.-.-- -.---.--.---.-..--.~.----..----------------_ ..._.__--~--____-----------.--.--------~--------.---------.---.-------.==-c,,,._.---··'~_,._,__"""",,---_"""'"'""'
Director Bonilla does not request
Per-Diem reimbursements.
Director Bonilla
Fiscal Year 2007 Quarter 2
Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec 06 Qtr2
•Mileage Business
•Mileage Commute
•Conference
•Travel
•Director's Fees
•
•Monthly Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00
•Meetings Attended
•Meetings Paid
•Quarterly Total
•Fiscal Year-to-Date 2007 (JuI06-Dec06)
Director Brietfelder
Fiscal Year 2007 Quarter 2
Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec 06 Qtr2
40.05
•Mileage Business
•Mileage Commute
•Business Meetings
•Seminars &Travel
•Director's Fees
•Monthly Totals
400.00
400.00
132.00
400.00
532.00
400.00
440.05
•Meetings Attended 14 10
Meetings Paid 4 4
•Quarterly Total
•Fiscal Year-to-Date 2007 (JuI06-Dec06)
15
4
1,372.05
2,711.71
----~-----_._-------_._~~~------~--------
Director Croucher
Fiscal Year 2007 Quarter 2
Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec 06 Qtr2
•Mileage Business
•Mileage Commute
•Director's Fees 300.00 300.00 200.00
•Seminars
•Business Meeting
•Monthly Totals 300.00 300.00 200.00
•
•Meetings Attended 6 3 4
•Meetings Paid 3 3 2
•Quarterly Total 800.00
•Fiscal Year-to-Date 2007 (Jul06-Dec06)1,600.00
Director Lopez
Fiscal Year 2007 Quarter 2
Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec 06 Qtr2
•Mileage Business
•Mileage Commute 36.05 17.80 17.80
•Travel
•Director's Fees 500.00 300.00 400.00
•Conference
•Monthly Totals 536.05 317.80 417.80
•Meetings Attended 5 3
•Meetings Paid 5 3
•Quarterly Total
•Fiscal Year-to-Date 2007 (JuI06-Dec06)
4
4
1,271.65
2,306.75
Director Robak
Fiscal Year 2007 Quarter 2
Oct 06 Nov 06 Dec 06 Qtr2
•Mileage Business 47.62 45.39 49.84
•Mileage Commute 3.56 5.34 1.78
•Business Meetings 20.00 32.00
•Director's Fees 600.00 700.00 600.00
•Conference
•Monthly Totals 671.18 782.73 651.62
•Meetings Attended 7 7
•Meetings Paid 6 7
Quarterly Total
•Fiscal Year-to-Date 2007 (JuI06-Dec06)
7
6
2,105.53
4,134.48
Board of Directors'Expenses and Per Diems
Fiscal Year 2007 to Date (luI 06-Dec 06)
•Director Bonilla
•Director Breitfelder
•Director Croucher
•Director Lopez
•Director Robak
•Total
0.00
$2,711.71
$1,600.00
$2,306.75
$4,134.48
$10,752.94
Board of Directors'Expenses and Per Diems
Fiscal Year 2007 to Date (Jul 06-Jun 07)Projected
•Director Bonilla
•Director Breitfelder
•Director Croucher
•Director Lopez
•Director Robak
•Total
0.00
$5,423.00
$3,200.00
$4,614.00
$8,270.00
$21,507.00
~~-.'-..-
ATTACHMENT C
SECTIONC
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES -BOARD
July 1,2006 -December 31,2006
Jul-66 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-66 Jau-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Total
JAIME BONILLA(DETAILED IN SECTIOND):
5211 Mileage-Commuting
5211 Mileage-Business
5212 Travel
5214 Business meetings
5114 Director's fees
5241 Telephone
5213 Seminars and conferences
Total
LARRYBREITFELDER(DETAILEDINSECTION E):
5211 Mileage -Commuting 26.70 13.35 26.70 $40.05 106.80
5211 Mileage -Business 55.18 13.35 37.38 105.91
5212 Travel
5214 Business meetings 60.00 32.00 20.00 132.00 244.00
5114 Director'sfees 400.00 200.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 2,200.00
5241 Telephone
5213 Seminarsand conferences 55.00 55.00
Total 541.88 258.70 539.08 400.00 532.00 440.05 2,711.71
GARYD.CROUCHER (DETAILEDINSECTION F):
5211 Mileage-Commuting
5211 Mileage-Business
5212 Travel
5214 Business meetings
5114 Director'sfees 100.00 300.00 400.00 300.00 300.00 200.00 1.600.00
5241 Telephone
5213 Seminars and conferences
Total 100.00 300.00 400.00 300.00 300.00 200.00 1,600.00
JOSELOPEZ(DETAILED IN SECTIONG):
5211 Mileage -Commuting 13.35 26.70 40.05 36.05 17.80 17.80 151.75
521I Mileage -Business
5212 Travel
5214 Businessmeetings
5281 Director's fees 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 300.00 400.00 2,100.00
5241 Telephone
5213 Seminarsandconferences 55.00 55.00
Total 213.35 326.70 495.05 536.05 317.80 417.80 2,306.75
MARK ROBAK(DETAILED IN SECTIONH):
5211 Mileage-Commuting 1.78 5.34 5.34 3.56 5.34 1.78 23.14
5211 Mileage -Business 46.28 44.06 31.15 47.62 45.39 49.84 264.34
5212 Travel
5214 Businessmeetings 40.00 20.00 32.00 92.00
5114 Director'sfees 600.00 700.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 600.00 3,700.00
5241 Telephone
5213 Seminarsandconferences 55.00 55.00
Total 688.06 749.40 591.49 671.18 782.73 651.62 4,134.48
TOTALS:
5211 Mileage-Commuting 41.83 45.39 72.09 $39.61 23.14 59.63 281.69
5211 Mileage-Business 101.46 57.41 68.53 47.62 45.39 49.84 370.25
5212 Travel
5214 Businessmeetings 100.00 32.00 20.00 20.00 164.00 336.00
5114 Director's fees 1,300.00 1,500.00 1,700_00 1,800.00 1,700.00 1,600.00 9,600.00
5241 Telephone
5213 SeminanaDd conferences 165.00 165.00
Total 1,543.29 1,634.80 2,025.62 1,907.22 1,932.53 1,709.47 $$10,752.94
F:/Dec 06SUMMARY YTD DEC 06 Printed Date2l14/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
ATTACHMENT 0
SECTION D
NAME OF DIRECTOR:JAIME BONIlLA
F:/Dec 06 1of 1 Printed Date:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
NAME OF DIRECTOR:BREITFELDER,LARRY
_9~29~_
2006 WATER CONSERVATION SUMMIT
~COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES BREAKFAST MEETING
"'""'7~20~202.6 ,
WATER AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF SD QTRLY MEETING
~
CSDA QUARTERLY DINNER MEETING
~
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES BREAKFAST MEETING
~COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES BREAKFAST MEETING
CSDA QUARTERLY DINNER MEETING
wm 11/2J.~l,02,L
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES BREAKFAST MEETING
WATER AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF SD QTRLY MEETING
7/5/2qg,L.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
'-ulrW9.2.LFINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
~WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
~
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~CSDA QUARTERLY DINNER MEETING
._,U6l2006_
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
_"",9/19/2006 •
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
~~OTAY WORKSHOP
~.a~
WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
10~4~20Q2_
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
,,-Wl§~20~,wm.
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
~
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
_.1W~~
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
lW9/~_
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
-lq~17/2006_
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
ATTACHMENT E
SECTION E
55.00
20.00
40.00
32.00
20.00
20.00
32.00
40.00
40.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
F:/Dec 06Brietfelder Page 1 of 2 Printed Oate:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY I,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
NAME OF DIRECTOR:BREITFELDER,LARRY
~-WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN AD-HOC BUDGET COMMITTEE
~CSDA QUARTERLY DINNER MEETING
_~aJ;W,.~
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
11£21£2006
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
~ENGINEERING &OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
~FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
9£3,0£2006
MEETING -SEPTEMBER 19 2006.
_.7£31£2006
MEETING -JULY 5 &21,2006
~,a~
MEETING -AUGUST 17,2006
-.9£30/200a.-
MEETING -SEPTEMBER 6 &25,2006
--!:U~~MEETING -DECEMBER 4 6 &27,2006
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
55.18
13.35
37.38
26.70
13.35
26.70
40.05
F:lDec 06Brietfelder Page 2 of 2 Printed Date:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
ATTACHMENT F
SECTION F
NAME OF DIRECTOR:CROUCHER,GARY
12£20/2006 •
_m.",W~006 ,
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~~QJl2§""illWENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
~90~_
ANNUAL BOARD RETREAT
.-2£,5(2006_
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
_..JUZQJ!1!&-_
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
~ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~<lL-
AD HOC COMMITTEE -EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS
-l~~_
ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
"um1~rn~REGULAR BOARD MEETING
_Wl~
ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
11129/2006 m
WATER RESOURCES 8r.SECURITY COMMITTEE
_~L
ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
$100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00ADHOCCOMMITTEE-EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS
.
AD HOC COMMITTEE -REVIEW POLICY 8
""9/26/2006
10/4(2006
F:/Dec 06Croucher 1 of 1 Printed Date:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
ATTACHMENT G
SECTION G
NAME OF DIRECTOR:LOPEZ,JOSE
F:/Dec 06Lopez
Seminars
9/29/202L
2006 WATER CONSERVATION SUMMIT
d/5/251ClL
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~JOINT AGENCY MEETING
...§,"~.a2.2L
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
.JJ~~'§_
FINANCE 8r.ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
~
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
9/22£222§
FINANCE 8r.ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
9 n2.£,~JZ,0L
ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
2£25£200L
OTAY WORKSHOP
.121~
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
J,2LiL~_
AD HOC COMMITTEE -EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS
.10 £18£2026
ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
J.l~~_
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
~
ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
q£18no06
ENGINEERING 8r.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
.ui~J2L~..2JlLAD HOC NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE
10non006
FINANCE 8r.ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
10G5wl~L
AGENDA BRIEFING WITH GENERAL MANANGER
.l!a2L~JllL~""FINANCE 8r.ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING.lUU400§ _
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
\~£llUl'o°L
STATE MANDATED ETHICS TRAINING
Page 1of 2
55.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Printed Date:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
ATTACHMENT G
SECTION G
NAME OF DIRECTOR:LOPEZ,JOSE
F:/Dec 06Lopez
7/31/2006
MEETING -JULY 5 &31,2006
~-MEETING -AUGUST 2,7 &21,2006
9/30/2!UlL
MEETING -SEPTEMBER 6,20,22 &25,2006
~L
MEETING -OCTOBER 4,6,18,20 &25,2006
MEETING -NOVEMBER 1 &20,2006
..!l~9J~§',,""MEETING -DECEMBER 6 &19 2006
Page 2 of2
13.35
26.70
40.05
36.05
17.80
17.80
Printed Date:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
NAME OF DIRECTOR ROBAK,MARK
ATTACHMENT H
SECTION H
minars
9 £29£'WJi",Wili
2006 WATER CONSERVATION SUMMIT
~
WATER AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF SD QTRLY MEETING
-1!UJZ£200,L
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES BREAKFAST MEETING
11£16a",Q,1lL
CSDA UARTERLY DINNER MEETING
~,
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
7£6L2006
METRO COMMISSION
~LWATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
7£17ll.R,Q,L
CUYAMACA COLLEGE WATER-WISE AA DEGREE PROGRAM
7£19~q~.
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
_ 7 £2!.L39JUL_
FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
_8£1£200.&,_
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
-~-METRO COMMISSION
~L
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING WORKSHOP
...JU!{~_
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
~-WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
~21£200L
FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
_§£31£2J:~_
METRO COMMISSION
~REGULAR BOARD MEETING
9pOW,Q,L
FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
fJiM 2£25£2006
ANNUAL BOARD RETREAT
9£29{~L
AD HOC COMMITTEE -REVIEW POLICY 8
$55.00
40.00
20.00
32.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Dec 06Robak 1 of3 Printed Date:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 ,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
NAME OF DIRECTOR ROBAK,MARK
WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
-!0klJ.ag.2.6.,
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
Ulla92i"",
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
WATER RESOURCES &SECURITY COMMITTEE
~FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
11'lWJl9£m
FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
.~ffij
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
•12njJ20QL
STATE MANDATED ETHICS TRAINING
-a~",
WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
..£lJ2LW~
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
_~J!!...
WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN AD-HOC BUDGET COMMITTEE
11t2t2P9£.
METRO COMMISSION
.~~
WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
~V~WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
41l1.aaOO~'"
CSDA QUARTERLY DINNER MEETING
lV4L20!l.§••
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
-ULl~LWATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITTTEE MEETING
~METRO COMMISSION
12'21,ag06_
FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
-?~
MEETING -JULY 5,6,12,17,19,21,&28,2006
Jj,J£L2,pQL"
MEETING -AUGUST 2,3,7,8,9,16,21 &31,2006
MEETING -SEPTEMBER 6,13,20,25 &29,2006
-a,3H2006
MEETING -OCTOBER 4,11,17, 18,19,&202006
-1!~J!!...
MEETING -NOVEMBER 1,2,3,8,16,20 &29,2006
~JW,L
MEETING -DEC.4,6,13, 14,19 &21,2006
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100..00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
46.28
44.06
31.15
47.62
45.39
49.84
Dec 06Robak 2 of3 Printed Date:2/8/2007
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 ,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,2006
NAME OF DIRECTOR ROBAK,MARK
~
MEETING -JULY 5,2006
8/31/2006"""
MEETING -AUGUST 2,7 &.21,2006
~
MEETING -SEPTEMBER 6,20 &.29 2006
~
MEETING -OCTOBER 4,&.20 2006
_l1L30£20Wi_
MEETING -NOVEMBER 1,20 &.29,2006
lU31,£iZOOC?_
MEETING -DEC.4,2006
1.78
5.34
5.34
3.56
5.34
1.78
Dec 06Robak 3 of 3 Printed Date:2/8/2007
P.01
~oo.ot~XHt"
:.r.
;l/o,,10
619 421 9695
Period Covered;
From:\0-1-~J;
.,....,~,:.'
.?'tLf /0 /
3-2/1 O"Z---
II2JI DOO 12/0 I
/13/00{)1;;-0 1
MEETING
OTAY 'VATER l)ISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIE:\'.Ai'll>MILEAQE CLAIM fORM
L-Cd'V:y ~~lltG~'{..:;J..;;l&£J:~_
:7Q13
"',..
'..':.".':'~"'~.:~.'.
Total Meeting Per Diem:~,\,')t.J
($100 per meeting)
Tot~lMileage Claimed:f I L miles
(p ~(,O l.VI~,....(p \ICy ~8
':A\'f!lPt,~_
·::.,;41.':...·
QFF)~lJSE:TOTAL MILEAGE RF.IMBURSEME:"JT:$,_
DEC-15-06 09:51 PM BREITFELDER
P.02
Date:'""
'J •;;:
d .;;I J -.-:
lJ J ".J .1:::
,.,
619 421 9695
2/0/'''':-/72510 1
-2//}I .-52//tJ.?-
PURPOSE !ISSUES
DlSCUSSED
OTAX 'VATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTQRS
PER-DIEM ANDI\1JLEAGE CLAIM FOR!\-t
Period CQveied;."'.',.·S~~
F<om .j':'T.o.~,(¥~
\.\- J ((,j(1~i~"''.'j'~r",,'..':...~t:.·.:I~.t:·r.:·:~:.~I,,'.
,"::.::',..,:.~,-{.
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
l ~l\miles
Vv\c~~F)\I'~y 'P ~
MEETING
"e~eJe~.i,..-----+@_&t__I!_-_
A.·1 .....','<::"p.frl~¢USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REll\lBrRSEMENT;$,_
.~Qt~l Me.eling Per Diem;
!':($fl&~pr;r m~etlng)
.,:',". .:".~..~:,'
,<,TQlifMilellge Claimed:. .,...
DEC-15-06 09:54 PM BREITFELDER':J-."
".,.:.J
p.e::>
..'.'
u":;:
619 421 9695
iJ J 'J J
Ie)i <J i:V '-...........~
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
\;)J '-"'t)lP
MEETING
.;::ror.:-."",.~~•"t~lf000 ()-//?;JI 0 [)tJ--210/-tJ ~g It)I
.~~,t'".,,'_I'~.DO 0 U 0 J jJ<e::L/IO;;J-
--=-....~!tfJvoo /0 tHAYWATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIBECTQRS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM "FORM
.-"'~~i'}
...~iii IIPj/t-
~W{tlt ~E:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:S ~
.~'~~Il,=-
DEC-15-06 09:57 PM BREITFELDER
fIt3/JOO-/13 2000-~/()/~ffhflO/
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
3tJo·tx)
EXHIBITB
Pay To:Gary Croucher Period Covered:
Employee Number:7011------------From:10/01106 To:10/31106
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER
OWDtoHOME LOCATIONS
1 10/04 Board Regular Board Meeting
2 10/06 Committee Ad Hoc Committee,Employee Negotiations
10/10 Review District review
10/13 Community East County Boys and Girls Club Fundraiser
10/16 Community Meeting with Cuyamaca College -Community update
V
/3 10/18 Committee Engineering and Water Ops Committee
,
\!p)1 u.~~
j ~ )~!
.I J J •~i~~~\~JJJ~UU;I-
I
I
.-._--
I
I
Total Meeting Per Diem:_$.:..;3'-'0'--0 _
($100 per meeting)
milesTotalMileageClaimed:
All ~11~e:6;Qe)I.
GM ~:__..,./~,W_V_tP\U~_________Date:Ie'h,~~I
£)NOV 1~'r1 2=1RoR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$------
Pay To:Gary Croucher
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Period Covered:
EXHIBITB
Employee Number:7011------------From:11/01106 To:11/30/06
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER
OWD toHOME LOCATIONS
V BoardI111/1 Regular Board ofDirectors Meeting
/2 11/15 Committee Engineering and Operations Committee Meeting
j 3 11/29 Committee Water Resouce and Security Committee Meeting
Total Meeting Per Diem:---'..$3_0_0 _
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:°miles----.,.----
GM Approval:--j+h'i1Mr
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_rA'l''AU --J f \.1 :P~c:Al'I ~3:02
Pay To:Gary Croucher
OTAY WATERDISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Period Covered:
EXHIBITB
Employee Number:7011------------From:12/01106 To:12/31/06
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER
/OWDtoHOME LOCATIONS
V Committee
J 1 12/18 Engineering and Operations Committee Meeting
12/19 GM Meeting with Staffto discuss District Issues
j 2 12/20 Ad Hoc Com.Negotiations Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
12/22 GM Meeting with GM and staffto discuss finances
Total Meeting Per Diem:--'-$2_0_0 _
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:°miles
g:
t1
2 /Jl/~-----*kQurel
~MAPproval:~-------____Date://5/01~7~1~-------
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$,_
FROM :
Pay to:Jose Lopez Period Covered:
From iO-I-O~to 10 -31 ....0L:.
Employee Number:7010
nate Meeting Name
Purpose I Issues
Discussed.
Mileage
Home to OWO Other
OWD to Home Locations
.!~--~~.....1...~t....'."~~
,----....-)-~
~.j -'·1_-J
-~
.,-~..\--..)
~:\~)""-)
~.,z-lflJ~
-,-""/~---
TOTAL MEETING PER DIEM:~
(~14S per meeting)
TOTAL MILEAGE CLAIMED:
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT ~$-----
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
--I.Iff!;ooo-!f!Jt/Ouo -;Zit)1-57-g"IitJ I J-Ot·O•,•~OTAY W1T~R nIST~ICT
a"BOARD OF DIUCTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
/48000-18JfOO{)~2-/01-§~//o;L /'7,f
Pay to:Jose Lopez Peri'cd Covered:
From JJ-I-OC,~o N-30-~b
Employee Number:7010
Purpose I Issues Mileage
Home Itc OWD Other
Da.te Meeting Name Discussed own tb Home Locations
/l-t tJw£.D {)roar-ti rnfq t '0
11-/0 OU,)D EAJG O/6~A .1 •GJ«,lII'"',~,'(f)1JS'•I
IJ J-J/)()tJ.)D /Z,f\)¥-lJd.m OJ;tIfl,'ffl tfh (I Jzo
I
I
11\\.;-~""+":..-.+-";"v 1!"..~:~.J . .. ..:::J :0
:::J r'lI -::'J .'":)CJ ,~'--:J D ';\..0 :'J ::'J -,-'J'-...-1;-..............j
',-:l c:J -..:-.t'";-.-
.~,.
,'-~..r\'':J
J3 ~.~~,~'~~~~
~
',-
•
I
j
TOTAL MEETING PER.DIEM:$_
($145 per meeting)
TOTAL MILEAGE CLAIMED:miles
t2..etefrt~j,~.t;:{;-/'J (;rt1 /
GM App!'CYv"ai JJate:_I_I/{J/{ftb__=,__-/.1/_1)-.,'/--_,7__l..fS -qeM~1 .'\'_1,11,1.Jut.-n-t.$-/
INSTRUCTIONS ON RBVBRSE
•000-I otJb -2--1 ()1-62-,f /01 /-f()/).()0• ,ID It!Jo#:.f~q --~Ol-§;?/It 2-~Mooo-/'7·ftJ. A A ER I)STRICT1;1'."1:BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Pay to:Jose Lopez Period Covered
,From JeX -I ~{),t 0 1,)..·3/-Ob
Employee Number:7010
Purpose /Issues Mileage
Heme oOWD Other
Date Meeting Name Discussed owo tqJ Rcl1\e Loc:ations
j Ja.-(p {!)uJ 0 ·8Ba.t7l mf&l 6M?
/l;A--/g'Ot.O-J)eM&,q..-f)PS....tomi mtq -t -
./1r}-~/'1 Oc.DD IE'th J'(1 T~t n j Y}..Cj I M
./'la..J.D Of.()D Ad Uoc,;~e&:104f-Jo,t,-+-
"j
I
><')-:~r ...II -;~~~.1..-1-:{-~\~-..~.:=1 .....~C;J:=1 -'-~.~':=1 .~J-~~i :.-):~~...C'J C'J ..;-j-...~'--~"-'_..i
'J "':)>-_::-...1.
:=1 ")0
',_-.:~t.:::)
~~-'~~.-P"<?~
miles-----
'IOTAL MEETING PER "DIEM:lii _
($145 per meeting)
TOT~MILEAGE CLAIMED:
ctor's Signature}
FeR ~FP!C:E USE;'!'aT:.!.MIL:EAGE RE!MBURSEMENT '"$__-""---'......
INsTRttCTIONS ON REVERSE
/lfbtW-
()DO
Pay To:Mark Robak
/J3~)lJ{)C/~!O!_?:?-J7/0/
/
Y1 r-000 2--10/5;21 /!)£~.[~J 7
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Period Covered:
fFt)[),60
~3·j(P
Employee Number:--'-7..::..0=-14.:...0::...:6::...:0-=6 ~~
3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978
From:10-1-06 To:10-31-06
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED I·IOME10 OWD OTHER
OWDtoHOME LOCATIONS
(I 10-4 Monthly Otay Board Meeting General District Business 4 7
j 2 10-11 Water Conservation Garden Monthly Meeting /General Business 0 6
(See Exhibit A -Agenda)
,j 3 10-17 Council ofWater Utilities Monthly meeting 0 61
(See Exhibit B -Agenda)
/4 10-18 Communications Committee Monthly meeting involving 0 14
communications issues
V"'~5 10-19 Water Conservation Garden To discuss allocation of Sweetwater 0 12
Ad-Hoc Budget Committee monies to FY 06-07 Garden budget
/~6 10-20 Finance &Administration Monthly meeting involving finance &4 7
Committee administration issues
7 10-21 Water Conservation Garden -Community/Fundraising Event -No 0 0
California Friendly Plant Sale Charge
\'."11,\,..','II .''--{...\-".,
"--,"..""'.1-'1
'.C\,_.--<;~....",' "::)-,-.......;-"-',,--',.,-
......",
--1 .,-:.
,...,-''.'
'-S'-#~-.~~~107
Total!'0;-
($1001-''''lIICClIUg)
Total Mileage Claimed:115 miles
GM=toe ~_-_
(Director's Signature)
Date:_-,-..:-1z-~/1.:...+-1~=--__I I
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
16 5D[)O~
/a?vt)O-
.cUo I
'2rID/
,,~Af/O/
:7~?//o.?-
7otJ,tJ{)
"tf'·.3i;
Pay To:Mark Robak Period Covered:
Employee Number:--=-70.:..:1.:..:4:..::0...::6..::..06~_
3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978
From:11-1-06 To:11-30-06
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER
OWDloHOME LOCATIONS
/I 11-1 Monthly Otay Board Meeting General District Business 4 7
./2 11-2 Metro Commission Monthly Meeting /General Business 0 22
(See Exhibit A -Agenda)
/3 11-3 Water Conservation Garden Discuss monthly agenda items with 0 12
Executive Committee Executive Director and members
./4 11-8 Water Conservation Garden Monthly Meeting /General Business 0 14
(See Exhibit B -Agenda)
./5 11-16 CSDA Quarterly Dinner Nomination ofofficers and hear LAFCO 0 33
speakers (See Exhibit C -Agenda)
/~6 11-20 Finance &Administration Monthly meeting involving finance &4 7
Committee administration issues
V 7 11-29 Water Resources &Security Monthly meeting involving water 4 7
Committee resources &security issues-\'\v 1\.,,L.--\..-;."',''1 ...."......'~..,....--)
I--:J -'--.-,'=;J <:~~-'.,..-'~:.1 -J '",-._.J ),~";\
,--0 ,'-~-'f-;
'J .,
"c -.."-,-\"I-.-............~"-
~~.-
~~
'---~~I~~12 102
Total Meeting PerDiem:$700
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:114 miles
i<Ue\vt:~Il~GM Appre'¥lH:~_
(Director's Signature)
Date:_1z..-<Jr-7-.!...~_
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_
yeE~Ot~C1~i P~'l 3;!~2
/f;J;(Xv-/13l5lJtXJ-2-10/!iZtf/01
Q 1.
1
&It~~"1J1-;J.060.-/65!JOtJ .-Z/0 /5 Z-//()2
111.1 III 'Y OTAYWATERDISTRICT
~>'BOARD OF DIRECTORS§I'~PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Pay To:Mark Robak Period Covered:
Employee Number:--,-70.:;..:I:...4;..;;;1~2~06o;....-_From:12-1-06 To:12-31-06
3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOME to OWD OTHER
OWDtoHOME LOCATIONS
/1 12-4 Communications Committee Monthly meeting involving 0 14
communications issues
2 12-6 Otay Board Meeting General District Business 4 7
3 12-9 Annual Otay Holiday Social event -No Charge 0 0
DinnerlDance
4 12-13 Water Conservation Garden Monthly Meeting /General Business 0 14
(See Exhibit A -Agenda)
5 12-14 Metro Commission -Monthly Meeting /General Business 0 49
Del Mar Annex (See Exhibit B -Agenda)
./6 12-19 Ethics Training State mandated ethics training 0 14
j 7 12-21 Finance &Administration Monthly meeting involving finance &0 14
Committee administration issues
\'\">(II1\~~~~-;,.!I..n..--~..:--:-:)'~l .'J.':;J0'..0 "--'..J :=;....~.:\::-......._c.....j ..,.,"'~:J".-:::)-~'.'D ':I
~~...n ~~/~:?~
112
Total Meeting Per Diem:$600
j
/
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$._
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:_1_16 miles
'07.JAN 19ANl1:25lJ.e~~v-coi .~f1'(}ns---ti7~?GM aJ:lJ:lHhDI.})__J_l/_'-fL!-_.....L.~_
I
(Director's Signature)
Date:_
AGENDA
Helix WaterDistrict
Charles Muse Richard Smith
Cuyamaca College
Dr.Geraldine Perri Dr.AI Taccone
City of San Diego
Fred Thompson Nora Jaeschke
Warren Buckner
Padre Dam MWD
Jesse Dixon Andy Menshek
Joel Anderson
Otay Water District
Mark Robak Gary Croucher
Keith Lewinger
San Diego CountyWaterAuthority
Lead Agency
WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN
MULTIPURPOSE ROOM
12122 Cuyamaca College Drive West
EI Cajon,CA 92019
Wednesday,December 13,2006 -3:30 p.m.
WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN AUTHORITY
BOARD MEETING
Mission Statement--Promoting water conservation in the southern California landscape through excellent
exhibits and programs that educate and inspire the public.
1.Roll Call
2.Introductions
3.Public Participation:Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Board
on any subject matter within the Board's jurisdiction but not an item on today's
agenda
CONSENT AGENDA (Acted on as one unless withdrawn by request of a Board
Member or a member of the public)
4.Approval of Agenda
5.Approval of minutes of regular meeting of November 8,2006
6.Annual review of Investment Policy
ACTION
7.Garden as fiduciary agent for landscape water calculators
DISCUSSION:
8.Executive Director's Report
9.Friends'Group Report
10.Financial Statements
11.Board Comments
INFORMATION:(Does not require discussion.Board to Receive and File only)
•Docent Report
ADJOURNMENT
****************************************
Certification of Posting
I certify that on December 8,2006,a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted
near the regular meeting place ofthe Board of Directors of the Water Conservation Garden
Authority,said time being at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting ofthe Board of Directors
(Government Code Section 54954.2)
Executed at San Diego,California,on December 8,2006.
~~
Board Secretary
2
METRO
WASTEWATERJPA
Meeting of the
Metro Commission
and Metro Wastewater JPA
Thursday,December 14,2006
12:00 p.m.
City of Del Mar·Annex
10 50 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar,California
AGENDA
''The mission of the Metro Commission is to create an equitable partnership with the
San Diego City Council on wastewater issues in the San Diego region that ensures fair
rates for participating agencies,concern for the environment,and regionally balanced
decisions through data analysis,collaboration among all stakeholders,and open
dialogue."
Documentation
Included
1.ROLL CALL
2.PUBLIC COMMENT
3.PRESENTATION RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO
COMMISSIONER FRANK TIERNEY AND MR scan TULLOCH
x 4.ACTION ~APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
5.METRO WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT UPDATE
6.METRO TAC UPDATE
7.ACTION -CONSIDER ALTERNATE DATE (JANUARY 11,2007)FOR
THE METRO WASTEWATER JPA MEETING OF JANUARY 4,2007
December 14,2006 Metro Commission/Metro
Wastewater JPA Agenda
x
x
x
x
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
ACTION CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON
OPRNSECONDARY TREATMENT RECOMMENDATION
UPDATE ON CAPACITY STUDY
REGIONAL JOINT GOVERNANCE AD HOC COMMITTEE
FINANCE AD HOC COMMITTEE
PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT METRO
COMMISSIONIWASTEWATER JPA MEETING
METRO COMMISSIONERS'AND JPA BOARD MEMBERS'
COMMENTS
14.ADJOURNMENT OF METRO COMMISSION AND JPA
'Item 2 -This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission andJor JPA items within the
jurisdiction of the Commission and/or JPA that have notpreviously been before the Commission and/or JPA.Comments are limited to three (3)
minutes per individual.Note:Any member of the Public may address the Commission and/or JPA on any Agenda Item.Please complete a Speaker's
Slip In advance ofthe specific item being called.For alternative agenda format or disabled access to Metro Commission,please call M.Barrett at (619)
236-6585.
'The Metro Commission and/or JPA may lake action on any item listed in this Agenda whether or not it is listed "For Action."All items are for Metro
Commission and JPA consideration unless otherwise speclfled.
December 14,2006 Metro Commission/Metro
Wastewater JPA Agenda
AGENDA ITEM 7b
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
Joseph R.~
Chief Fina~ci~1 Officer
German Alv~sistant General Manager
March 7,2007
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:Informational Item on the Progress of the 2007 Bond Sale
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
To inform the Board of the progress on the 2007 bond sale.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To inform the Board of the progress on the 2007 bond sale.
ANALYSIS:
The Bond sale is moving ahead as expected.Staff is making
steady progress toward the February 21st sale date,and the March
7th close date.
At the time this staff report was prepared,staff anticipated
that the preliminary official statement would be posted on-line
for access for all potential bidders and investors on February
15th and that underwriter's bids would be recieved on February
21st up until 9:30am,at which time Staff will award the bid to
the lowest responsible bidder.Following the sale the District
will receive the funds on the closing date,March 7th •
The latest significant event was the receipt of insurance bids.
The results for bond insurance pricing came in on Monday
February 12,2007.The District received 5 bids,with the
lowest cost bid coming from Ambac at a price of 18 basis points.
The results on the bond insurance,in order of cost to the
District,are:
•Ambac -18 basis points times total principal and
interest;reserve fund surety at 1.5%of maximum annual
debt service (estimated costs $173,161)
•MBIA -19 basis points times total principal and
interest;reserve fund surety at 1.25%of maximum annual
debt service (estimated costs $174,265)
•FGIC -24.2 basis points times total principal and
interest;reserve fund surety at 2%of maximum annual
debt service (estimated costs $232,348)
•FSA -25 basis points times total principal and interest;
reserve fund surety at 2%of maximum annual debt service
(estimated costs $238,341)
•XLCA -13 basis points times total principal and
interest;reserve fund surety at 1.25%of maximum annual
de-bt service (estimated costs $272,794)*
*XLCA is a relatively new entrant to the bond insurance
market.Their marketability is somewhat less cost
effective,raising the effective cost from $129,794 to
approximately $272,794.
With the Board's authorization,granted in February 7th's
resolution,staff accepted the Ambac bid.With the AA-upgrade
the District is estimated to save $100,000 on insurance.In
addition to this insurance savings on this one bond issue the
District is expected to save over $1.5 million on interest
expense on this bond issue and the next two bond issues
combined.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is an informational item and has no financial impact.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
The District ensures its continued financial health through
long-term financial planning and debt planning.
LEGAL IMPACT:
General Manager
Attachment:
A)Committee Action Form
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
ATTACHMENT A
Informational Item on the Progress on the Bond Sale Efforts
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.
The following comments were made:
•Staff received the results from the bond insurance
pricing bids.The district received five bids and
will be accepting the lowest cost bid from Ambac with
an estimated cost of $173,161.The district's
upgraded AA-rating saved the district $100,000 in
insurance cost.
•The bond sale was opened on February 21,2007 and was
priced at 4.327%.It is expected that the District
will save approximately $1.5 million in interest
expense on this bond issue and the next two bond
issues combined.
•The bond sale will close on March 7,2007 at which
time the district will receive the funds.
•Bond Counsel is currently working on the loan
documents and it is expected that the document will be
signed March 6,2007.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee
recommended forwarding to the Board of Directors as an
informational item.
STAFF REPORT
'AGENDA ITEM 8a
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board Meeting
SUBMITTED BY:Armando Buelna kV
Communications Officer
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
March 7,2007
DIV.NO.All
APPROVED BY:
SUBJECT:2006 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness,and 2006
Customer Services Satisfaction Surveys
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors
Residential Customer Opinion
Services Satisfaction Surveys
Rea &Parker Research Inc.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A
PURPOSE:
receive the findings of the 2006
and Awareness,and 2006 Customer
(Attachments B &C)conducted by
To present to the Board of Directors with the findings of the
2006 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness,and 2006
Customer Services Satisfaction Surveys.
BACKGROUND:
The Otay Water District's Strategic Plan calls for implementing
a standardized Potable and Recycled Water Customer Survey.
Customer surveys are essentially a snapshot of customer
attitudes,perceptions and awareness of programs and services
provided by the District.By conducting repeat surveys,one is
able to track changes in those attitudes and perceptions.
Last year,the District retained Rea &Parker Research Inc.to
conduct the 2006 Customer Satisfaction and Awareness survey
project.This project differed from the 2005 survey project in
that an entirely separated survey would take place of customers
who had called the district within the past six months.
The first of the surveys called the 2006 Residential Customer
Opinion and Awareness Survey (General Survey)(Attachment B)
would measure overall customer satisfaction,perception,and
awareness of District programs and activities from among the
general customer base.The General Survey also included a
significant proportion of Otay sewer customers.The second
survey,called the 2006 Customer Services Satisfaction Survey
(Call Center survey)(Attachment C),was designed to measure
some of these same topics,but also to delved into more specific
attitudes and behaviors from those customers who had contacted
the District within the last six months.
The General Survey sample consisted of the two separate groups
selected at random from the customer base.The first sample of
75 respondents was randomly drawn from customers who are
contracted with the district to receive sewer services.The
second sample of 238 respondents was randomly drawn from the
general customer base.For sewer customers,the sample size of
75 provides a margin of error of +/-11.2%.For the general
customer base,the sample size of 238 yields a margin of error
of +/-6.4%.Overall,these two samples result in a margin of
error +/-5.5%at 95%confidence.
The General Survey contained 59 individual survey items,and
was administered between November 16 and December 4,2006.The
mean survey administration time was 11.0 minutes per respondent.
The survey was available to be administered in either English
and Spanish,copies of which are included in the Appendices.
The Call Center survey also contained 59 individual survey items
and was conducted shortly thereafter.That survey was also
available to be administered in English or Spanish.
As with the 2005 survey,the General Survey found that customer
satisfaction with the programs and services of the District was
very high.
•Customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high
level of satisfaction with the District as their provider
of water service with two-thirds rating the District as
excellent (27 percent)or very good (38 percent).
•Otay Water District customers have much faith (94 percent
very or somewhat confident)in the District's ability to
provide enough water.
The General Survey also notes that "There is a growing awareness
among customers that water and sewer rates have increased in the
past 12 months."Moreover,"because reliability is seen as very
high by Otay Water District customers,more than two-thirds
would not pay any additional sums for greater reliability."
2
More complete information on the findings of this survey are
contained in the Executive Summary and the full report.
The Call Center survey also yielded very high results.
•Customer service respondents rate the overall quality of
customer service of the Otay Water District as very high -
84 percent rate it as excellent (51 percent)or good (33
percent).The 51 percent indication of excellent
represents a 10 percent increase over 2005.
•customers are satisfied regarding customer service features
including professionalism of service representatives,
knowledge and expertise of the service representative,
courtesy of the service representative,ability to reach a
service representative,and satisfaction in getting their
problem solved -75 to 85 percent indicating very satisfied
or somewhat satisfied.
•Customers make an average of 1.8 calls per issue to
customer service,with 69 percent of all callers having
their issue resolved in one call.Among the 31 percent who
make more than one call,60 percent of them had their
problem ultimately resolved,leaving a total of 12 percent
of callers with unresolved issues.
•customers view the Otay Water District favorably compared
to other utilities and authorities that bill monthly for
service,with 26 percent saying that it is the best among
monthly services and another 30 percent indicating high
regard for the Otay Water District.
With regard to bill payment:
•Over one-half of customer service callers pay their bill by
sending a check in the mail (53 percent)and 14 percent pay
on line.Others pay by using a credit card over the
telephone (14 percent)and through automatic bank deduction
(8 percent).It is noteworthy that 47 percent would prefer
to pay by sending a check in the mail (6 percent less than
the 53 percent who actually do so)and 22 percent would
prefer to pay on line (8 percent more than the 14 percent
who actually do so).There is an emerging preference among
customer callers to make payments on line.
•Those who pay in person (11 percent)do so because they
enjoy the personal contact,it is convenient for them to do
so,or they want an immediate receipt.
•The great majority of customer service callers are
satisfied with the ease of understanding their water bill
3
(83 percent----54 percent very satisfied and 29 percent
somewhat satisfied)and with the accuracy of their water
bill (77 percent-43 percent very satisfied and 34 percent
somewhat satisfied).
The consultant's conclusion notes "it is clear that customers of
the otay Water District who have made customer service calls to
the District and who have had the need for field service at
their property are largely satisfied with the customer service
they received.It is clear,therefore,that there is
considerable support for the efforts made by the Otay Water
District to address customer issues in a timely fashion and to
resolve problems to the customers'satisfaction."
FISCAL IMPACT:-ftv8--
This staff report is asking the Board of Directors to receive
the findings of the 2006 Residential Customer Opinion and
Awareness,and the 2006 Customer Services Satisfaction Surveys.
As a result,this action has no fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This proj ect is consistent with the following Strategic Plan
Objectives:
1.1.1.1 Implement a standardized Potable and Recycled
Water Customer Survey
1.1.1.3 Expand a Quality Control/Audit program to ensure
quality customer service
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attached
Committee Action -Attachment A
General Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey -B
Call Center Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey -C
4
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on February 21,2007.The
following comments were made:
•The Strategic Plan includes a strategy for conducting
repeat standardized customer surveys to measure customer
attitudes,perceptions and knowledge of District programs
and services;
•This is the second survey conducted.
differed from the survey conducted in
separate surveys were administered:
The 2006 survey
2005 in that two
1.A General Survey was designed to measure overall
customer satisfaction,perception and awareness of
district programs and activities.The respondents
were taken from the general customer base and
included a significant portion of Otay's sewer
customers.
2.The second survey,Customer Services Satisfaction
Survey,included only customers who have had contact
with the District's call center in the past six
months.It was designed to measure some of the same
topics as the general survey as well as the
customers'rating of their experience with Otay's
call center.
•The General Survey also included questions which focused
on customers'perception regarding the District's sewer
services and recycled water;
•There were 313 respondents to
75 were also sewer customers.
margin of error is +/-5.5%at
the General Survey of which
The resulting overall
95%confidence.;
•The committee reviewed the findings of each survey in
detail and it was noted that Otay's customers have a high
DocumentS
level of satisfaction with the District as their provider
of water service with approximately two-thirds rating the
District as either excellent (27%)or very good (38%);
•The respondents also had a high level of confidence in
the District's ability to provide enough water for its
customers with 94%very confident and somewhat confident
and only 6%not confident;
•The survey found that the District's customers also felt
that water rates have gone up over the past twelve
months.Sewer customers felt that sewer rates have gone
up more than water rates.;
•It was noted that 21%of the respondents have visited the
District's website and these respondents have given the
website high ratings.The committee inquired,percentage
wise,how the district's customers compared with other
agencies.It was indicated that 20%of CWA survey
respondents have visited CWA's website.So it seems the
District's experience is similar to other agencies.;
•Over 90%of the District's respondents indicated moderate
to high interest in water conservation.It was noted
that Otay's customers would be motivated to make
landscaping changes with financial incentives,whereas,
CWA respondents would be motivated by an increase in the
ease of maintaining their landscapes.;
•The committee inquired if there was a big difference in
conservation opinions between the District's northern
customers versus those who reside in the south.Rea &
Parker indicated that they did not have that information,
but would review the list of respondents to see if zip
code information was available for the respondents to
this question.If zip code information is available,
they should be able to provide the requested
information.;
•Nearly 50%of the respondents have heard about or have
visited the Water Conservation Garden and of those who
have visited,50%have made changes to their landscaping
practices as a result of the visit.This indicates that
the Garden is a very powerful conservation tool.;
•With regard to recycled water,it was noted that there
was a lack of knowledge among respondents with regard to
the composition of wastewater/recycled water.Many
thought wastewater was from storm water drain off.;
•Respondents had strong support for the use of recycled
water if it were utilized for watering freeway/golf
course landscapes,residential yards and for industrial
processing/manufacturing.However,respondents were less
supportive if recycled water were used to replenish
recreational lakes and was not supportive at all if it
were used for drinking supplies.;
•Of those respondents who opposed the use of recycled
water for drinking water,47%could be persuaded if it
was indicated that the water would be held to California
Standards which is among the most strict in the nation.;
•Concerning the Customer Service Satisfaction Survey,18%
of all customers surveyed have contacted customer service
in the past six months and the respondents have had a
high level of satisfaction with customer services with
51%providing an excellent rating and 33%providing a
good rating;
•It was indicated that on average it required 1.8 calls to
resolve customer issues with sixty-nine percent of the
respondents'issues being resolved in one call and twelve
percent remaining unresolved;
•Respondents rated Otay as best among monthly services
(26%)or highly regarded among monthly services (30%).
The committee inquired if there were any other surveys
that responses could be cross-referenced with such as
SDG&E.Rea &Parker indicated that CWA had asked
respondents in their survey two years ago,"which utility
was the best value"and water was rated very high in the
responses.;
•With regard to bill payment,it was indicated that
respondents prefer paying their water bill by check.The
committee requested that the next survey include
questions concerning the ease of using the District's on-
line bill pay system.;
•The committee also requested that the next survey include
a question with regard to if respondents were aware of
how their meter was read.;
•Sixteen percent of respondents have utilized the
Interactive Voice Response (IVR)system.Eighty-one
percent have found it useful and 48%indicated that their
questions were resolved by the IVR feature alone.;
•It was noted that respondents indicated that they wished
to be notified in other ways than current forms of
notification of their delinquency in paying their water
bill;
•Rea &Parker indicated that overall,the District has a
very satisfied customer base.
Upon completion of the discussion,the Committee supported
staff's recommendation and forwarding to the Board of Directors
as an informational item.
Attachment B
Otay Water District
2006 Residential
Customer Opinion and
Awareness Survey
Prepared for
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,CA 91978
Prepared by
Rea &Parker Research
P.O.Box 421079
San Diego,California 92142
858-279-5070
www.rea-parker.com
January,2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Introduction and Methodology 1
Sample 2
Survey Findings 4
Demographics 4
Customer Satisfaction:Water Quality and Reliability 5
Water and Sewer Rates 14
District Publications and Website 19
Water Conservation 26
Recycled Water 45
Appendices 57
Distribution of Responses
Open Ended Responses
Survey Instrument-English
Survey Instrument-Spanish
ii
Otay Water District Residential Customer Opinion and
Awareness Survey
Executive Summary
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and
customer awareness telephone survey among residential customers.The purpose of the survey is
twofold -first,to provide information concerning customer satisfaction,customer awareness of
and reaction to the communication efforts of the District,customer understanding and opinions
about water and sewer rates,customer concern and activities with regard to water conservation,
feelings about water quality and the reliability of the District to maintain reliable sources of
water,and second,to compare the results of this 2006 study with the results of the 2005 study
where the data are comparable.
Specifically,the primary areas of interest are:
Overall customer satisfaction
•Quality of water supply
Reliability of water supply
Reliability of service
Awareness of water and sewer rates
Awareness of formal communication efforts including website
Awareness ofconservation activities/programs
Attitudes toward conservation
Recycling and attitudes about increasing the water supply
Basic demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
Rea &Parker Research was selected to conduct the study in both 2005 and 2006.
The purpose ofthe research was to:
Obtain scientifically reliable and sufficiently robust results to determine the level of
knowledge among residents of the Otay Water District concerning critical water-related
issues;
Determine water use patterns among activities that are known to consume significant
quantities of water,especially with regard to outdoor irrigation.
Determine opinions and perceptions of various issues,including:
Perceptions ofwater reliability
Attitudes about water and sewer rates
Knowledge and awareness concerning sources of water
Level of support for the District's efforts to increase the supply of water,
especially through recycling
Formal District communication efforts including the official website
Ul
Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and
crosstabulations of data that can result in new,optimally targeted and tailored public
awareness programs.
Compare the results of this survey with the results of the 2005 survey ofDistrict customers.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 313 respondents,which equates to a
margin oferror of +/-5.5%at the 95%confidence level.
Respondents are predominantly White (59 percent)and HispaniclLatino (27 percent)and earn an
annual median household income of $77,500 (36 percent earning $100,000 or more and 6 percent
earning under $25,000).They have a median age of 49 years and have been a customer of the
Otay Water District for a median of 10 years.Among these respondents,50 percent possess a
Bachelor's degree or more,with 22 percent having a high school education or less.Survey
respondents are largely homeowners (90 percent)with a mean household size of 3.24.
Survey Findings
This survey report has been divided into six essential information components as follows:
•Demographic statistics/sampling Characteristics
•Customer satisfaction:water quality and reliability
•Water and sewer rates
•District publications and website
•Water conservation
•Water recycling
Customer Satisfaction:Water Quality and Reliability
•Customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the
District as their provider of water service with two-thirds rating the District as excellent
(27 percent)or very good (38 percent).Similarly high ratings were found in the 2005
survey.
Otay Water District customers have much faith (94 percent very or somewhat confident)
in the District's ability to provide enough water.
Customers do have some concern about deliberate and malicious contamination of the
water by parties bent on inflicting harm to the population (65 percent great deal or some
concern)but are quite confident in water agencies'ability to protect the water supply (72
percent very or somewhat confident).
Drinking tap water directly without filtration is relatively uncommon (19 percent),with
most customers using bottled water (44 percent)or filtered tap water (37 percent)for
drinking purposes.
These patterns of water quality and reliability are consistent with the findings of the 2005
survey.
Nearly one half of the respondents are interested in pursuing international agreements
with Mexico to increase the water supply.
iv
Water and Sewer Rates
Because reliability is seen as very high by Otay Water District customers,more than two-
thirds would not pay any additional sums for greater reliability (71 percent desire to pay
nothing or they are unsure).Those that would pay more,would pay $20-$31 more per
month for enhanced reliability.
There is a growing awareness among customers that water and sewer rates have increased
in the past 12 months (46 percent thought water rates had gone up and 41 percent thought
sewer rates had increased).This awareness has grown from the uncertainty expressed in
the 2005 survey.
District Publications and Website
The monthly newsletter that accompanies the bills is well read by customers (47 percent
most times or every time and 32 percent at least sometimes).
The annual Consumer Confidence Report is less well read (62 percent do not read it).
Only 19 percent of District customers have ever accessed the website,but 75 percent of
those that accessed it rated it as excellent or good.This level of access and high ratings
follow the pattern ofthe 2005 survey.
Water Conservation
There does not seem to be a great inclination to practice water conservation,with about
one-half ofcustomers indicating that their interest in water conservation is only moderate
(47 percent)and that their awareness ofit has essentially stayed the same for the past year
(61 percent).In the 2005 survey,there was less awareness and more uncertainty
regarding water conservation.
Among those with landscaped area to maintain,75 percent have automatically controlled
sprinkler systems,and these customers have adjusted their automatic controller an
average of 3.44 times during the past year.
Those customers who have lawns can be motivated to reduce their lawn size by some
combination of lower bills (26 percent),easier maintenance (18 percent),and financial
incentives (21 percent).
Almost one-half (47 percent)of the District's customers have seen or heard of the Water
Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College and 20 percent of all customers have visited
it.
One half of these visitors have changed their landscaping to some extent as a result of
their visit(s).The most noteworthy and predominant change has been the replacement of
existing plants with drought-tolerant ones and secondarily,changes in watering practices.
More than one-third (40 percent)have heard about weather-based controllers,but only 6
percent have installed one.
There is not much interest in obtaining weather-based controllers in the next 12 months,
with 63 percent indicating that such a purchase is somewhat unlikely or very unlikely.
44 percent of Otay Water District customers recall having seen or heard messages to
conserve water outdoors and these messages were heard or seen through the following
media:television (22 percent),radio (6 percent),and monthly bill (5 percent).
v
Among those who remember seeing or hearing conservation messages,46 percent have
already taken steps toward conservation as a response to these messages including
adjusting their sprinklers,reducing indoor water use and installing weather-based
controller/drip irrigation.
Recycled Water
About one third of Otay Water District customers know that sewer water is wastewater
used for recycling.
Over 40 percent think that storm drain run off is wastewater to be used for recycling.
Recycled water is strongly supported as a source of alternative water supply under most
circumstances.
Out of five potential uses of recycled water,three were very strongly supported,as
follows:
o Watering landscape along freeways and golf courses (93 percent favor,of
whom 66 percent strongly favor such use)
o Watering residential yards (88 percent-56 percent strongly)
o Industrial processing and manufacturing (81 percent-47 percent strongly)
Using recycled water in recreational lakes received less than this strong support (69
percent favor-30 percent strongly favor and 39 percent somewhat favor with 25 percent
in opposition).
Customers do not support the use of recycled water for drinking purposes (46 percent
strongly oppose and 14 percent somewhat oppose).
One third to one half of those who oppose the use of recycled water for drinking purposes
would reverse their opposition if recycled water underwent 1m advanced,secondary
treatment and,at the same time,the following information was available to them:
o Recycled water remained one year in reservoir and then was retreated (34
percent)
o Recycled water is used as drinking water in other U.S.communities (31
percent)
o Recycled water could supply as much as 10 percent of drinking water (33
percent)
o California standards are among the most strict in the nation (46 percent)
Conclusions
There are strong indications of support for the work of the Otay Water District from its customer
base.Residents understand certain of the risks to the future reliability of their water supply and
are willing to consider alternative sources (in particular increased use of recycled water)to a very
significant degree in order to protect and ensure that reliability into the future.
The results of this survey should be viewed as ratification by the public of the importance and
quality of the work done by the District and as an expression of the confidence in the value and
quality ofthe work in which the Otay Water District is engaged.
vi
Introduction and Methodology
In 1956,the Otay Water District was authorized by the State Legislature and gained its
entitlement to imported water.Today,the District serves the needs of over 186,000 people by
purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.The Otay Water
District t~kes delivery of the water through several connections to large pipelines owned and
operated by the San Diego County Water Authority.Since its inception,the Otay Water District
also has collected and reclaimed wastewater generated within the Jamacha drainage basin and
pumped the reclaimed water south to the Salt Creek basin where it is used for irrigation and other
non-potable uses.
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and
customer awareness telephone survey among residential customers.The purpose of the survey is
twofold -first,to provide information concerning customer satisfaction,customer awareness of
and reaction to the communication efforts of the District,customer understanding and opinions
about water and sewer rates,customer concern and activities with regard to water conservation,
feelings about water quality and the reliability of the District to maintain reliable sources of
water,and second,to compare the results of this 2006 study with the results of a similar 2005
study where the data are comparable.
Specifically,the primary areas of interest are:
Overall customer satisfaction
Quality of water supply
Reliability of water supply
Reliability of service
Awareness of water and sewer rates
Awareness of formal communication efforts including website
Awareness of conservation activities/programs
Attitudes toward conservation
Water recycling and attitudes about increasing the water supply
Basic demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
Rea &Parker Research was selected to conduct the study,as it was for the 2005 study.The
purpose ofthe research is to:
Obtain scientifically reliable and sufficiently robust results to determine the level of
knowledge among residents of the District concerning critical water-related issues;
1
Determine water use patterns among activities that are known to consume significant
quantities of water,especially with regard to outdoor irrigation.
Determine opinions and perceptions ofvarious issues,including:
Perceptions of water reliability
Attitudes about water and sewer rates
Level of support for the District's efforts to increase the supply of water,
especially through water recycling
Formal District communication efforts including the official website
Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and
crosstabulations of data that can result in new,optimally targeted and tailored public
awareness programs.
Compare the results ofthis survey with the results of the 2005 survey of District customers.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 313 respondents in order to secure a
.margin oferror not to exceed +/-5.5 percent @ 95 percent confidence.This figure represents the
widest interval that occurs when the survey question represents an approximate 50 percent-50
percent proportion of the sample.When it is not 50 percent-50 percent,the interval is somewhat
smaller.For example,in the survey findings that follow,50.0 percent of respondent households
recall having seen or heard messages about water conservation.This means that there is a 95
percent chance that the true proportion of the total population of the District's service area that
has seen or heard these messages is between 44.5 percent and 55.5 percent (50.0 percent +/-5.5
percent).
The overall survey sample consists of two separate random samples.The first sample of 75
respondents was randomly drawn from customers who are contracted with the Otay Water
District to receive water and sewer services and the second sample of 238 respondents was
randomly drawn from the District's general customer base of water only customers.For the
sewer customers,the sample size of 75 provides a margin of error of +/-1l.2 percent and the
water only sample size of 238 provides a margin of error of +/-6.4 percent -both at the 95
percent level of confidence.This is in addition to the +/-5.5 percent margin of error for the entire
survey.
2
The two samples were weighted in accordance with the customer base of the water and sewer
customers as well as the water only customer base.This process ensured that the samples would
remain proportionate to the entire customer base of the Otay Water District.
Survey respondents were screened to exclude those who have not lived in San Diego County for
at least one year.When respondents asked about who was sponsoring the survey,they were told
"this project is sponsored by the Otay Water District,and it's about issues related to your
household water supply."This information was provided to 38 percent of the respondents.
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish.Spanish language respondents
comprised 6 percent of the survey population.The distribution of respondents according to
gender was 41 percent male and 59 percent female.
The survey was conducted from November 16,2006 to December 4,2006.The mean survey
time was 11.0 minutes per respondent.The total survey response rate was 30.5 percent
based upon completed interviews in comparison to all eligible (and estimated to be eligible)
phone numbers,including busy signals,answering machines,call backs,and no answers.
Cooperation among those eligible respondents who were actually contacted was 89.4 percent
(Table 1).Both English and Spanish versions of the survey are provided in the Appendix.
This report is divided into six essential information components as follows:
•Demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
•Customer satisfaction:water quality and reliability
•Water and sewer rates
•District publications and website
•Water conservation
•Water recycling
Each section of the report will begin with a very brief abstract,or summary of highlights within
the ensuing section,in order to orient the reader to what is to follow.
Charts have been prepared for each of these major components depicting the basic survey results.
Subgroup analyses for different age groups,various levels of education,gender,h~me
ownership/rental status,household size,residential tenure in the community,different income
categories,and ethnicity of residents of the service area will be presented in succinct bulleted
3
format when statistical significance and relevance warrants such treatment.Lists of open-ended
responses to survey questions are contained in the Appen.dices.
Unknown Eli
No Answer
Bus
Answerin Machine
Call Back
Lan ua e Barrier
Total Unknown
Ineli ible
NO Not Customer
Disconnect
Business/Fax
Refusal
Totallneli ible
Eli ible
Com lete
Mid-term
Total Eli ible
Coo eration Rate:
515
90
636
268
71
1580
27
195
78
169
469
313
37
350
89.4%
Percent in S anish
Survey Findings
Demographic StatisticslRespondent Characteristics
30.5%
5.8%
Table 2 presents selected demographic and sampling characteristics of the of the survey
respondents.Respondents are predominantly White (59 percent)and HispaniclLatino (27
percent)and earn an annual median household income of $77,500 (36 percent earning $100,000
or more and 6 percent earning under $25,000).They have a median age of 49 years and have
4
been a customer of the Otay Water Districtfor a median of 10 years.Among these respondents,
50 percent possess a Bachelor's degree or more,with 22 percent having a high school education
or less.Survey respondents are largely homeowners (90 percent)with a mean household size of
3.24.
Respondent characteristics for the sample survey conducted in 2005 were similar to thosein2006
with three exceptions:First,the median income in 2005 was $85,000 --$7,500 more than the
median income in 2006.Second,the percentage of households earning an annual income under
$25,000 was 6 percent in 2006 compared to 2 percent in 2005.Third,nearly one-fourth (22
percent)of residents in 2006 had a high school diploma or less while in 2005,14 percent had this
level of education.These differences between 2005 and 2006 point to the fact that the
respondents in 2006 are somewhat less educated and have a lower income level than respondents
in 2005.
Customer Satisfaction:Water Quality and Reliability
SUMMARY:Otay Water District customers demonstrate a high level ofsatisfaction with the
District and have a great deal offaith in the District's ability to provide enough water.They do
have some concern about deliberate and malicious contamination ofthe water by parties bent
on inflicting harm to the population but are confident in water agencies'ability to protect the
water supply.Drinking tap water directly without filtration is relatively uncommon,with most
customers using bottled water or filtered tap water for drinking purposes.These patterns are
consistent with thejindings ofthe 2005 survey.
Chart 1 shows that customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high level of satisfaction
with the District as their provider of water service.In fact,63 percent rate the Otay Water
District as either excellent (27 percent)or very good (38 percent).
Chart 2 shows that District service area residents tend not to use tap water directly for drinking
purposes (44 percent bottled,37 percent filtered tap water,and 19 percent tap water).This is
consistent with the pattern exhibited by District service area customers in 2005.
5
White
His aniclLatino
AsianlPacific Islander
Black!African-American
Native American/Other
Preferences for drinking water are as follows:
24%
35%
33%
25%
•Tap water is most commonly used by smaller households of 1 or 2 persons
(25 percent).
•Smaller households of 1 or 2 persons also prefer filtered water (44 percent).
•Whites have the greatest preference for filtered water (47 percent)and they
also use tap water more so than all the other ethnic groups (20 percent).
•Latinos indicate the greatest preference for bottled water (63 percent)
•Larger households (3 or more persons)prefer bottled water (53 percent).
6
Chart 1
Overall Satisfaction with Otay Water District
Poor,2%·
Good,25%
Fair,8%1'--Very Poor,0%
Very Good,38%
7
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Bottled Water
Chart 2
Main Source of Drinking Water in Household
---
-.........----
Filtered Tap wra~:te:r""""-----........_==__-...0...!1
Tap Water Unfiltered
8
ii
I!I
I
j
iII.~--~I----/
I
2005
.2006
.2005
Chart 3 indicates that there is a substantial level of confidence in the District's ability to provide
enough water for its customers (94 percent very confident or somewhat confident and only 6
percent not confident).A similar level of confidence was portrayed by District customers in the
2005 survey.
The following relationships are significant with regard to customer confidence in the ability of the
District to provide water:
•The highest level of confidence occurs among the largest households of 5 or
more persons (97 percent very confident and somewhat confident).
•Lower income customers indicate the least confidence in the ability of the
District to provide water (80 percent very confident and somewhat confident
for customers earning under $25,000 vs.94 percent for customers earning
$25,000 and over).
•The water only customers of the Otay Water District are more confident in
the District's ability to provide sufficient water than those who are sewer and
water customers (water only:48 percent very confident;sewer and water:36
percent very confident).
While customers of the Otay Water District are confident in the reliability of the water supply,
they are also interested in supporting programs that will bolster that confidence.For example,
Chart 4 shows that in an effort to develop and maintain additional supplies of water,nearly one-
half (46 percent)of the respondents are in favor of pursuing international agreements with
Mexico.
Chart 5 shows that there is simultaneously a fair amount of concern (65 percent -32 percent
great deal of concern and 33 percent some concern)that the water supply can be contaminated by
individuals who might intend to inflict harm upon the general population,with a corresponding
72 percent having either a great deal (30 percent)or some confidence (42 percent)in local
authorities'ability to prevent such an occurrence (Chart 6).In 2005,customers of the Otay
Water District demonstrated similar sentiments in terms of their concern about the potential
contamination of the water supply and the ability ofgovernment to prevent such a disaster.
Concern for contamination ofthe water supply varies by customer subgroup as follows:
•Larger households of 3 or more persons have the most concern about
contamination (69 percent with either a great deal or some concern).
•Among ethnic groups,Latinos have the greatest concern about contamination
(84 percent with a great deal or some concern).
9
I
iI
1-
2006
2005 I
Chart 3
Confidence in Ability of Water Agency to Provide Enough Water
~"l
I
.--=~-1%
II
•Very Confident •Somewhat Confident 0 Not Very Confident •Not at All Confident !
.--i I
I
!!I._~~-1%I
II
0%10%20%30%40%50%
10
60%70%80%90%100%
------------------
Chart 4
Favor Pursuing Water Supply Agreements with Mexico
]I
Yes,45%
Chart 5
Concern About Intentional Contamination of Local Water Supply
•Unsure
; •Great Deal of Concern
; •Some Concern
•Not Much Concern
EI No Concern at All
I I I
h"--=iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~·iI
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50%
12
Chart 6
Confidence in Ability of Local Water Authorities to Prevent Contamination
Great Deal of Confidence
Some Confidence
Not Much Confidence
No Confidence at All
Unsure
0%10%20%
13
30%40%50"10
iIII
Ii
I
IiIi
I
ij
iI
I-,--.2005 :
I ~~~06 J
60%
The following relationships are significant with regard to customer confidence in the ability of
authorities to prevent contamination:
•Confidence declines with age (44 percent great deal of confidence among
customers 18 -24 vs.27 percent for customers 45 and older).
•Confidence also declines with education (high school or less --80 percent
registered a great deal of confidence;bachelor's degree or more --65 percent
indicated a great deal ofconfidence).
•Larger households of 5 or more persons demonstrate the highest level of
confidence (46 percent expressing a great deal of confidence versus 25
percent for households of 4 or fewer).
Water and Sewer Rates,
SUMMARY:With reliability ofthe water supply considered to be high,nearly three-fourths
of Otay Water District customers would not pay any additional sums for greater reliability.
Those that would pay more,would pay $20-$31 more per month for enhanced reliability.
There is a growing awareness that water rates have gone up during the past 12 months with
nearly one-halfofthe respondents expressing this observation.Cu,stomers appear to be more
.attuned to the actual upward trend in water rates than customers in the 2005 survey and
current customers are much less uncertain about .their feelings than customers who
participated in the 2005 survey.Like water only customet;s,sewer customers are also aware of
the upward trend in sewer rates.They are more awareafsuch trends and much less uncertain
than the Chula Vista sewer customers were in the 2005 survey.
Water Rates:Almost all respondents (95 percent)pay their own water bill instead of having it
paid by a landlord or homeowners association,for example.Among·these water bill payers,45
percent would not pay any additional amount per month in order to secure a more reliable water
supply,with reliability defined as a water supply "that can be depended upon to consistently
provide enough to meet the region's needs."Another 26 percent were not sure whether or not
they would pay any additional sums,leaving 29 percent willing to pay more (Chart 7).Among
the 29 percent willing to pay more,they indicated that they would pay an additional $20 (median)
or $31 (mean)perrnonth for increased assurance ofreliability.
The pattern concerning willingness to pay higher water rates was similar for the 2005 survey
respondents except with regard to the additional amounts that respondents were willing to pay to
ensure water reliability.Specifically,in 2005,respondents were willing to pay approximately
one-half of what they indicated in 2006--an additional monthly amount of $10 (median)to $15
(mean).This finding implies that customers are becoming increasingly serious about water
reliability and are exhibiting this concern in the manner in which they are willing to allocate their
monthly expenditures.
14
!!
II
I
I
Among those willing to pay:
2006 ".
Mean Additional Payment =$31
Median Additional Payment=$20
2005
Mean Additional Payment =$15
Median Addltlonal Payment =$10
--,,
11$1110$20
IJNone11$110$5
Chart 7
Added Amount per Month Would Pay for More Reliable Water Supply
(Among those who pay own water bill--95%)
I I t------,..,-.-'-c-',-,:'--"''''---T~'~----'"!i [Ii!
,i,'I iIi!i
A ""----'---1
j
:7.//
tI:-------,,.---'----'-----..,.---_-----r"--'----'---'------'---------~/
2006
2005
0%10"10 20"10 30"10 40"10 50"10 60"10 70"10 80%90%100"10
15
The following relationships are significant with regard to the willingness of customers to pay
additional sums to ensure a reliable water supply:
•The desire to pay no additional sum increases with age (for customers 18 -24,
olllylLpercent were not willing to pay anything additional;for those 65 and
0Ider,65g~rcentwere not interested in makingw1ditional payments).
•Males¥~l~sswilling to pay any additional smn (males:50 percent willing to
payn6~h~nga.dditi9nal versus 40 percent for females).
•Thed~siretopaYl}o additional sums decreases as household size increases (for
hous~hQld sizys oil or 2,53 percent were not willing to pay anything additional;
for ti(>l}.s~hold sizes of 3 or more,39 percent were not interested in making
additional payments).....
Chart 8 indicates that 46 percentof respondents believe that water rates have increased over the
past year,30 percent think that rates have stayed the same,and 23 percent are not sure.
A smaller percentage of respondents in the 2005 survey thought that water rates increased than
did respondents in the 2006 survey (33 percent in 2005 or 13 percent less than the 46 percent in
2006).It appears that 2006 respoildents are more attuned to the actual trend in water rates and
actually expect that rates will increase in order to maintain or enhance the quality of their water
service delivery.
•The belief that water rates have gone up over the past year increases with level of
education (52 percent for Bachelor's or more education versus 33 percent for
high school or less).
•Custorners of the Otay Water District who contract for both water and sewer
service feel that water rates have gone up more so than did water only customers
(58 percent for water and sewer customers versus 44 percent for the water only
customer base).
Sewer Rates:Among sewer customers of the Otay Water District,78 percent are aware that
their invoice from the OtayWater District includes sewer service charges (Chart 9).In 2005,
residents ofChula Vistawer~asked if they were aware that their monthly bill included sewer fees
(The Otay Water District,in fact,collects these fees for the City ofChula Vista)and it was found
that 87 percent ofthe Chula Vista custorners were so aware - 9 percent more of them were aware
than are sewer customersoftheOtay Water District in 2006.
16
Have Gone Up
Have Stayed the Same
Have Gone Down
Unsure
Chart 8
Trend in Water Rates Over Past Year
i....·~---------l
!iI1I
IIij
0%10%20%
17
30%40%50%60%
Unsure
.2006
:.2005I _
------
Chart 9
Aware that Monthly Invoice Includes Sewer Service Charges
(among sewer customers - n =75 in 2006 --Otay WD sewer customers
---.-----.,----and n =201 in 2005--Chula Vista residents)J ..~~".----~--~/--_.·1~·-----'-----::--_----~--"_··_.._.......__."_1
-~---------i
-----.I
·1
II
i
.f
-JfI--._1--I---~--I~------I
~-'--i':2~~~~--..>_~._~L
60%
O%-__~~~'Yes
No
50%
40%.I
I!30%-.1'
100%'r
90%····-
80%J---
I70%-\
I
/8
According to Chart 10,41 percent think that sewer rates have gone up,22 percent think that they
have remained the same,and 36 percent are unsure.This contrasts with the 2005 Chula Vista
sewer customers who were considerably more uncertain about the direction of sewer rates (51
percent unsure or 15 percent more than the Otay customers in 2006).Also,Chula Vista
customers were less likely to think sewer rates had gone up (32 percent)or stayed the same (16
percent)than do Otay Water District customers in 2006.
Finally,among those sewer customers who think that both water and sewer rates have increased,
42 percent believe that sewer rates have increased more than water rates,15 percent think that
water rates have increased mOre,12 percent think that these increases have been equal,and 31
percent are unsure (Chart 11).
District Publications and Website
SUMMARY:The monthly newsletter that accompanies the water bills is well read by
customers and represents an increase in readership over the 2005 survey customers.The
annual Consumer Confidence Report is less well read.One-fifth ofthe District customers have
accessed the website and rate it very highly.This level of visitation and rating is consistent
with the findings ofthe 2005 survey.
Chart 12 shows that 22 percent of water bill payers always read the newsletter that accompanies
the bill each month,25 percent read it most months,and another 32 percent read it sometimes,
leaving only 21 percent who never read it.The readership of the newsletter has increased since
2005 when it was found that 12 percent read it every month -10 percent less than in 2006.
Further,in 2005,28 percent of bill payers never read their newsletter --7 percent more than in the
2006 survey.The increllse in readership from 2005 to 2006 implies that issues associated with
water and their billing rates are becoming increasingly important to water customers.
The annual Consumer Confidence Report is read by 38 percent Otay Water District customers
(Chart 13).This is the same pattern of readership found in 2005.
Chart 14 shows that the percentage of customers who visited the Otay Water District Website in
2005 (19 percent)and in 2006 (21 percent)are about the same.Chart 15 shows that Website
visitors give the Otay Water District Website high ratings (excellent -20 percent;good -55
percent;fair -14 percent,with 8 percent unsure and only 3 percent giving a rating of poor.
19
.2006
.2005
2005
------~-
Have Stayed the
Same Have Gone Down
Have Gone Up
0%
10%'
20%--
30%-
40%
50%-
60%
70%
Chart 10
Trend In Sewer Rates Over Past Year
(among sewer customers .-n =75 in 2006 -Otay WD sewer customers
_-..--"------~---.------and n =201 in 2005--Chula Vista residents)..--..-----~r .------!
"I ---"--------,I-------~-1----/"--'-II-----~I
80%I
II
!
f
90%
100%
Unsure
20
Sewer
Water
Both Equally
Unsure
Chart 11
Which Increase Larger:Water or Sewer
(among sewer customers -n =75 in 2006 -Otay we sewer customers
and n =201 in 2005--Chula Vista residents)
fIiI
IIi
I!~iii,
_J
_2005
_2006-J
I
[
i
II
0%10%20%30%40%50%
21
60%70%80%90%100%
Chart 12
Read Newsletter That Comes with Monthly Bill
IJ
I
!
l1'"
I
-j
. I .2005 'II"
:.2006 ':j "j
iI.
i
/../~
~--------------'-----"--------_-':-_-----------'
EveryTime .
Sometimes
Most Times
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
22
2006
2005
Chart 13
Read Annual Consumer Confidence Report
~---------~-------~---_..-.~---~~_.._._,~.--------;----(
o 10 20 30 40 50
23
60 70 80 90 100
Chart 14
Visited Otay Water District Website
.2005
.2006
Have Visited-Website
Have Internet Access,But Have
Not Visited Website
Do Not Have Access to Internet !
:-[II
-I
I
I
I
I
I
II
i Ii
0%10%20%30%40%
24
50%60%70%80%90%100%
100%
90%-.
80%.
70%
60%
I
50%1
I~%l
30%-
20%--
10%
Chart 15
Quality of Otay Water District Website
14% 15%
.2006
.2005
Excellent Good Fair
25
Poor Unsure
Similar ratings were obtained in the 2005 survey where 67 percent rated the'Website as either
excellent or good.
Website visitors exhibited the following significant patterns:
.
•
•
•
Website visitation declines with age (56 percent for 18-24 versus 22 percent
for 45 and older).
Asians (39 percent)are proportionately the most frequent visitors to the
website,while Latinos are the least frequent visitors (10 percent).
Males (28 percent)visit the Website more than do females (19 percent).
Water Conservation
SUMMARY:There does not seem to be a great inclination toward water conservation,with
about one-half of customers indicating that their interest in water conservation is only
moderate (47percent)and that their awareness ofit has essentially stayed the same for the past
year (61 percent).There has been some growth in awareness,however,since the 2005 survey.
Among th()se with landscaping,75 percent have automatically controlled sprinkler systems,
and these customers have adjusted their automatic controller an average of3.44 times during
the past year.More than one-third (40 percent)have heard about weather-based controllers,
but onlY6pt;f~ent-~ave installed one.There is not much interest in obtaining weather-based
controller~i~ctlJenext 12 months,with over three-fifths indicating that such a purchase would
be somewlJa.tufllilcely or very unlikely.Almost two-thirds can be motivated to reduce their
lawn sizeljyso-,ne c()mbination oflower bills,easier maintenance,and financial incentives.
Almost one.;half (47 percent)of the District's customers have seen or heard of the Water
Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College and 20 percent of all customers have actually
visited it.Another half of these visitors have changed their landscaping to some extent as a
result oftheir visit(s).Themo$tnotew(}.rthy and predominant change was the replacement of
existing plants with drought-tolerant o.nes and secondarily,changes in watering practices.
Lastly,44 percent ofOtClyWater District customers recall having seen or heard messages to
conservewater used outdoors,·and these messages were seen to a great extent on television.Of
those wh().recall seeing or hearing these messages,50 percent also recall their content (the
need to conserve water and the use of drought resistant plants in landscaping were typical
among (he messages heard and seen).Further,46 percent of those who have seen or heard
these mtJ~s.ages "ave already taken steps toward conservation as a response to these messages
includinlfadjustingsprinklers and installing weather-based controllers and/or drip irrigation.
A series ofquestions was posed to residents of the Otay Water District service area concerning
water usage and conservation.Initially,they were asked about their level of interest in
conserving water with no indication about whether this question pertained to indoor or outdoor
usage -45 percent of households characterized their level of interest as high,47 percent as
26
moderate,6 percent as low,and 1 percent as none.The same pattern of interest prevailed among
customers in the 2005 survey (Chart 16).
•The youngest age group of 18-24 did not express as much interest in water
conservation as the other age groups (18-24:33 percent expressed a high
level of interest;all other age groups:91 percent expressed a high level of
interest).
When asked how their awareness of water conservation had changed during the past year,the vast
majority (61 percent)indicated that it had remained the same,and 34 percent said that it had
increased (Chart 17).In 2005,there was less awareness of water conservation and more
uncertainty.That is,26 percent thought that household awareness of water conservation was
increasing (8 percent less than in 2006)and 9 percent were unsure - a substantial difference
relative to the fact that no one was unsure in 2006.
•Larger households feel that their household's awareness of water
conservation was increasing (39 percent for households of 3 or more persons
versus 26 percent for households of 1 or 2 persons).
Considerable attention was devoted in this survey to outdoor water usage and conservation.
Chart 18 shows that 71 percent of customers have some landscaping area for which their
household is responsible.This represents a decline from 2005 where 84 percent of the customers
were responsible for maintaining some landscaping.This decline may be partially explained by
the fact that the 2006 survey respondents have lower income and lower educational levels than
the 2005 survey respondents and,as a result,a larger proportion of the 2006 respondents may live
in housing units where it is not necessary to maintain landscaping (e.g.condominium ownership).
The following relationships indicate the sUbgroups that have the greatest responsibility for
landscaping:
•Bachelor's degree or more education (78 percent)
•Income level over $50,000 (81 percent)
•Homeowners (73 percent)
•Sewer customers (84 percent)
Chart 19 demonstrates that among those with landscaping,90 percent have a lawn and 26
percent ofthose with lawns could be motivated to reduce the size of their lawn by having reduced
27
water bills,18 percent by a more easily maintained yard,and 21 percent by some financial
incentive.Nothing at all could be offered that would motivate 19 percent of the customers to
reduce their lawn area.In 2005,the prospect of a reduced water bill did not motivate customers
to reduce the size of their lawn area to the extent that it motivates 2006 customers.That is,only
19 percent (or 7 percent less than in 2006)were so motivated in 2005 to reduce the size of their
lawn.The 2005 customers were also less motivated than 2006 customers to reduce their lawn size
by the prospect of receiving a financial incentive.In 2005,16 percent (or 5 percent less than in
2006)were motivated by a financial incentive.A much greater percentage --35 percent (or 16
percent more than in 2006)indicated that nothing could motivate them to reduce the size of their
lawn.The implication of Chart 19 is that a greater percentage of Otay Water District customers
in 2006 are willing to consider incentives to reduce the size of their lawn than were customers in
2005.
Chart 20 shows that of the 71 percent who have some landscaped area that they are responsible
.to maintain,75 percent have automatically controlled sprinkler systems that they have adjusted an
average of 3.44 times during the past 12 months.This is consistent with the findings of the 2005
survey.
Automatically controlled sprinklers are most prevalent among the following groups:
•Bachelor's degree or more education (81 percent)
•Whites (78 percent)
•Income level over $50,000 (87 percent)
The following groups tended not to make any adjustments in their automatic sprinkler systems:
•Respondents under 34 years old (42 percent).
•Latinos (26 percent)
Chart 21 indicates that 34 percent have heard about weather-based controllers but have not
installed one,60 percent have not heard about weather-based controllers,and 6 percent have
heard about them and have already installed them.It is shown in Chart 22 that among those who
do not have weather-based controllers,29 percent feel that it is very likely or somewhat likely
that they will purchase one in the next 12 months,while 63 percent feel that such a purchase is
somewhat unlikely or very unlikely.
28
2006
2005
i1i!-,
!
fI-I
2005
--~--
Low Interest
High Interest --"~=~~=:~.......e._~~~~~~';'
Moderate Interest
0%-........::-.
10%
Chart 16
Household1s Level of Interest in Conserving Water-----~---··r~-----
70%(-----------I ---1
I _.---------~-I---------- -rf---"-------~~----------.--------I60%-1
1
~I
--------------.....- -f-----50%··1
II4°%l
Ii
30%·1
I
20%I·
No Interest
29
Chart 17
Household's Awareness of Water Conservation During the Past Year
70%-
--------------.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Increasing
Staying about the
Same
-----
------~-
-----
Decreasing
Unsure
30
2005
2006
.2005
Chart 18
Household Is Responsible for Maintaining Landscaping
2006
I
I
I
2005
j
i1J1------'---------------'-----'----'-----~------'----.~
,/./",/
//
".t"/--,..-----,..---------,..-----~--_.•,/
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
31
70%80%90%100%
Chart 19
Incentives to Reduce Size of Lawn
(Among the 64 percent with a lawn)
Do Not Have Lawn
Have Lawn--Unsure About
Reducing Lawn
Have Lawn--Nothing Would
Induce Lawn Reduction
Have Lawn--Would Reduce for up
to $1 per Square Foot Incentive
Have Lawn--Would Reduce for
Easier Maintenance
Have Lawn--Would Reduce for
Lower Water Bill
35CY~
I
I.i!
.2006
.2005
0%10%20%30%40%
32
50%60%70%80%90%100%
Chart 20
Automatic Sprinkler System Adjustments
(Among 71 %with landscaping responsibility)
2006
fiNo AiiomaticControiler
i•Automatic Controller··Never Adjusted
!iiiAulomatic Controller-·Adjusted 1-3 Times per Year'
iIiAutomatic Controller-·Adjusted4 orMore Times per Year";
:_Have Weather Based Controller
2005
1r-~,-l _
:[JAutomatic Controller-·Unsureabout Numberof
,,Adjustments
--,--.-,---,------,-L....------J
,//
//*2005:1 time::5%-2-3 times::24%
**2006:4-6 times::15%-7 or more times::18%
0%20%40%60%80%
33
100%
Chart 21
Heard About Weather Based Controllers
(Among 71 %with landscaping)
Yes-Have Weather Based
Controller,6%
Have Not Heard About
Weather Based Controllers,
60%
34
Yes-But Do Not Have
Weather Based Controller
Installed,34%
Chart 22
Likelihood of Purchasing Weather Based Controller
in Next 12 Months
(Among 93%of those with landscaping who do not have weather based controller
--66%of all respondents)
Very Unlikely,45%
Unsure,9%
35
Very Likely,8%
Somewhat Unlikely,17%
The following groups indicated that they were very likely or somewhat likely to purchase a
weather-based controller in the next 12 months:
•18-24 age group (80 percent)compared to all other age groups (26 percent)
•Homeowners (30 percent)compared to renters (8 percent).
Of those who did not indicate that they were very likely or somewhat likely to purchase a
weather-based controller in the next 12 months,33 percent responded that they would be more
inclined to purchase the weather-based controller for a $65 rebate to partially offset the full price
of approximately $300 (Chart 23).Chart 24 shows that of those who did not indicate that they
would purchase a weather-based controller for a rebate of $65,19 percent said they were more
likely to do so with a $125 voucher toward the full price of $300.Thus,over 50 percent were
likely to purchase a weather-based controller with the application of a rebate or voucher up to
$125.Chart 25 indicates that 17 percent of those who do not have a weather-based controller
were more inclined to purchase one if they heard that they could save $30 per year on their water
.bill;however,59 percent indicated that $30 of annual savings makes no difference to them.
The following relationships are significantrelative to the use of vouchers for purchasing weather-
based controllers:
•$65 vouchers (rebates)made little difference among males (62 percent)
compared to females (49 percent).
•The prospect of a $65 voucher rendered homeowners likely to purchase a
weather-based controller(35 percent)compared to renters 14 percent).
•Home owner are more indifferent toward the use of $125 vouchers (rebates)
(68 perceht)for purchasing weather based controllers than are renters (18
percent).
Cuyamaca College in El Cajon maintains a Water Conservation Garden that demonstrates various
drought resistant and water efficient plants in an attractive and educational environment.
Respondents were asked if they had ever seen or heard about the garden and 47 percent
responded in a positive fashion;20 percent of all respondents have,in fact,visited the garden
(Chart 26).Three-fourths of those who have visited the Garden have done so 3 or fewer times,
but 10 percent were very frequent visitors with 10 or more visits.The mean number of visits is
3.66.
36
Chart 23
Likelihood of Purchasing Weather Based Controller in Next 12
Months if $65 Rebate
(Among remaining 85%with landscaping who did not indicate very likely purchase without rebate-
60%of all respondents)
Unsure,13%~.-.--------
37
Chart 24
Likelihood of Purchasing Weather Based Controller if $125 Rebate
(Among remaining 52%with landscaping who did not indicate more likely purchase with $65 rebate-
37%of all repondents)
No Difference,63%
38
Chart 25
Likelihood of Purchasing Weather Bsed Controller After Finding Out
Approximate Annual Savings =$30
(among 93%ofthose with landscaping who do not have weather based controller-66%of all
respondents)
Unsure,6%
Less Likely,16%
39
Chart 26
Heard of and Visited Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden in Past 6 Years
2006
2005
I1
._----------~/
iiiNever Heard of Garden
•Heard of Garden--Never Visited
•Heard of Garden--Visited Once or Less
•Heard of Garden--Visited 2-3 Times
•Heard of Garden--Visited 4-5 Times
[JHeard of Garden--Visited 6-9 Times
iiiHeard of Garden--Visited 10 Times or More
0%20%40%60%80%
40
100%
The percentage of those who visited most frequently (10 visits or more)doubled from 5 percent
in 2005 and the mean visits increased from 2.90 to 3.66.These findings represent a clear
indication that the Water Conservation Garden is receiving more attention by Otay Water District
customers who are seeking information about drought resistant plants and water efficiency.
The following groups were most likely to have seen or heard about the Cuyamaca Garden:
•Respondents over the age of 45 (41 percent)compared to those 45 and under
(33 percent)
•Bachelor's degree or more education (53 percent)compared to High School
or less (39 percent)
•Whites (55 percent)and Asians (50 percent)
•Respondents who elected to complete the survey in English (49 percent)
compared to those who elected to compl~te the Spanish version (16 percent)
•Homeowners{50 percent)compared to renters (19 percent).
•Sewer customers of the Otay Water District (69 percent)compared to water
only customers (44 percent).
The following groups tend to visit the Garden more than other groups:
•Bachelor'sdegree or more education(51 percent)
•Whites (51 perceht)
•Sewercustomers (57 percent)
One-half of the visitors to the Cuyamaca College Gardenhave·made changes to their landscaping
as a result of what they learned at the Water Conservation Garden (Chart 27).The most
noteworthy and predominant change was the use of drought tolerant plants,and secondarily,
changes in watering practices.
In recent years,water agencies have asked local media to request that residents and businesses
take steps to conserve water used outdoors.Chart 28 shows that 44 percent of the Otay Water
District customers recall having seen or heard such messages, allocated as follows:22 percent
recall seeing these messages on television;6 percent recall messages on the radio;and another 5
percent recall messages sent with their monthly bill.Chart 29 indicates that 50 percent of those
who recall seeing or hearing these messages do not remember the content of these messages,19
percent remember the message that they "must save water",and 8 percent remember that they
should "use drought resistant plants in landscaping."
41
I
II
Chart 27
Made Changes to Watering/Landscaping Practices As Result of Visiting Conservation Garden
(among 20%(2006)and 19%(2005)who have visited garden),,-..-------,---------.----.i-I i '-~
I
I
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
42
Do Not Recall Messages,
56%
Yes,Recall Messages in
Material with Monthly
BiII,5%
Yes,Recall Messages on
Radio,6%
Chart 28
Recall Seeing or Hearing Messages
About Outdoor Water Conservation
Yes,But Do Not Recall
Where Noticed
Messages,2%
Other,11%
Yes,Recall Messages in
.Oth~~lY!~dia._,_:3'Yo
Yes,Recall Messages on
Televison,22%
43
Unsure if Noticed
Messages,3%
Yes,Recall Messages in
Newspaper,3%
Chart 29
What Is Remembered From Outdoor Water Messages
(Among those 41%with landscaping who recall seeing or hearing messages=29%of all respondents)
Drought Resistent
Plants,8%
Summer Conservation,
2%
Showers Save Water,2%
Sprinkler Adjustments,
2%
,Other,23%
Do Not Wash
Cars/Sidewalks,3%
Hoses Should Not Be
Left Running,3%
Must Conserve Water,
19%
44
,Recycled Water,2%
Other,4%
Efficient Appliances,3%
•Hispanics (50 percent)and Whites (48 percent)tend to recall outdoor water
conservation messages more so than other ethnic groups.
The following groups were particularly attuned to where they saw or heard the messages about
outdoor water conservation:
•Customers who contract only for water (56 percent)tend to see these
conservation messages on television more so than customers who contract
for both sewer and water services (28 percent)
•Customers who contract for sewer and water (32 percent)are more likely to
hear these conservation messages on the radio than are customers who
contract only for water.(12 percent)
•Sewer and water customers (20 percent)are more inclined to see the
conservation messages in their monthly bill than are water customers (10
percent)
Chart 30 demonstrates that among those who recall hearing or seeing conservation messages,45
percent have taken steps to conserve water in response to these messages.Further,an additional
35 percent had already taken conservation steps prior to hearing or seeing these messages.Steps
taken in response to the messages include:adjusted sprinklers (18 percent)and installed weather-
based controller/drip irrigation (5 percent),along with indoor measures such as reduced indoor
water use (5 percent)and changed indoor fixtures (5 percent).Verbatim responses for the steps
taken to conserve water are listed in the Appendix.
•Larger households of 3 or persons tended to recall the specific steps they
took toward improving outdoor water conservation (51 percent)more so than
smaller households (23 percent).
•Smaller households of 1 or 2 persons indicated they were already conserving
water before the messages were heard or seen (57 percent)more so than
larger households (22 percent).
Recycled Water
SUMMARY Recycled water is strongly supported as a source of alternative water supply
under most circumstances.The strongest support for using recycled water comes when it is
usedfor watering landscape along freeways and golf courses,watering residential yards,and
for use in industrial processing and manufacturing.There is somewhat less support for the
use ofrecycled water in replenishing recreational lakes.These patterns are similar to those in
the 2005 survey.
45
Chart 30
Steps Taken in Response to Outdoor Water Usage Messages
(Among those 41%with landscaping who recall seeing or hearing messages=29%of all respondents)
Reduced Indoor Water
Use,5%
Adjusted Sprinklers,
18%
Have Not Taken Any
Steps,20%
Changed Indoor
Fixtures,5%
Installed Weather
Based Controller/Drip
Irrigation,5%
Unsure If Any Steps
Taken,5%
Other,7%
Do Not Wash Car,2%
Already Conserving
Before Messages,35%
46
Other,3%
Reduced Landscaping,
2%
Only one-third of customers know that sewer water makes up the wastewater that is used for
recycled water.Customers do not support recycled water as an addition to the supply of
drinking water.This opposition is modified when recycled water undergoes advanced,
secondary treatment.
Chart 31 indicates that approximately one-third of the Otay Water District customers know that
sewer water is wastewater that is used for recycling.On other hand,42 percent think that storm
drain run-off constitutes the wastewater used in the recycling process.
•Males (39 percent)tend to know that sewer water is wastewater used in
recycling.
•Females (44 percent)and renters (61 percent)are the two groups that are
inclined to think that storm drain runoff is wastewater used in recycling.
Recycled water is strongly supported as a source of alternative water supply under most
circumstances.Chart 32 shows that the strongest support for recycled water occurs when it is
used for watering landscape along freeways and golf courses (93 percent,of which 66 percent
strongly favor such use),watering residential yards (88 percent -56 percent strongly),and
industrial processing and manufacturing (81 percent -47 percent strongly).Use of recycled
water for replenishing recreational lakes is less supported (69 percent-30 percent strongly).
Customers do not support recycled water as an addition to the supply of drinking water (46
percent strongly oppose and 14 percent somewhat oppose).
In 2005 (Charts 33-36),the pattern of support for the use of recycled water was similar to 2006,
with the exception that all comparable uses in 2005 showed greater percentages of strong support
in contrast to the more lukewarm "somewhat"characterization in 2006.In 2006,however,there
was more support for the use of recycled water in replenishing recreational lakes (17 percent
more in favor than in 2005).
The following groups are significantly in favor or opposed to using recycled water for:
Watering landscaping along freeways and golf courses:
•Customers over 35 years old strongly favor (72 percent)
•Asians strongly favor or somewhat favor (96 percent)
Replenishing recreational lakes:
•Renters strongly favor or somewhat favor using recycled water to replenish
recreational lakes (97 percent).
47
•Customers who think that storm drain runoff is wastewater are less in favor
of its being recycled for use in replenishing recreational lakes (67 percent
strongly favor or somewhat favor in contrast to 81 percent of those who do
not think that storm runoff is wastewater).
Industrial processing and manufacturing:
•Customers who think that storm drain runoff is wastewater support its
recycled use in industrial processing and manufacturing (60 percent
strongly).
Drinking water:
•Whites strongly favor or somewhat favor the use of recycled water for
drinking purposes (41 percent)
•Customers who do not know that sewer water is wastewater support its
recycled use as an addition to the supply of drinking water more than those
who know that sewer water is the wastewater which is used in recycling (45
percent of those who are not aware that wastewater is sewer water strongly
favor or somewhat favor in contrast to 28 percent of those who know).
Respondents,who oppos~the use of recycled water for drinking purposes (60 percent),were
informed that recycled water can receive advanced treatment in the form of additional filtration,
reverse osmosis,and chlorination.These respondents were asked if they would accept recycled
water for drinking purposes if it were subject to such advanced treatment and if they learned the
following facts about recycled water (Chart 37).The percentages in parentheses reflect the
customers who were formerly opposed to using recycled water for drinking purposes but who
changed their minds upon learning that:
•Recycled water remained one year in a reservoir and then was retreated (34 percent)
•Recycled water is used as drinking water in other U.S.communities (31 percent)
•Recycled water could supply as much as 10 percent ofdrinking water (33 percent)
•California standards are among most strict in nation (46 percent).
It is noteworthy that one-third to one-half of those who were originally opposed to the use of
recycled water for drinking purposes would find it acceptable if it received advanced treatment
and if certain critical information about recycling were made available to them.
48
The following groups would find recycled water acceptable for use as drinking water if it were
treated by using advanced technology and certain critical facts,as noted,were known to them:
Recycled water is used to supplement drinking water in other U.S.
communities.I.Income level over $75,000 (44 percent)
Recycled water could supply as much as 10 percent of local drinking water.
•Income level over $75,000 (40 percent)
•Renters (44 percent)
Recycled water would be treated to meet California standards -among the
most strict in the nation.
•Lived in San Diego County for 21 years or more (48 percent)
•Females (50 percent)
49
100%
I
90%·1
00%1
70%1
I
60%1
50%-
40%1
30%I
I
20%I
10%II
Sewer Water
Chart 31
Recycled Water Consists 01....
Storm Drain Runoff
50
Chart 32
Favor or Oppose Recycled Water for....
Strongly Favor l2iI Somewhat Favor o Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose iiiUnsure
1------_.,
Watering Landscape Along Freeways.
Open Space.Parks.Golf Courses
Industrial Processing and
Manufacturing
Replenishing Recreational lakes
Watering Residential Front Yards
Addition to Supply of Drinking Water
0%10%20%30%40%
51
50%60%70%80%90%100%
100%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%-
10%
85%
Chart 33
Favor or Oppose Recycled Water for Watering Freeways,Parks,
o en S ace,Golf Courses
,.2006
I .2005 .------11__
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose
52
Strongly Oppose Unsure
Chart 34
Favor or Oppose Recycled Water for Industrial Processing and Manufacturing
i,,
!1t!
--Ii
---~-
~I---------!,
II--------------------------------------·------1
lj
---I
._----..-.-----1I!
----~.-.2006"-"
I .2005----------'f
!I!
70%-63%
60%./
I
50%·-1
II40%--1II30%
20"/0·_·
10%-
0%--
100%(,,_
90%I IIr------
BO%jf
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Unsure
53
Chart 35
Favor or Oppose Recycled Water for Replenishing Recreational Lakes
_-"-_---'c__'---_
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%-
50%
39%
JI_..~..I
!I---------------------·-··--·----·--···---------1!!-----·-1
I-_._--_._.,
II--....-.-.----.-.-.--'--1.
I!.2006
!.2005..L _,
40%··
30%-
0%
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor
19%
Somewhat Oppose
54
19%
Strongly Oppose Unsure
i----I
-J
------_._----
___________--.,-.,--'".•"'--...-.c_.'''-·.",
Chart 36
Favor or Oppose Recycled Water for Watering !lesidential Yards ~
I--JII, ..I,-~_..-,.:-_.__.,------,.._----_....,..\
I-----------...---1
1j
-----------------·----i1!I
:1..-.._.._-_._
:.2006
:.2005
l!i._-----.'--I
i!
67%
90%
//j/1rI-
IiiI80%1
!I
70%I
i!
60%-iIi
50%-I
40%1
30%I
1
;.1
20%IIIlO%j
II!O%.....----........---~~"_F-_.....................~~---'_.,_.--.........-~........-.-'"------~........--__,_-----".........~...........---'~_r
100%
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Unsure
55
Chart 37
Accept Recycled Water for Drinking if Respondent Learned that...
(Among the 64%opposed to using recycled water to supplement drinking water supplies)
-1
I!-~---------!
---1
.-----------j
-~-----lI
0%j.&--....-......,;.....'!!!..3iI~---..;.;...--------------.-......."
80%
90%
70%--
60%---
50%I
I40%!II
30%-1
20%1
I
10%-1i
100%.
Recycled Water One
Year in Reservoir and
Retreated
Recycled Water Used
Currently to Supplement
Drinking Water in Other
U.S.Communities
Recycled Water Could
Supply 10%of Drinking
Water
California Standards
Among Most Strict in
Nation
56
Otay Water District
General Survey 2006
INT.Hello,my name is .I'm calling on behalf of the Otay Water District.
We're conducting a study about some issues having to do with your household water
supply and we're interested in your opinions.[IF NEEDED:]Are you at least 18 years
of age or older?[IF 18+HOUSEHOLDER NOT AVAILABLE NOW,ASK FOR FIRST
NAME AND MAKE CB ARRANGEMENTS]
VER.[VERSION OF INTERVIEW:]1 -VERSION A 2 •VERSION B*
*=RESPONSE OPTIONS REVERSED ON VERSION BFOR ALL QUESTIONS INDICATED
IC.Let me assure you that no names or addresses are associated with the telephone
numbers,and all of your responses are completely anonymous.The questions take
about ten minutes.To ensure that my work is done honestly and correctly,this call may
be monitored.Do you have a few minutes right now?
[IF ASKED ABOUT MONITORING:]My supervisor randomly listens to interviews to
make sure we're reading the questions exactly as written and not influencing answers in
any way.
TOP .[ONLY IF ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT TOPIC OR WHO'S
SPONSORING IT?:]This project is sponsored by the Otay Water District,and it's
about some issues related to your household water supply.[IF SPONSOR
INFORMATION GIVEN TO RESPONDENT,"TOPIC"=1]
CUST.How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District?[IF LESS THAN ONE
YEAR,THANK AND CODE NOR-RES]
____yEARS
o--------•••>"NQR·RES"
99·OK/REF,BUT AT LEAST ONE YEAR
SEX.[RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT:]
1 •MALE
2·FEMALE
•••••••••••••••••••-----••QUALIFIED RESPONDENT:QUOTAS CHECKED;DATA SAVED _•••••_•••••••••••_••
LP.[IF INDICATED BY ACCENT:]Would you prefer that we speak in...
1 •English or
2 •Spanish?
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C1
Q1.These first few questions deal with the use of water in your household.Which of the
following is currently the main source of drinking water in your home...
1 -tap water,------------>GO TO Q2
2 -tap water that you filter at home,or
3 -bottled water?
4 -OTHER VOLUNTEERED,SPECIFY:------>GO TO Q2
9 -OK/REF ------------>GO TO Q2
Q2.How would you describe your household's level of interest in conserving water at
home?Would you say...*
1 - a high level of interest,
2 - a moderate level,
3 - a low level,or
4 -no interest at all?
9 -OK/REF
Q3.During the past year,would you say your household's awareness of water conservation
has been...*[REVERSE 1 - 3 ONLY]
1 -increasing,
2 -staying about the same,
3 -decreasing,
4 -or are you not sure?[INCLUDES OK/REF]
Q4.These next questions are related to the water supply in San Diego County.How
confident are you in the ability of your water agency to provide enough water to the
district?Would you say...*[REVERSE]
1 -very confident,
2 -somewhat confident,.
3 -not very confident,
4 -not at all confident,
5 -or are you not sure?[INCLUDES OK/REF]
Q5.How much concern do you have,if any,about someone contaminating the local water
supply in an attempt to harm the general population?Would you say...
1 - a great deal,
2 -some,
3 -not much,or
4 -no concern at all?
9 -OK/REF
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C2
06.How much confidence do you have,if any,in the local water authorities when it comes
to preventing someone from contaminating the local water supply in an attempt to harm
the general population?Would you say...
1 - a great deal,
2 -some,
3 -not much,or
4 -no confidence at all?
9 -OK/REF
07.Does your household pay its own water bill,or does someone else,like a landlord or
homeowners'association,pay the water bill for you?
1 -RESPONDENT/OTHER MEMBER OF HOUSEHOLD PAYS
2 -LANDLORD/HOMEOWNERS'ASSOC.lOTHER ------------>GO TO QS
9 -OK/REF ------------>GO TO QS
[ASK Q7a TO Q7h IF Q7 =1 -HH PAYS WATER Bill:]
07a.A reliable water supply is one that can be depended upon to consistently provide
enough water to meet the region's needs.How much more per month,if any,
would you be willing to pay for your water service,if it ensured a more reliable
water supply for you?
$ADDITIONAL $PER MONTH [CONFIRM]
O-NONE
999 -OK/REF
07b.In the past year,do you believe that your water rates have...
1 -gone up,
2 -gone down,
3 -stayed about the same,
4 -or are you not sure?
9 -REF
07c.[IF RESIDENT WITH OTAY SEWER-OTHERWISE,GO TO Q7f]
Are you aware that your monthly invoice from the Otay Water District includes charges
for your sewer service?
1 -YES
2-NO
9 -OK/REF
07d.In the past year,have your sewer rates...
1 -gone up,
2 -gone down,--------->GO TO Q7f
3 -stayed the same,----------->GO TO Q7f
4 -or are you not sure?----------->GO TO Q7f
9 -REF ----------->GO TO Q7f
OtayWater District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C3
07e.[IF Q7b =1 and Q7d =1 •GONE UP:]Which increase do you believe has
been larger...*[REVERSE 1-2 ONLY]
1 -sewer,
2 -water,
3 -both equally,
4 -or are you not sure?
9 -REF
07f.Do you read the newsletter or bill inserts that come in the mail with your monthly water
bill...
1 -every time,
2 -most times,
3 -sometimes,or
4 -never?
9 -OK/REF
07g The Otay Water District provides each customer household with an annual Consumer
Confidence Report before July 1st of each year.Have you ever read this report?
1 -YES
2-NO
9 -OK/REF
08.These next few questions deal with saving water outside.Does your residence have
any outdoor landscaping that someone in your household is directly responsible for
maintaining?
1 -YES
2 -NO/APT/CONOO/NO YARD RESPONSIBILITIES ••••••••••••>GO TO Q9
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q9
08a.[IF Q8 =1:]Does your landscaping include a lawn?
1 -YES
2 -NO ••••••••••••>GO TO Q8c
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q8c
08b.[IF YES:]Reducing the size of your lawn helps save water.Which of
the following would be most likely to motivate you to reduce the size of
your lawn:...*
1 -having a reduced water bill due to using less water,
2 -having a more easily maintained yard,
3 - a financial incentive of up to one dollar per square foot,
4 -or nothing?
9 -OK/REF
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C4
QBc.[IF Qa=1]Do you have an automatically-controlled sprinkler system for
your landscaping?
1 -YES
2 -NO ------------>GO TO Qae
9 -OK/REF ------------>GO TO Qae
QBd.[IF YES:]Ouring the past 12 months,how often has anyone
made adjustments to the automatic controller for your sprinkler system?
1 -NOT AT ALL
2 - 1 TO 3 TIMES
3 - 4 to 6 TIMES
4 -7 OR MORE TIMES
5 -USE WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER -GO TO Q9
9 -OK/REF
QBe.Have you heard about weather-based irrigation controllers that automatically adjust
your landscape watering based on changing weather conditions?
1 -YES
2 -NO ---------------------------------------------------->GO TO Qag
9 -OK/REF ----------------------------------------,;,------->GO TO Qag
QBf.[IF Qac=1 and Qae=1:]Have you had a weather-based controller installed at
your residence?
1 -YES ---------------------------------------------->GO TO Q9
2-NO
9 -OK/REF
QBg.[IF Qae >1 or Qaf >1:]With a weather-based system,you do not have to
make adjustments yourself for daily changes in the weather.The controller
senses rain,temperature,and humidity and automatically adjusts irrigation.
Typically,you can purchase a weather-based control system for about $300.
How likely,if at all,are you to purchase a weather-based controller during the
next 12 months?Would you say..:
1 -very likely,-------------GO TO Qai
2 -somewhat likely,
3 -somewhat unlikely,or
4 -very unlikely?
9 -OK/REF
QBh.[IF Qag >1:]If $65 vouchers were offered toward the purchase of a weather-
based controller,would this...*[REVERSE 1-2 ONLY]
1 -make you more likely to purchase a weather-based controller,[GO TO Qaj]
2 -not make any difference to you?
9 -OK/REF
QBi [IF Qah >1:];If $125 vouchers were offered toward the purchase of
a weather-based controller,would this..:[REVERSE 1-2 ONLY]
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C5
1 -make you more likely to purchase a weather-based controller,[GO
TO Q8i]
2 -not make any difference to you?
9 -OK/REF
OBj.A weather-based controller could save you approximately $30 per year on your
water bill.Ooes hearing this make you...*
[REVERSE 1·2 ONLY]
1 -more likely to purchase a weather-based controller,
2 -less likely,or
3 -does not make any difference?
9 -OK/REF
ASK EVERYONE:
09.Have you ever seen or heard anything about the Water Conservation Garden at
Cuyamaca College?
1 -YES
2 -NO••••••······>GO TO Q10
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q10
09a.[IF YES:]Have you ever visited the garden?
1 -YES
2 -NO ••••••••••••>GO TO Q10
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q10
Q9b.[IF YES:]About how many times have you visited the Garden during the
past six years?
____TIMES
999 -OK/REF
Q9c.Have you made any changes to your watering or landscaping practices
as a result of visiting the Garden?
1 -YES
2 -NO ••••••••••••>GO TO Q10
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q10
Q9d.[IF YES:]What was the one major change you made?
[PROBE FOR AND RECORD ONE CHANGE]
99 -OK/REF
010.00 you recall having seen or heard any OUTOOOR water usage conservation
messages during the past year?
1 -YES
2 -NO ••••••••••••>GO TO Q12
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C6
9 -DKIREF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q12
010a.[IF Q1 0=1:]Where do you recall seeing or hearing these messages most often?[DO
NOT READ;PROBE FOR AND RECORD ONLY ONE]
1 -TELEVISION
2 -RADIO
3 -NEWSPAPERS
4 -FRIENDS/FAMILY
5 -WEBSITE OF MY WATER AGENCY
6 -MATERIAL WITH MONTHLY BILL
7 -SDCWA WEBSITE
8 -DO NOT REMEMBER
9 -OTHER,SPECIFY:_
010b [IF Q10a >0].Do you remember anything about what these messages said?
1.Yes (please tell us what you remember about the messages)
Q10bx _
2.No.I do not remember what the messages said.
[ASK 011 ONLY IF 08 = 1 (HH responsible for landscaping)AND IF Q10 =YES;IF NOT,GO TO
Q12]
011.Do you recall the specific steps,if any,that your household has taken during the past
year as a direct response to these messages about reducing your outdoor water
usage?
1 -YES
2 -Have not taken any specific steps as a response to these messages ••••••••••••>GO
TOQ12
3 -ALREADY CONSERVING BEFORE MESSAGES ••••••••••••>GO TO 012
9 -DKIREF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q12
Q11 a.[IF YES:]What is the major step your household has taken to reduce outdoor
water usage as a response to these messages?
[PROBE FOR AND RECORD ONLY ONE STEP]
99 -DKIREF
Ii:
IIi
tl,I
11'1h~:
11Ii
Ii
I.!~Ij,1,1
l'lIi
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C7
012:How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Otay Water District as your water
service provider?
1---Excellent
2---Very Good
3-Good
4---Fair
5-Poor
6---Very Poor
9-DK/REF
013.Have you ever visited the Otay Water District website?
1 -YES
2 -HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET,BUT HAVE NOT VISITED WEBSITE ----------------------->GO TO Q14
3-00 NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET------------GO TO 014
9 -OK/REF ----------------->GO TO Q14
013a.[IF YES:]How would you rate the website?Would you say...
1 -excellent,
2 -good,
3 -fair,or
4 -poor?
9 -OK/REF
014a-c.These next questions are about recycled water,which is wastewater that has been
highly treated and is used for a variety of purposes other than drinking water.Which
of the following would you think makes up the wastewater that is used for recycling?
1=Yes 2=No 3=DKlREF
a.sewer water
b.storm drain runoff
9
9
9
9
9
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
The use of recycled water is another way to increase our water supply.Would you
favor or oppose the use of recycled water for the following types of uses...
[CLARIFY:]Do you strongly or somewhat {favor/oppose}that?
strgly smwt smwt strgly OK!
favor favor oppose oppose REFDoyoufavororopposeusingrecycledwater...
a)for watering landscaping along freeways
open space,parks and golf courses?
b)for industrial processing and manufacturing?
c)for replenishing recreational lakes?
d)for watering residential front yards?
e)as an addition to the supply of
drinking water
015.
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C8
If Q15e =1 or 2,GO TO Q16-0therwise continue with 15f-1 through 4
Q15f.Recycled water can receive advanced treatment in the form of additional
filtration,reverse osmosis,and chlorination.Would you accept the addition of
advanced treated recycled water to supplement the sources of our drinking
water if you learned that...
1.the recycled water would reside for over
one year,mixed with other water,in an open
reservoir and then be treated again at a water
filtration plant?
2.recycled water is currently used to supplement
drinking water in other U.S.communities?
3.recycled water could supply as much as 10%
of our local drinking water supplies?
4.California's drinking water standards are among
the most strict in the nation,and recycled water
would be treated to meet those standards?
Yes No
2
2
2
2
OK/REF
9
9
9
9
ASK ALL:
Q16.Would you be in favor of pursuing international agreements with Mexico whereby the
United States and Mexico would cooperate to develop and maintain additional supplies
of water?
1 -Yes
2 -No
3 -OK/REF
Q17.Have you called the Otay Water District for service or other help during the past
6 months?
1 -YES
2-NO
9 -OK/REF
In closing,these questions are for comparison purposes only.
PPH.How many persons,including yourself,live in your household?
99 -OK/REF
TEN.Is your residence owned by someone in your household,or is it rented?
1 -OWN
2 -RENT/OTHER STATUS
9 -OK/REF
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C9
EOU.What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit
for...
1 -high school or less,
2 -at least one year of college,trade or vocational school,
3 -graduated college with a bachelor's degree,or
4 -at least one year of graduate work beyond a bachelor's degree?
9 -OK/REF
AGE.Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age...
1 -18 to 24,
2 -25 to 34,
3 -35 to 44,
4 -45 to 54,
5 -55 to 64,or
6 -65 or over?
9 -OK/REF
ETH.Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background...
1 -white,not of Hispanic origin;
2 -black,not of Hispanic origin;
3 -Hispanic or Latino;
4 -Asian or Pacific Islander;
5 -Native American;or
6 -another ethnic group?[SPECIFY:]_
9 -OK/REF
INC.Now,we don't want to know your exact income,but just roughly,could you tell me if
your annual household income before taxes is...
1 -under $25,000,
2 -$25,000 up to but not including $50,000,
3 -$50,000 up to (but not including)$75,000,
4 -$75,000 up to (but not including)$100,000,or
5 -$100,000 or more?
9 -OK/REF
LAN.[LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW:]1 -ENGLISH 2 -SPANISH
Otay Water District Survey DRAFT (NOVEMBER 2006)
Rea &Parker Research C10
Distrito de Agua de Otay
Encuesta General 2006
INT.Hola [SUGGEST:Buenas tardes/buenos dfas/buenas noches],mi nombre es
_______.Estoy lIamando de parte del Distrito de Agua de Otay.Estamos
realizando un estudio sobre algunos temas que tienen que ver con el suministro de
agua de su hogar y nos interesan sus opiniones.[EN CASO DE SER NECESARIO]
l-Tiene usted por 10 menos 18 anos de edad?[SI ~SE ENCUENTRA DISPONIBLE
AHORA UNA PERSONA DEL HOGAR DE 18+ANOS,PREGUNTE POR EL PRIMER
NOMBRE Y HAGA ARREGLOS PARA REGRESAR]
VER.[VERSION DE ENTREVISTA:]1 -VERSION A 2·VERSION B*
*=LAS OPCIONES DE RESPUESTAS SE INVIERTEN EN LA VERSION B PARA TODAS LAS
PREGUNTAS INDICADAS
IC.Permftame asegurarle que ningun nombre y ninguna direcci6n estan asociados con los
numeros telef6nicos;todas sus respuestas son completamente an6nimas.Las
preguntas toman unos diez minutos.Para asegurar que mi trabajo se realiza honesta y
correctamente,esta lIamada puede ser controlada (monitoreada).;,.Tiene usted
algunos minutos ahora?
[SI SE LE PREGUNTA ACERCA DEL CONTROL (MONITOREO)]Mi supervisor(a)
escucha las entrevistas de manera aleatoria para cerciorarse que leemos las preguntas
exactamente como fueron escritas y que no influimos en las respuestas de ninguna
manera.
TOP.[SOLAMENTE SI SE LE PREGUNTA MAs INFORMACION ACERCA DEL TEMA 0
c,QUIEN LO PATROCINA?:]Este proyecto es patrocinado por el Distrito de Agua de
Otay,y se trata acerca de algunos temas relacionados con el suministro de agua de su
hogar.[51 5E LE DlO INFORMACION DEL PATROCINADOR AL ENTREVISTADO,
"TEMA"=1]
CUST.l-Cuanto tiempo tiene de ser cliente del Distrito de Agua de Otay?[SI MENOS DE UN
ANO,DAR GRACIAS Y CODIFICAR NOR-RES]
____ANOS
a----------->ItNOR-RES"
99 -NS/REF,PERO POR LO MENOS UN ANO
SEX.[ANOTE GENERO DEL (DE LA)ENTREVISTADO(A):]
1 -MASCULINO
2 -FEMENINO
••••••••••••••••••••••••••ENTREVISTADO CALIFICADO:CUOTAS VERfFfCADAS;DATOS GUARDADOS···············
LP.[SI LO INDICA EL ACENTO:];,.Prefiere usted que hablemos en...
1 -Ingles 0
2·Espanol?
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Dislrilo de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Invesligaci6n Rea &Parker C1
P1.Estas primeras preguntas tratan sobre el uso de agua en su hogar.i,Cual de las
siguientes es actualmente la principal fuente de agua para beber (agua potable)en su
hogar...
1 -agua de la Have (agua corriente;agua de grifo),------------>CONTINUE EN LA P2
2 -agua de la lIave que usted filtra en casa 0
3 -agua embotellada?
4 -OTRO DE MODO VOLUNTARIO,ESPECIFICAR:-•••••>CONTINUE
EN LAP2
9 -NS/REF >CONTINUE EN LA P2
P2.i,C6mo describiria el nivel de interes en su hogar por conservar el agua en casa?Diria
ustedque...*
1 -un alto nivelde interes,
2 -un nivel moderado,
3 -un nivel bajo 0
4 -ningun interes?
9 -NS/REF
P3.Durante el ano pasado,i,diria usted que la conciencia sobre la conservaci6n del agua
en su hogar ha...*[INVIERTA 1 - 3 SOLAMENTE]
1 -estado aumentando,
2 -permanecido casi igual,
3 -estado disminuyendo
4 -0 no esta usted seguro(a)?[INCLUYE NS/REF]
P4.Las siguiantes preguntas se relacionan con el suministro de agua en el Con dado de
San Diego.i,Que tan confiado(a)esta usted en la habilidad de su agencia de agua de
proveer suficiente agua al distrito?Diria usted que...*[INVIERTA]
1 -muy confiado(a),.
2 -algo confiado(a),
3 -no muy confiado(a),
4 -nada confiado(a)
5 -0 no esta usted seguro(a)?[INCLUYE NS/REF]
P5.i,Que tanta preocupaci6n tiene usted,si es asi,de que alguien contamine el suministro
de agua local en un intento por danar a la poblaci6n en general?Dirfa usted que...
1 -mucha,
2 -alguna,
3 -no mucha 0
4 -ninguna preocupaci6n?
9 -NS/REF
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C2
P6.l.Que tanta confianza tiene,si es asf,en las autoridades locales del agua en cuanto a
impedir que alguien contamine el suministro de agua local en un intento por danar a la
poblaci6n en general?Dirfa usted que...
1 -mucha,
2 -alguna,
3 -no mucha 0
4 -ninguna confianza?
9 -NS/REF
P7.l.Paga su hogar su propia cuenta de agua 0 10 paga otra persona por usted,como un
propietario 0 una asociaci6n de propietarios?
1 -PAGA EL ENTREVISTADOIOTRO MIEMBRO DEL HOGAR
2 -PROPIETARIO/ASOC.DE PROPIETARIOS/OTRO •••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8
9 -NS/REF ••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8
[PREGUNTE DE LA P7a A LA P7h 51 P7 =1-HOGAR PAGA CUENTA DE AGUA:]
P7a.Un suministro fiable de agua es aquel del cual se puede depender para que
proporcione de manera consistente el agua suficiente para cumplir con las
necesidades de la regi6n.l.Cuanto mas por mes,si es asf,estarfa dispuesto(a)
a pagar por su servicio de agua si esto asegurarfa un suministro de agua mas
fiable para usted?
$ADICIONAL $POR MES [CONFIRMAR]
0-NADA
999 -NS/REF
P7b.En el ana pasado,l.cree usted que sus tarifas de agua han...
1 -aumentado,
2 -disminuido,
3 -permanecido casi igual
4 -no esta usted seguro(a)?
9 -REF
P7c.[51 E5 RE51DENTE CON ALCANTARILLADO DE OTAY-DE LO CONTRARIO,
CONTINUE EN LA P7f]
l.Esta usted consciente de que su factura mensual del Distrito de Agua de Otay incluye
cargos por su servicio de alcantarillado?
1 -sf
2-NO
9 -NS/REF
P7d.En el ana pasado,l.SUS tarifas de alcantarillado han...
1 -aumentado,
2 -disminuido,•••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA Q7f
3 -permanecido igual, •••••••_•••>CONTINUE EN LA Q7f
4 -0 no esta usted seguro{a)•••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA Q7f
9 -REF •••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA Q7f
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C3
P7e.[SI P7b =1 Y P7d =1 •AUMENTADO:]l,Cwil aumento cree usted que ha side
mayor...*[INVIERTA 1-2 SOLAMENTE]
1 -alcantarillado,
2 -agua,
3 -ambos de manera igual
4 -0 no esta usted seguro(a)?
9 -REF
P7f.l,Lee usted el boletin 0 los folletos que lIegan por correo con su cuenta mensual de
agua...
1 -cada vez,
2 -la mayorfa de las veces,
3 -algunas veces 0
4 -nunca?
9 -NS/REF
P7g EI Distrito de Agua de Otay proporciona a cada hogar cliente un informe anual de
Confianza del Consumidor antes del primero de julio de cada ano.l,Ha lefdo usted este
informe?
1 -si
2-NO
9 -NS/REF
P8.Las siguientes preguntas tratan sobre el ahorro de agua en el exterior.l,Tiene su
residencia algun paisaje/jardfn al aire libre cuyo mantenimiento es responsabilidad
directa de alguien en su hogar?
1 -si
2 -NO/DEPTO/CONDO/NINGUNA RESPONSABILIDAD DE JARDINERiA ••••••••••••>
CONTINUE EN LA 09
9 -NS/REF ••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA Q9
P8a.[IF P8 =1:]l,SU jardfn incluye un cesped?
1 -si
2 -NO ••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8c
9 -NS/REF ••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8c
P8b.[SI RESPONDE QUE si:]Reducir el tamano de su cesped ayuda a
ahorrar el agua.l,Cual de las siguientes opciones serfa la mas probable
que Ie motivarfa a reducir el tamaiio de su cesped:...*
1 -tener una cuenta de agua reducida debido a que se usa
menos agua,
2 -tener un jardfn con un mantenimiento mas facil,
3 -un incentivo financiero de hasta un d61ar por pie cuadrado
4 -0 nada?
9 -NS/REF
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C4
P8c.[SI P8=1]iCuenta usted con un sistema de rode de control automatico
para su paisaje/jardfn?
1 -SI
2 -NO ••••••_••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8e
9 -NS/REF ••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8e
P8d.[SI RESPONDE QUE si:]Durante los ultimos 12 meses,icon
que frecuencia ha hecho alguien ajustes al control automatico de su
sistema de rocfo?
1 -NADA EN ABSOLUTO
2 -1 A 3 VECES
3 - 4 a 6 VECES
4 - 7 6 MAs VECES
5 -UTILIZA CONTROL BASADO EN EL TIEMPO -CONTINUE
EN LA P9
9 -NS/REF
P8e.iHa escuchado acerca de los controles de riego basados en el tiempo que ajustan
automaticamente el riego de su jardfn basados en el estado cambiante del tiempo?
1 -SI
2 -NO ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8g
9 -NS/REF ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P8g
P8t.[SI P8c=1 y P8e=1:]iUsted ha instalado en su residencia un control basado
en el tiempo?
1 -SI ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••>CONTINUE EN LA P9
2-NO
9 -NS/REF
P8g.[SI P8e > 1 6 P8f >1:]Con un sistema basado en el tiempo,no tiene usted
mismo que hacer ajustes debido a los cambios diarios en el tiempo.EI control
detecta la lIuvia,la temperatura y la humedad y automaticamente ajusta el
riego.Tfpicamente,se puede comprar un sistema de control basado en el
tiempo por unos 300 d6lares.iQue tan probable,si este es el caso,es que
usted compre un control basado en el tiempo en los pr6ximos 12 meses?Dirfa
usted que...*
1 -muy probable,-------------CONTINUE EN LA P8i
2 -algo probable,
3 -algo improbable 0
4 -muy improbable?
9 -NS/REF
P8h.[SI P8g >1:]Si se ofrecieran cupones por 65 d61ares para la compra de un
control basado en el tiempo,esto...*[INVERTIR 1·2 SOLAMENTE]
1 -harfa mas probable que usted comprara un control basado en el tiempo
[CONTINUE EN LA P8j]
2 -no significarfa nada para usted?
9 -NS/REF
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Olay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C5
P8i [SI P8h >1:];Si se ofrecieran cupones por 125 d61ares para la
compra de un control basado en el tiempo,esto...*[INVERTIR 1-2
SOLAMENTE]
1 -haria mas probable que usted comprara un control basado en el
tiempo,[CONTINUE EN LA P8i]
2 -no significaria nada para usted
9 -NS/REF
P8j.Un control basado en el tiempo Ie ahorraria aproximadamente 30 d61ares por
ano en su cuenta de agua.loAI saber esto,hace ...*
[INVERTIR 1-2 SOLAMENTE]
1 -mas probable que usted compre un control basado en el tiempo,
2 -menos probable 0
3 -no significa nada?
9 -NS/REF
PREGUNTE A TODOS:
P9.loHa visto alguna vezo escuchado algo acerca del Jardin de Conservaci6n del Agua
(Water Conservation Garden)en el Colegio Cuyamaca?
1 -sf
2 -NO------------>CONTINUE EN LA P10
9 -NS/REF ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P10
P9a.[SI RESPONDE QUE SI:]loHa visitado alguna vez el jardfn?
1 -sf
2 -NO ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P10
9 -NS/REF ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P10
P9b.[SI RESPONDE QUE SI:]loAproximadamente cuantas veces ha
visitado el Jardin en los ultimos seis anos?
____VECES
999 -NS/REF
P9c.l,Ha hecho algunos cambios a sus practicas de riego 0 de jardinerfa
como resultado de su visita al Jardfn?
1 -sf
2 -NO ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P10
9 -NS/REF ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P10
P9d.[SI RESPONDE QUE SI:]loCual fue el cambio principal que
usted hizo?
[AVERIGUE SOBRE UN CAMBIO Y ANOTELO]
99 -NS/REF
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C6
P10.iRecuerda haber visto 0 escuchado algun mensaje sobre la conservaci6n del uso de
agua en el EXTERIOR durante el ana pasado?
1 -SI
2 -NO ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P12
9 -NS/REF ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P12
P10a.[SI P10=1:]iD6nde recuerda haber visto 0 escuchado estos mensajes con mayor
frecuencia?[NO LEA;AVERIGUE Y ANOTE SOLAMENTE UNO]
1 -TELEVISION
2 -RADIO
3 -PERIODICOS
4 -AMISTADES/FAMIUARES
5 -SITIO WEB DE MI AGENCIA DE AGUA
6 -MATERIAL CON CUENTA MENSUAL
7 -SITIO WEB DE SDCWA (Autoridad del Agua del Condado de San Diego)
8 -NO RECUERDA
9 -OTRO,ESPECIFIOUE:_
P10b [SI P10a >0].iRecuerda algo acerca de 10 que dicen estos mensajes?
1.Sf (por favor dfganos 10 que recuerda acerca de estos mensajes)
010bx _
2.No.No recuerdo 10 que dicen 105 mensajes.
[PREGUNTE LA P11 SOLAMENTE SI LA P8 = 1 (HOGAR responsable del paisaje/jardin)Y SI
LA P10 =sf;SI NO,CONTINUE EN LA P12]
P11.iRecuerda los pasos especfficos,de haberlos,que su hogar ha tomado durante el ana
pasado como una respuesta directa a estos mensajes en cuanto a reducir su uso de
agua en el exterior?
1 -SI
2 -No se han tomado ningunos pasos especfficos como respuesta a estos mensajes --
---------->CONTINUE EN LA P12
3 -YA CONSERVABA ANTES DE LOS MENSAJES---------->CONTINUE EN LA P12
9 -NS/REF ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P12
P11 a.[SI RESPONDE QUE sf:]iCual es el paso principal que ha tomado su hogar
para reducir el uso de agua en el exterior como respuesta a estos mensajes?
[AVERIGUE Y ANOTE SOLAMENTE UN PASO]
99 -NS/REF
!
Ii
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C7
P12:<.C6mo calificarfa su satisfacci6n general con el Distrito de Agua de Otay como su
proveedor de servicio de agua?
1---Excelente
2---Muy Bien
3---Bien
4---Regular
5---Mala
6---Muy Mala
9---NS/REF
P13.<.Ha visitado alguna vez el sitio Web del Distrito de Agua de Otay?
1 -sf
2 -TIENE ACCESO A INTERNET,PERO NO HA VISITADO EL SITIO WEB ----------------------->CONTINUE EN LA P14
3 -NO TIENE ACCESO A INTERNET ------------CONTINUE EN LA P14
9 -NS/REF ----------------->CONTINUE EN LA P14
P13a.[SI RESPONDE QUE SI:]<.C6mo calificarfa el sitio Web?Dirfa usted
que...
1 -excelente,
2 -bueno,
3 -regular 0
4 -malo?
9 -NS/REF
P14a-c.Las siguientes preguntas son acerca del agua reciclada.Esta es agua residual que
tiene un alto grade de tratamiento y que se utiliza para una variedad de prop6sitos
aparte de agua para beber (potable).<.Cual de las siguientes cree usted que
produce el agua residual que se utiliza para reciclar?
1=Si 2=No 3=NSfREF
a.agua de las alcantarillas (aguas negras)
b.corrientes de agua (escorrentia)en los desagCles pluviales
P15.EI USC de agua reciclada es otra manera de aumentar nuestro suministro de agua.
<.Estarfa usted a favor 0 en contra del uso de agua reciclada para los siguientes tipos
de uso...
[CLARIFICAR:]<.Esta usted firmemente 0 algo {a favor/en contra}?
firme a algoa algo en firme en NSf
<.Esta a favor 0 en contra del USC de agua reciclada...favor favor ~contra REF
a)para riego de jardines/paisaje en autopistas,
espacios abiertos,parques y campos de golf 1 2 3 4 9
b)para procesos y manufactura industriales?1 2 3 4 9
c)para reabastecer lagos recreativos?1 2 3 4 9
d)para riego de jardines residenciales?1 2 3 4 9
e)como una adici6n al suministro de agua para
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C8
beber (potable)1 2 3 4 9
Si P15e =1 6 2,CONTINUE EN LA P16-De 10 contrario continue en la 15f-
1 ala 4
P15f.EI agua reciclada puede recibir un tratamiento avanzado en la forma de
una filtraci6n adicional,osmosis inversa y cloracion.iAceptarfa usted la adici6n
de agua reciclada con tratamiento avanzado para complementar las fuentes de
nuestra agua para beber (agua potable)si supiera usted que .
Si
1.el agua reciclada permanecerfa por mas de un
ano,mezclada con otra agua,en una represa
abierta para luego ser tratada de nuevo en una
planta de filtraci6n de agua?
2.el agua reciclada se usa en la actualidad para
complementar el agua potable en otras
comunidades estadounidenses?1
3.el agua reciclada podrfa abastecer hasta un 10%
de nuestros suministros locales de agua potable?1
4.los estandares de agua potable de California se
encuentran entre los mas estrictos de la naci6n,
y el agua reciclada serfa tratada para cumplir con
esos estandares?1
No
2
2
2
2
NS/REF
9
9
9
9
PREGUNTE A TODOS:
P16.l,Estarfa usted a favor de procurar acuerdos internacionales con Mexico a traves de los
cuales los Estados Unidos y Mexico cooperarfan en el desarrollo y mantenimiento de
suministros adicionales de agua?
1 -Sf
2-No
3 -NS/REF
P17.iHa lIamado al Distrito de Agua de Otay para pedir servicio u otra ayuda en los ultimos
6 meses?
1 -si
2-NO
9 -NS/REF
Para concluir,estas preguntas son unicamente para prop6sitos de comparaci6n.
PPH.iCuantas personas,incluyendose usted,viven en su hogar?
99 -NS/REF
TEN.l,SU residencia es propiedad de alguien en su hogar 0 es alquilada?
1 -PROPIEDAD
2 -ALQUILADAlOTRA SITUACION
9 -NS/REF
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C9
EDU.l,Cual es el grade 0 ano de escolaridad mas alto que usted ha completado y por el cual
ha recibido credito...
1 -preparatoria (high school)0 menos,
2 -por 10 menos un ano de universidad 0 escuela de comercio 0 vocacional,
3 -graduado de la universidad con una licenciatura 0
4 -por 10 menos un ano de trabajo de posgrado,ademas de la Iicenciatura?
9 -NS/REF
AGE.Por favor drgame cuando mencione la categorra que incluye su edad...
1 -18 a 24,
2 -25 a 34,
3 -35 a 44,
4 -45 a 54,
5 -55 a 64 6
6 -65 6 mayor?
9 -NS/REF
ETH.l,Cual de los siguientes describe mejor su origen etnico 0 racial...
1 -blanco,no de origen Hispano;
2 -negro,no de origen Hispano;
3 -Hispano 0 Latino;
4 -Asiatico 0 Isleno del Pacifico;
5 -Americano Nativo;u
6 -otro grupo etnico?[ESPECIFICAR:]_
9 -NS/REF
INC.Ahora,no queremos saber sus ingresos exactos,pero aproximadamente,l.podrra
decirme si sus ingresos anuales del hogar antes de deducir impuestos son ...
1 -menos de $25,000,
2 -$25,000 hasta pero no incluyendo $50,000,
3 -$50,000 hasta (pero no incluyendo)$75,000,
4 -$75,000 hasta (pero no incluyendo)$100,000,6
5 -$100,000 6 mas?
9 -NS/REF
LAN.[IDIOMA DE LA ENTREVISTA:]1 -INGLES 2 -ESPANOL
BORRADOR de la Encuesta del Distrito de Agua de Otay (NOVIEMBRE 2006)
Investigaci6n Rea &Parker C10
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
Attachment C
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services
Satisfaction Survey
Prepared for
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,CA 91978
Prepared by
Rea &Parker Research
P.O.Box 421079
San Diego,California 92142
858-279-5070
www.rea-parker.com
February,2007
Rea &Parker Research
February,200?
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Introduction and Methodology 1
Sample 2
Survey Findings 4
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics 4
Satisfaction with Customer Service 5
Satisfaction with Field Service 13
Purpose ofCustomer Calls 18
Issues Regarding Bill Payment Process 21
Communication with Otay Water District 32
Conclusions 37
Appendices 44
Distribution ofResponses
Open Ended Responses
Survey Instrument-English
Survey Instrument-Spanish
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Otay Water District Customer Service Satisfaction Survey
Executive Summary
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer satisfaction
telephone survey among those who have called customer service during the past 6 months.The
purpose of the survey is twofold -first,to provide information about the volume and purpose of
customer calls,to determine the level of satisfaction regarding customer and field service,the bill
payment process,and the communication efforts of the District (including the website and the
Interactive Voice Response System),and second,to compare the results of this 2006 Customer
Service Satisfaction Survey with the results of the more general 2005 Residential Customer
Satisfaction and Awareness Survey where the data are comparable
Specifically,the primary areas of interest are:
•Overall customer satisfaction
•Satisfaction with services of telephone and field representatives
•Satisfaction with the resolution of issues
•Satisfaction with the bill payment process
•Satisfaction with efforts to communicate with customers including the website and the
Interactive Voice Response System.
•Basic demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
Rea &Parker Research was selected to conduct this study,as it was the 2005 and 2006
Residential Customer Satisfaction Surveys.
The purpose of the research is to:
Obtain scientifically reliable and sufficiently robust results to determine the level of
satisfaction among those who seek customer service for critical service delivery features.
Determine customer service call patterns with regard to the purpose and volume of calls.
Determine level of satisfaction with various issues,including:
Telephone and field representatives
Issue resolution
District communication efforts including the official website
Bill payment process
Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and
crosstabulations of data that can result in new,optimally targeted and tailored public
outreach programs.
Compare the results of this survey with the results of the 2005 Residential Customer
Satisfaction Survey,where applicable.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
11 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2007
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 208 respondents,which equates to a
margin of error of +/-6.6 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
Respondents were predominantly White (49 percent)and HispaniclLatino (34 percent)and
earned an annual median household income of $72,600 (14 percent earning $100,000 or more and
4 percent earning under $25,000).They have a median age of 44 years and have been customers
ofthe Otay Water District for a median of 8 years.Among these respondents,53 percent possess
a Bachelor's degree or more,with 22 percent having a high school education or less.Survey
respondents are predominantly homeowners (80 percent)with a mean household size of3.65.The
sample was comprised largely of residential customers (98 percent);the remaining 2 percent
being business customers.
Survey Findings
This survey report has been divided into six informational components as follows:
•Demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
•Overall satisfaction with customer service
•Satisfaction with field service
•Purpose ofcustomer calls
•Issues regarding the bill payment process
•Communication with the Otay Water District
Overall Satisfaction with Customer Service
•Customer service respondents rate the overall quality of customer service of the Otay
Water District as very high -84 percent rate it as excellent (51 percent)or good (33
percent).The 51 percent indication of excellent represents a 10 percent increase over
2005.
•Customers are satisfied regarding customer service features including professionalism of
service representative,knowledge and expertise of the service representative,courtesy of
the service representative,ability to reach service representative,and satisfaction in
getting their problem solved-75 to 85 percent indicating very satisfied or somewhat
satisfied.
•Customers make an average of 1.8 calls per issue to customer service,with 69 percent of
all callers having their issue resolved in one call.Among the 31 percent who make more
than one call,60 percent of them had their problem ultimately resolved,leaving a total of
12 percent of callers with unresolved issues.
•Customers view the Otay Water District favorably compared to other utilities and
authorities that bill monthly for service,with 26 percent saying that it is the best among
monthly services and another 30 percent indicating high regard for the Otay Water
District.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
iii Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Satisfaction with Field Service
•One fourth of respondents (26 percent)indicate that their issue required a field visit to the
customer's property.
•Over 60 percent of customer service callers rate their overall experience with field
representatives as excellent or good.
•The majority of respondents are satisfied with the time required to visit the property (65
percent),the outcome of the service (63 percent),and the amount of time needed for field
service (57 percent).
Purpose of Customer Calls
•18 percent of respondents placed calls to customer services at the Otay Water District
within the past 6 months.
•The main purpose of customer calls relates to billing issues (66 percent);only 11 percent
of calls are repair related,with the other 23 percent being starting and stopping service,
among other issues.
•Using the 2005 Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey as a baseline,calls about
repairs are declining as a proportion of total customer service calls (from 20 percent in
2005 to 11 percent in 2006)while calls about the billing are increasing (from 60 percent
in 2005 to 66 percent in 2006).
•Of those customers who call about repairs,39 percent call about pipeline breaks,35
percent call about suspected leaks,and the other 26 percent are concerned about the
supply of water to their home,including how to shut off their valve.
•Non-repair calls as well as additional calls beyond the last one made by customers are
largely for purposes of bill clarification and secondarily for expressing the feeling that
they are being charged too much because of meter errors.
Issues Regarding the Bill Payment Process
•Over one-half of customer service callers pay their bill by sending a check in the mail (53
percent)and 14 percent pay on line.Others pay by using a credit card over the telephone
(14 percent)and through automatic bank deduction (8 percent).It is noteworthy that 47
percent would prefer to pay by sending a check in the mail (6 percent less than the 53
percent who actually do so)and 22 percent would prefer to pay on line (8 percent more
than the 14 percent who actually do so).There is an emerging preference among
customer callers to make payments on line.
•Those who pay in person (11 percent)do so because they enjoy the personal contact,it is
convenient for them to do so,or they want an immediate receipt.
•The great majority ofcustomer service callers are satisfied with the ease of understanding
their water bill (83 percent----54 percent very satisfied and 29 percent somewhat
satisfied)and with the accuracy of their water bill (77 percent-43 percent very satisfied
and 34 percent somewhat satisfied).
•About three-fourths of customer service callers (76 percent)are confident in the accuracy
of their meter reading.
•One-half (52 percent)of these callers read the messages in the message box on their
water bill.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
IV Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
•Customer service callers indicate that the convenience of the monthly billing process
could be improved if they had a greater ability to pay by telephone or on line (23
percent),if their bill reflected lower rates (18 percent),if there was better explanation of
information on the bill (14 percent),if the bill included notification of late payment
pending disconnect (14 percent),and if there were improvements that resulted in more
accurate meter reading (14 percent).
Communication with the Otay Water District
•More than one-third of respondents (37 percent)contacted the Otay Water District by a
means other than telephone-23 percent visited the Otay Water District in person to
make their inquiry,8 percent sent a letter to the District,and 6 percent used e-mail to
make contact.
•Customers are very satisfied with their in person contact (88 percent very or somewhat
satisfied)and are satisfied,but to a lesser extent,with the results of their letter (68 percent
very or somewhat satisfied)and their e-mail (61 percent very or somewhat satisfied).
•20 percent of customer callers have used the Otay Water District website to obtain
information in the past 6 months,and,among these users of the website,88 percent are
satisfied with their experience.
•Only 16 percent of customer service callers have used the Interactive Voice Response
System,but 81 percent of these 16 percent have found the system to be useful for
problem solving.Nearly everyone (97 percent)who has used this system found it to be
user friendly.
•About one-fourth of those who use the Interactive Voice Response System would like to
see it expanded to include bill payment options as well as to have it improved in order to
reduce waiting time on the telephone.They would also like it to notify customers when
their payments are delinquent and offer discounted bills when it is used instead of a
traditional customer service representative.
Conclusions
It is clear that customers of the Otay Water District who have made customer service calls to the
District and who have had the need for field service at their property are largely satisfied with the
customer service they received.It is clear,therefore,that there is considerable support for the
efforts made by the Otay Water District to address customer issues in a timely fashion and to
resolve problems to the customers'satisfaction.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
v Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Introduction and Methodology
In 1956,the Otay Water District was authorized by the State Legislature and gained its
entitlement to imported water.Today,the District serves the needs of over 186,000 people by
purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.The Otay Water
District takes delivery of the water through several connections to large pipelines owned and
operated by the San Diego County Water Authority.Since its inception,the Otay Water District
also has collected and reclaimed wastewater generated within the Jamacha drainage basin and
pumped the reclaimed water south to the Salt Creek basin where it is used for irrigation and other
non-potable uses.
The Otay Water District elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and
satisfaction telephone survey among those who have called customer service during the past 6
months.The purpose of the survey is twofold -first,to provide information about the volume
and purpose of customer calls,to determine the level of satisfaction regarding customer and field
services,the bill payment process,the communication efforts of the District,including the
website,the Interactive Voice Response System,and more traditional communication efforts,
and second,to compare the results of this 2006 Customer Service Satisfaction Survey with the
results of the more general 2005 Residential Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey where
the data are comparable.
Specifically,the primary areas of interest are:
Overall customer satisfaction
Satisfaction with services oftelephone and field representatives
Satisfaction with the resolution of issues
Satisfaction with the bill payment process
Satisfaction with communication efforts including the website and the Interactive Voice
Response System
Volume and purpose of customer calls
Basic demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
Rea &Parker Research was selected to conduct this study,as it was for the 2005 and 2006
Residential Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Surveys.The purpose ofthe research is to:
Obtain scientifically reliable and sufficiently robust results to determine the level of
satisfaction among those who seek customer service for critical service delivery features.
Otay Water District Rea &Parker Research
2006 Customer Services Survey February,2007
Determine customer service call patterns with regard to the purpose and volume of calls.
Determine level of satisfaction with various issues,including:
Telephone and field representatives
Issue/problem resolution
District communication efforts including the official website
The bill payment process
Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and
crosstabulations of data that can result in new,optimally targeted and tailored public
outreach programs.
Compare the results of this survey,as relevant and appropriate,with the results ofthe 2005
Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 208 respondents in order to secure a
.margin of error not to exceed +/-6.6 percent @ the 95 percent confidence level.This figure
represents the widest interval that occurs when the survey question represents an approximate 50
percent-50 percent proportion ofthe sample.When it is not 50 percent-50 percent,the interval is
somewhat smaller.For example,in the survey findings that follow,53.0 percent of respondents
pay their bill by sending a check in the mail.This means that there is a 95 percent chance that
the true proportion of those who actually pay their bill by mail is between 46.4 percent and 59.6
percent (53.0 percent +/-6.6 percent).
The survey sample of 208 was randomly drawn from approximately 4300 customers who have
made at least one customer service call to the Otay Water District in the past 6 months.When
respondents asked about who was sponsoring the survey,they were told "this project is sponsored
by the Otay Water District,and it is about issues related to improving customer service."This
information was provided to 57 percent of the respondents.
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish.Spanish language respondents comprise
6 percent of the survey population.The distribution of respondents according to gender is 36
percent male and 64 percent female.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
2 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
The survey was conducted from November 16,2006 to December 20,2006.The mean survey
time was 11.0 minutes per respondent.The total survey response rate was 29.8 percent
based upon completed interviews in comparison to all eligible (and estimated to be eligible)
phone numbers,including busy signals,answering machines,call backs,and no answers.
Cooperation among those eligible respondents who were actually contacted was 89.3 percent
(Table 1).Both English and Spanish versions ofthe survey are provided in the Appendix.
Unknown Eli
No Answer
Bus
Answerin Machine
Call Back
Lan ua e Barrier
Total Unknown
Ineli ible
NQ No Service Call
Disconnect
Business/Fax
Refusal
Totallneli ible
Eli ible
Com lete
Mid-term
Total Eli ible
Coo eration Rate:
879
188
1171
348
117
2703
447
324
159
194
1124
208
25
233
89.3%
Percent in S anish
29.8%
6.3%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
3 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
This report is divided into six essential information components as follows:
•Demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
•Overall satisfaction with customer service
•Satisfaction with field service
•Purpose of customer calls
•Issues regarding the bill payment process
•Communication with the Otay Water District
Each section of the report will begin with a very brief abstract,or summary of highlights within
the ensuing section,in order to orient the reader to what is to follow.
Charts have been prepared for each of these major components depicting the basic survey results.
Subgroup analyses for different age groups,various levels of education,gender,home
ownership/rental status,household size,residential tenure in the community,different income
categories,and ethnicity of residents of the service area are presented in succinct bulleted format
when statistical significance and relevance warrants such treatment.Lists of open-ended
responses to survey questions are contained in the Appendices.
Survey Findings
Demographic StatisticslRespondent Characteristics
Table 2 presents selected demographic and sampling characteristics of the survey respondents
(customers who made calls to the customer services unit of the Otay Water District during the
past 6 months).Respondents are predominantly White (49 percent)and Hispanic/Latino (34
percent)and earn an annual median household income of $72,600 (14 percent earning $100,000
or more and 4 percent earning under $25,000).They have a median age of 44 years and have
been customers of the Otay Water District for a median of 8 years.Among these respondents,53
percent possess a Bachelor's degree or more,with 22 percent having a high school education or
less.Survey respondents are predominantly homeowners (80 percent)with a mean household
size of 3.65.The survey is comprised mostly of residential customers (98 percent);the remaining
2 percent are business customers.
Also in Table 2,the sampling characteristics of the entire customer base (2006 Residential
Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey)are presented for comparative purposes.The
Otay Water District 4 Rea &Parker Research
2006 Customer Services Survey February,2007
respondents of the general survey are more White (55 percent - 6 percent higher than the
respondents of the 2006 Customer Service and Satisfaction Survey)and less HispaniclLatino (29
percent - 5 percent lower than 2006 Customer Service and Satisfaction Survey respondents).
General survey respondents have a higher annual income level than the customer service callers
($77,500 median for General survey respondents or about $5,000 higher than for customer
service callers and 33 percent of the general respondents earn over $100,000 -19 percent more
than the customer service callers).General survey respondents are younger and they have been
customers ofthe Otay Water District for a longer period of time than the customer service callers.
The median age for general survey respondents is 49 years (5 years more than customer service
callers)and they have been customers of the District for a median of 10 years (2 years more than
customer service callers).General survey customers have a slightly greater tendency to be
homeowners (90 percent for general survey -10 percent higher than for customer service callers)
and they have a somewhat lower mean household size (3.27 for the general survey -0.5 lower
than for customer service callers).
Satisfaction with Customer Service
SUMMARY:Customer service callers rate the overall quality of customer service as very
high -84 percent rate it as excellent (51 percent)or good (33 percent).This is superior to the
high rating provided by customers in the 2005 Residential Customer Satisfaction and
Awareness Survey.
Between 75 and 85 percent ofcustomer service callers feel very satisfied or somewhat satisfied
regarding the 5 service features presented in the survey:professionalism of service
representative,knowledge and expertise of the service representative,courtesy of service
representative,ability to reach service representative,and satisfaction in getting their problem
solved.The latter three features ••the only features that appeared on the 2005 general survey·
•received similarly high satisfaction ratings in 2005.
Customers make an average of 1.8 calls per issue to customer service,with 69 percent ofall
callers having their issue resolved in one call.Amongthe 31 percent who make more than one
call,60 percent ofthem had their problem ultimately resolved,leaving a total of12percent of
callers with unresolved issues.
Customer service callers to the Dtay Water District compare the District very favorably to other
authorities and utilities that bill monthly,with 26 percent saying that it is the best among
monthly service providers.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
5 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 1 indicates that 84 percent of the customer service respondents rate the overall quality of
customer service as excellent (51 percent)or good (33 percent).This rating is consistent with the
high level of satisfaction expressed in the 2005 Residential Customer Satisfaction and Awareness
Survey.It is noteworthy that the 51 percent rating of excellent represents a 10 percent increase
over the 2005 rating.
Chart 2 shows that there is a high level of satisfaction for various customer service features.In
fact,85 percent of those who made customer calls feel either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied
with the following features:professionalism of service representative,courtesy of service
representative,and ability to reach service representative.Respondents also feel either very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied regarding the knowledge and expertise of the service
representative (80 percent)and about getting their problem resolved (75 percent).
Chart 3 demonstrates that in the 2005 Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey,respondents
also rated three of these customer service features very highly and consistent with respondent
ratings in the 2006 Customer Service and Satisfaction Survey.The 2005 customers were very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied regarding the following features:courtesy of service
representative (97 percent),ability to reach service representative (89 percent),and getting their
problem resolved (85 percent).
Chart 4 indicates that customer callers make an average of 1.8 calls per issue to customer
service,with 69 percent of all callers having their issue resolved in one call.Among the 31
percent who make more than one call,60 percent of them had their problem ultimately resolved,
leaving a total of 12 percent ofcallers with unresolved issues.
Table 3 shows that customer callers whose question/problem was resolved after two or more calls
are more likely to be satisfied with the customer service features than are customer callers whose
question/problem was not resolved after 2 or more calls.(The means reported below are based on
a scale of 1-4,where 1 =very satisfied and 4 =very dissatisfied).
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
6 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
2006
2005
Chart 1
Overall Quality of Service
,-------------1!•Excellent i
illGood
[DFair
illl!lPoor
i~~~~ul"E:l i
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
7 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Getting Your Problem
Resolved
Knowledge and Expertise of
Service Representative
Professionalism of Service
Represenatative
Courtesy of Service
Representative
Ability to Reach Service
Representative
Chart 2
Satisfied or Dissatisfied:Customer Service Features
,----._-----,
•Very Satisfied :
III Somewhat Satisfied I
IJ Somewhat Dissatisfied
m)Very Dissatisfied
I .UnsureL--__
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
8 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 3
Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with Customer Service Features--2006 and 2005
Ability to Reach
Representative 2005
2006
Courtesy of Service
Representative 2005
2006 fI--.Jo!==i"""l'l
Getting Problem Resolved
2005 1=~j1
2006 1----I!::::!!!::!!::==iI
o •
••••••••••••62%
__•••__.'64%
11 61%
...............~••66010•._.58~
"'•••••••••••••••55%
I 1m Unsure
; 0 Very Dissatisfied
o Somewhat Dissatisfied
B!I Somewhat Satisfied
'-Ver~~_a_ti~!ied _
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
9 Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
Chart 4
Number of Calls Required to Resolve Issue
(Mean Number of Calls =1.8)
More Than One CalI--
Satisfaction Not Achieved,
12%
More Than One Call-
Satisfaction Achieved,19%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
10 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Problem
Feature resolved Problem not resolved
after 2 or after 2 or more calls
more calls
Ability reach 1.39 2.19
re resentative
Courtesy service 1.35 2.19
re resentative
Professionalism service 1.39 2.31
re resentative
Knowledge of service 1.53 2.41
re resentative
Getting problem 1.45 2.73
resolved
Overall quality ofservice 1.50 2.70
•For those.who make more than one call to customer service about their
concern,problem resolution is more successful as the household size
increases.For example,problem resolution is greater among households of 5
or more (71 percent)than it is among households of lor 2 (35 percent).
Customer service callers also gave high ratings to the Otay Water District in comparison to other
utilities (e.g.cable service)that bill monthly.Chart 5 shows that about one-fourth of the
customers rate the customer services of the Otay Water District as the best (26 percent)and
another 30 percent think highly of the District's customer services relative to the service provided
by similar companies.The customers rate the Otay Water District well above average with a
mean of 3.63 on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 =the worst and 5 =the best.
•Customers who only had to make one call to resolve their problem are more
complimentary of the Otay Water District than those who had to make two or
more calls (3.91 for one call versus 3.24 for two or more calls).
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
11 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 5
Comparative Ranking of Otay Water District Against Other Monthly Services
(On scale of 1-5,with 5 =BEST and 1 =WORST,Mean Ranking =3.63)
Worst Among Monthly
Services,5%
Below Average Among
Monthly Services,12%
Average Among Monthly
Services,20%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
12
Unsure,7%Best Among Monthly
Services,26%
Highly Regarded Among
Monthly Services,30%
Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
Satisfaction with Field Service
SUMMARY:About one-fourth of customer service callers (26 percent)indicate that their
issue required a field visit to the customer's property.Over 60 percent of customer service
callers rate their overall experience with field representatives as excellent or good.From one-
half to two-thirds of those who required a field visit are satisfied with the amount of time
neededfor service,the outcome ofthe service,and the time required to come to the property.
Only about one-fourth of customer service callers (26 percent)required a field visit to the
customer's property (Chart 6).Among those who required a field visit,customers say that the
field representative checked the meter (25 percent),connected service (25 percent),inspected the
system (15 percent),or generally fixed the problem (15 percent)-Chart 7.
•Field visits were required to resolve problems among longer term customer
service callers to the Otay Water District more so than among shorter term
customer callers (33 percent for those who have been customers for 11 years
or more compared to 20 percent for those who have been customers for 10 or
fewer years).
•Customers whose problem required a field visit are less likely to be satisfied
with the following service features (The means are based on a scale of 1 to 4,
where 1 =very satisfied and 4 =very dissatisfied):getting the problem
resolved (2.17 -field visit required;1.59 -field visit not required)and
overall quality of service received (2.19 -field visit required;1.57 -field
visit not required).
Chart8 demonstrates that over three-fifths (62 percent)ofcustomers rate their overall experience
with the service of field representatives as either excellent (28 percent)or good (34 percent)with
only 13 percent rating this service as poor.Customers also rate specific features of field service
as satisfactory and these ratings are depicted in Chart 9.A majority of customers feel either very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied with regard to the following features of field service:the time
required to come to the property (65 percent),the outcome of the field service (63 percent),and
the amount of time needed for service (57 percent).
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
13 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 6
Field Visit Required?
Unsure,2%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
14 Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
Chart 7
What Field Representative Did
(Among 26%who required field visit)
Do Not Know What Was-IDone,7%'
Other,5%---
Disconnect Service,2"10
Did Not Show Up,6%--
Fixed Problem,15%
Inspected System,15%
Connected Service,25%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
15 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 8
Overall Satisfaction with Field Service
(Among 26%who required field service)
Unsure,10%
Good ,34%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
16 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Outcome
Chart 9
Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with Field Service
(Among 26%who required field service)
I i
I!!i
Time Required to Come to
Property
Amount of Time Needed for
Service
-
- ---~.4'~_._
46%19%.
------
/
~------"------..
34%23%
~~.~-----
,_Very Satisfied
:IiIJ Somewhat Satisfied i
o Somewhat Dissatisfied I
:mVery Dissatisfied :,I
i_Unsure !-----_..-----
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
17 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Purpose of Customer Calls
SUMMARY:About one-fifth (18 percent)of the respondents to the 2006 Customer
Satisfaction and Awareness Survey placed customer service calls to the Otay Water District
within the last 6 months;this compares with 19 percent of the respondents in the 2005
Residential Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey who placed customer service calls to
the District over a 12 month period.The main purpose of customer calls is related to billing
issues (66percent)while 11 percent ofthe calls involve concerns about repairs.The remaining
23 percent ofcalls is associated with starting and stopping service,among other issues.Using
the 2005 Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey as a baseline,customer calls about repairs
are on the decline as a proportion oftotal customer service calls while calls involving monthly
bills are increasing.
Of those customers who call about repairs,39 percent call about pipeline breaks,35 percent
call about suspected leaks and the other 26 percent are concerned about the supply ofwater to
their home,including how to shut offtheir valve.
Non-repair calls as well as additional calls beyond the last one made by customers are largely
for purposes ofbill clarification and secondarily for expressing the feeling that they are being
charged too much because ofmeter errors.
Chart 10 shows that nearly one fifth (18 percent)of the respondents of the 2006 Residential
Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey placed calls related to the Otay Water District
within the past 6 months.This is compared to the findings of the 2005 Residential Customer
Satisfaction and Awareness Survey where 19 percent made calls to seek customer service over a
12 month period.
Chart 11 shows that the main purpose for customer calls relates to billing issues (66 percent);
only 11 percent of calls are repair related,with the remaining 23 percent being starting and
stopping service,among other issues.Using the 2005 Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey
as a baseline,calls about repairs are declining as a proportion of total customer service calls (from
20 percent in 2005 to 11 percent in 2006)while calls about the billing are increasing (from 60
percent in 2005 to 66 percent in 2006).
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
18 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 10
Have Called Customer Service
(From 2006 General Survey,n =300)
(2006-past 6 months....200S--past 12 months)
1(
f
0.9
O,s-I
0.7 1
0.6-
0.5\
I
0.4-/
0.3
0.2
0.1-
O_·lAI&Ii&lIi.-__....,;"._-..........--;""~__r
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
2006
19
2005
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 11
Main Purpose of Last Customer Service Call
100%
90%-:'
80%--
66%
0%-......------------------------------------------,
70%
60%-
I
50%--1
40%--
30%---
20%-
10%
Repair
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
20%
20
Billing
-------
-------------_._----------.
Start SeNice/Other
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
2006
.2005
Chart 12 shows that of those customers who call about repairs,39 percent call about pipeline
breaks,35 percent call about suspected leaks,and the other 26 percent are concerned about the
supply of water to their home,including how to shut off their valve.The 2005 customers were
more concerned about the supply of water than were the 2006 customer callers (46 percent in
2005 were concerned about water supply -20 percent more than in 2006)while the 2005
customers were less concerned about pipeline breaks and leaks than the 2006 customer callers (54
percent in 2005 were concerned about pipeline breaks -20 percent less than in 2006).
Chart 13 demonstrates that among those whose latest call to customer service was non-repair
related,the purposes for that call include clarification of the bill (28 percent),the feeling that
customers are charged too much because of meter error (15 percent),the need to start service (11
percent),and other issues such as the need for technical assistance (6 percent),reconnecting
service after shut off(5 percent),and misplaced bills (4 percent).
Chart 14 shows that among the 24 percent of customers who made more than one call to
customer service,56 percent made these additional calls because they want clarification of their
bill and 15 percent feel they were charged too much because of meter error.Other calls were
made to discuss address changes (6 percent),late payments (6 percent),and to order an inspection
(6 percent).It is apparent that billing issues and concerns about being charged too much because
of suspected meter error are paramount reasons for customer service calls.
•Younger customers call customer service primarily about billing issues while
older customer callers call largely about repair concerns.Billing issues as main
purpose of call:under 55 (72 percent)versus 55 and over (50 percent);Repair
as main purpose ofcall:under 55 (11 percent)versus 55 and over (18 percent).
Issues Regarding the Bill Payment Process
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
21
SUMMARY Over one-half of the customer service callers (53 percent)pay their bill by
sending a check in the mail.Another 14percent pay on line.Others use a credit card to pay
over the telephone (14 percent)and through automatic bank deduction (8 percent).It is
noteworthy that 47percent would prefer to use postal mail (6 percent less than actually do so)
and 22 percent would prefer to pay on line (8 percent more than actually do so).Of the 11
percent who pay in person,nearly one-third do so to enjoy personal contact,another one-
fourth find it convenient because they can pay their bill close to home,and nearly one-fifth are
interested in obtaining an immediate receipt.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
Supply to Home
Pipeline Break
Chart 12
Type of Repair
2006:~upply to Home includes:
Supply to Home-~13"1o--andI
Meter/Shut Off Valve-13%
.,~-------'----'----'--_._-_.
2p06:Pipeline Break includes:
P~peline Break-39"1o--and
S;Uspeeted ~eak-35%I
!i
74%I
II
,
I
I
II
IIir~20061Iii
11.2005 i1'-
i
Ii;
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
22 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 13
Purpose of Non-Repair Calls
(Among 89%of callers who called for non-repair reason and 26%of the 11 %who called for repairs but
also called for non-repair purposes)
Late Payment,6%
Start service,11%
Charged Too Much,15%
Technical Assistance,6%
Other,21%
Clarify Bill,28%
Reconnect Service After
Shutoff,5%
Misplaced Bill,4%
Meter Misread,3%
Why Amount This Year
Differs From Last Year,3%
Stop Service,2%
Other (Website question,
Object to Rate Increase),
4%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
23 Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
Charged Too Much,15%
Clarify Bill,56%
Chart 14
Purpose of Additional Calls to Customer Service
(Among 24%who made an additional customer service call)
Late Payment,6%
Order Inspection,6%
Meter Misread,3%-
Other,11%
Supply Problem to Home,
5%
Question About Message
Box on Bill,3%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
24 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Customer service callers are satisfied with the following billing features:accuracy ofthe bill
(83 percent very satisfied or somewhat satisfied)and ease ofunderstanding the bill (77percent
very satisfied or somewhat satisfied.)About three-fourths of customer service callers are
confulent in the accuracy oftheir meter reading.About one-halfread messages in the message
box on their water bill.About one-fourth feel that the monthly billing process could be
improved by having greater ability to pay by telephone or on line.Another 18percent indicate
thatlower rates would improve the billing process.
Method ofBill Payment:Chart 15 shows that over one-half of the customer service callers (53
percent)pay their bill by sending a check in the mail;14 percent pay on line;14 percent use a
credit card to pay over the telephone,11 percent pay in person at the Otay Water District offices
or payment center,and 8 percent pay their bill through automatic bank deductions.It is
noteworthy that 47 percent would prefer to use postal mail (6 percent less than actually do so)and
22 percent would prefer to pay on line (8 percent more than actually do so).Of the 11 percent
.who pay in person,nearly one-third do so to enjoy personal contact,another one fourth find it
convenient because they can pay their bill close to home,and nearly one fifth are interested in
obtaining an immediate receipt.This finding indicates a slight emerging preference for using the
Internet in the bill paying process.
Homeowners tend to pay their bill by a check sent in the mail while renters tend to pay in person.
•Check sent in mail (homeowners -58 percent versus renters -29
percent).
•Pay in person at payment center (renters -10 percent versus
homeowners - 3 percent).
•Pay in person at Otay Water District (renters -20 percent versus
homeowners - 4 percent).
Customers who elected to complete the survey in Spanish tend to pay their bill in person at the
Otay Water District,while those who elected to speak English tend to pay their bill by sending a
check in the mail.
•Pay in person at Otay Water District (Spanish speakers -31 percent
versus English speakers - 5 percent).
•Check sent in mail (English speakers -54 percent versus Spanish
speakers -39 percent).
Larger households tend to pay by a check sent in the mail more so than do smaller households (55
percent for households of 3 or more compared to 47 percent for households of lor 2).
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
25 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 15
Method of Payment of Bill
(Actual and Preferred)
__--I
Actual Method
Preferred Method
I f:EI Send Check by Mail
IliOnline I
•Credit Card over the Telephone I
•Automatic Bank Deduction
•In Person at Otay WD Offices
E1J In Person at Payment Center
•Unsure
i'~
Ii
1
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
26 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
The method by which customers actually pay their bill is strongly related to the method they
prefer to use.Moreover,when preferences deviate from actual behavior,the preference leans
toward the use of the Internet to make on-line bill payments.The following examples illustrate
this finding:
•83 percent of those,who actually pay by credit card over the
telephone,prefer that method;however,14 percent of those who pay
over the telephone would prefer to pay on line.
•71 percent of those who pay in person at the Otay Water District
prefer that method of payment;however,14 percent of those who
pay in person would prefer to pay on line.
•56 percent of those who pay in person at the payment center prefer
that method;however,11 percent of those who pay at the payment
center would prefer to pay on line.
Chart 16 indicates that,among the 11 percent of respondents who pay in person,nearly one-third
(29 percent)enjoy the personal contact/getting out of the house,23 percent state that the Otay
Water District is close to their home,and 18 percent cite the ability to easily obtain a receipt.
Satisfaction with Billing Process/Suggested Improvements:Chart 17 shows that customer
service callers are highly satisfied with the following billing features:ease of understanding the
water bill (83 percent --54 percent very satisfied and 29 percent somewhat satisfied)and
accuracy of water bill (77 percent --43 percent very satisfied and 34 percent somewhat satisfied).
Chart 18 indicates that over three-fourths (76 percent)of customer service callers are either very
confident or somewhat confident in the accuracy of their monthly meter reading.
Chart 19 indicates that about one-half (52 percent)read the messages in the message box on their
water bill.
•Those who completed the survey in English tend to read the
messages in the boxed area of their bill more so than do those who
completed the survey in Spanish (English:53 percent;Spanish:23
percent).
•Whites (62 percent)are more likely to read the messages in the
boxed area of their bill than are Asians (53 percent).
OtayWater District
2006 Customer Services Survey
27 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Pay at Last Minute,6%------
Save Postage,12%
Chart 16
Reason for Paying in Person
(Among 11%who pay in person)
Unsure,6%Enjoy Personal
Contact/Getting Out of
House,29%
Close to Home,23%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
28 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Accuracy of Water Bill
Ease of Understanding
Water Bill
Chart 17
Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with...
/~·r.-~-----r----.-------r-'--'-'-~.":'.~/'-----'-~----,"----'-''"'-'-'-<,/--.[1-,.
!.Very Satisfied
!Somewhat Satisfied I
o Somewhat Dissatisfied!
1m!Very Dissatisfied
!Unsure
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
29 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 18
Confidence in Accuracy of Monthly Meter Reading
Unsure,8%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
Not At All Confident,8%
Not Very Confident,8%
Somewhat Confident,38%
30 Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
Very Confident,38%
NO,48%
Chart 19
Read Messages in Message Box
Yes ,52%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
31 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 20 shows that the convenience of the monthly billing process could be improved if
customer service callers had a greater ability to pay by telephone or on line (23 percent),if their
bill reflected lower rates (18 percent),if there was better explanation of information on the bill
(14 percent),if the bill included notification of late payment pending disconnect (14 percent),and
if there were improvements that resulted in more accurate meter reading (14 percent).
Communication with the Otay Water District (including Website and Interactive Voice
Response System)
Summary:More than one third of customer callers (37 percent)contacted the Otay
Water District by a means other than telephone.About one-fourth ofthe customers (23
percent)visited the Otay Water District in person to make an inquiry,8 percent sent a letter to
the District,and 6 percentused e-mail to contact the District.Customers are very satisfied with
their in person experience (88 very or somewhat satisfied)and are satisfied to a lesser extent
with the results oftheir letter (68 percent very or somewhat satisfied)and their efforts to make
e-mail contact with the District (61 percent very or somewhat satisfied).
It is found that 20 percent ofcustomer callers have used the website to obtain information in
the past 6 months.Among these users of the website,88 percent are satisfied with website
service.Only 16 percent of the customer callers have used the Interactive Voice Response
system,but over 80 percent ofthese users found the system useful for resolving their problem.
Nearly everyone (97 percent)who has used the system found it to be user friendly.About one-
fourth ofthose who use the Interactive Voice Response System would like to see it expanded to
include bill payment options as well as to have it improved in order to reduce waiting time on
the telephone.They would also like it to notify customers when their payments are delinquent
and offer discounted bills when it is used instead of a traditional customer service
representative.
Chart 21 indicates that 37 percent of customer callers contacted the Otay Water District by a
means other than telephone.Specifically,23 percent of customer callers visited the Otay Water
District in person to make their inquiry,8 percent mailed a letter,and 6 percent used e-mail.
Chart 22 shows that customers are very satisfied with their in-person contact (75 percent very
satisfied and 13 percent somewhat satisfied).Over two thirds (69 percent)are either very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their mailed letter as a form of contact.Customer callers are
less satisfied with the use of e-mail to contact the District,with 61 percent either very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
32 Rea &Parker Research
February, 2007
Chart 20
Suggested Changes in Monthly Bill
Better Customer Service
Personnel,9%
Improve Meter Reading
(training,automated),14%
Notifications of Late
Payment/Pending
Disconnect,14%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
33
Other,8%Pay by Phone or Online,
23%
Better Explanations of
Information on Bill,14%
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 21
Other Means of Contacting Customer Service
23%
6%
E-MailMailedLetter
8%
In Person
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
34 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
O%-Io--.o-------~-------"9"'--------------....'------~----------_r
90%-
80%
70%--
60%-1
50%-1
I /
40%--1/I
30%--
20%
10%
Chart 22
Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with Service from Other Means of Contact
------------------------1
Ii~-_..._---!
II.-1f
I"""--"Il---r -------·1!I,
---_._,-_.~
!
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
In Person Mailed Letter E-Mail
35 Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
Customer callers who communicate with the District in person are more likely to prefer to speak
Spanish and they are more likely to earn a lower annual income.The following relationships
demonstrate these findings for those who visit the District in person:
•Customer callers who elected to complete the survey in Spanish (46 percent)
compared to those who elected to complete it in English (22 percent).
•Customer callers who earn less than $25,000 annually (63 percent)versus
those who earn $25,000 or more (22 percent).
Customer callers with a lower level of education communicated with the District by a mailed
letter more so than customers with a higher level of education (19 percent with high school or less
versus 4 percent with at least some college).
Chart 23 indicates that 20 percent of the customer callers have used the Otay Water District
website to obtain information in the past 6 months and that 88 percent of these users are either
.very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the service provided through the website (Chart 24).
•Use of the Otay Water District Website increases with the level of education.
For example,customers with a high school education or less (7 percent)use
the website less than customers with a bachelor's degree or more education
(29 percent).
•Hispanics (92 percent)and Whites (78 percent)are either very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with the website.
It is also shown in Chart 23 that only 16 percent have used the new Interactive Voice Response
features of the Otay Water District.Among these 16 percent who have used the Interactive Voice
Response system,47 percent found out about it when they called the Otay Water District and 38
percent read about it in bill inserts (Chart 25).Chart 26 shows that 81 percent of those who use
the system found it to be useful in resolving their problem and nearly one-half (48 percent)were
able to resolve their questions by using this system.Chart 27 indicates that nearly everyone (97
percent)found the Interactive Voice Response system either very easy or somewhat easy to use.
Chart 28 shows that 22 percent of those who use the Interactive Voice Response system would
like to see it expanded to include bill payment options (43 percent)as well as to have it improved
in order to reduce waiting time on the telephone (29 percent).These customer callers would also
like to be notified when their payments are delinquent (14 percent)and they wish to be offered
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
36 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
discounted bills when they use the Interactive Voice Response system instead of a traditional
customer service representative (14 percent).
Conclusions
It is clear that customers of the Otay Water District who have made customer service calls to the
District and who have had the need for field service at their property are largely satisfied with the
customer service they received.It is clear,therefore,that there is considerable support for the
efforts made by the Otay Water District to address customer issues in a timely fashion and to
resolve problems to the customers'satisfaction.
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
37 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 23
Use of Website and Interactive Voice Response
90%
70%.
60%
50%
40%···
30%
20%··
10%-
0%-·1<6-------------...:;;.-~-~-......----~-------~~~-----~
- lI
1-,I;
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
Accessed Website
38
Used Interactive Voice Response Feature
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 24
Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with Web Service
Very Dissatisfied,2%-
Somewhat Dissatisfied,
10%=::..----.;-
Somewhat Satisfied,32%Very Satisfied,56%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
39 Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
Chart 25
How Found Out About Interactive Voice Response Feature
(Among 16%who have used Interactive Voice Response feature)
Unsure,3%--
Other,3%--
Offered Option When
Called,47%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
40 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 26
Usefulness of Interactive Voice Response Feature
(Among 16%who have used Interactive Voice Response Feature)
100%-
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%-
30%-
20%-
10%
O%-J4I"-------------------r-------------------
------1
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
Useful
41
Question Resolved by Interactive Voice Response
Feature Alone
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Somewhat Easy,47%
Chart 27
Ease of Using Interactive Voice Response Feature
(Among 16%who have used Interactive Voice Response Feature)
Very Difficult,3%
Very Easy,50%
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
42 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Chart 28
Desire Other Features to be Offered by Interactive Voice Response
(Among 22%of the 16%Users of the Interactive Voice Response Feature who desire other features)
O%""'""'-----~---~-~-~~-------~----=~----~~-------~
----l
~
29%
43%
45%
40%-
35%
30%
5%-
25%
20%
Pay On Line Make Faster/Less Waiting Notify if Delinquent Discount on Water Bill
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
43 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Otay Water District Survey
Customer Service 2006
INT.Hello,my name is .I'm calling on behalf of the Otay Water
District.We are conducting a study about some issues having to do with the
service you have received from the District.We are interested in your opinions.
[IF NEEDED:]Are you at least 18 years of age or older?[IF 18+
HOUSEHOLDER NOT AVAILABLE NOW,ASK FOR FIRST NAME AND MAKE
CB ARRANGEMENTS]
VER.[VERSION OF INTERVIEW:]1 -VERSION A 2 -VERSION B*
*=RESPONSE OPTIONS REVERSED ON VERSION B FOR ALL QUESTIONS INDICATED
IC.Let me assure you that no names or addresses are associated with the
telephone numbers,and all of your responses are completely anonymous.The
questions take about ten minutes.To ensure that my work is done honestly and
correctly,this call may be monitored.Do you have a few minutes right now?
[IF ASKED ABOUT MONITORING:]My supervisor randomly listens to
interviews to make sure we're reading the questions exactly as written and not
influencing answers in any way.
TOP.[ONLY IF ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT TOPIC OR WHO'S
SPONSORING IT?:]This project is sponsored by the Otay Water District,and
it's about some issues related to improving customer service.[IF SPONSOR
INFORMATION GIVEN TO RESPONDENT,"TOPIC"=1]
SEX.[RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT:]
1 -MALE
2 -FEMALE
LP.[IF INDICATED BY ACCENT:]Would you prefer that we speak in ...
1 -English or
2 -Spanish?
Q1.Have you or anyone in your household or business called the Otay Water District
for service or other help during the past
6 months?
1 -YES
2 -NO -THANK AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW
9 -OK/REF -THANK AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
44 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
QIa-Please indicate the type ofcustomer you are
I-Residential
2-Business
3-Irrigation
4-Other,SPECIFY _
01 b.[IF YES:]Was the main purpose of your last call...
1 - a repair issue,
2 - a billing issue,or ------------>GO TO Q2
3 -another issue?--->GO TO Q2
9 -OK/REF ------------>GO TO Q3
Q1 c.[IF REPAIR ISSUE:]What type of repair did you call about?Was
it...
1 - a pipeline break,
2 - a problem with supply to your home,
3-a suspected leak
4 -another problem?[SPECIFY:]_
9 -OK/REF
Q1 d.Oid you make any other calls to customer service in the past 12
months that were not repair related?
1-YES
2-NO-GO TO Q3
3--0K -GO TO Q3
02.What was the reason for that customer service call?[DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
1-0id not understand bill-[IF Qlb =l--GO TO Q3-IF Qlb=2 or 3,GO
TO Q2a]
2-Thought I was charged too much for the amount of water I used--
[IF Qlb =l--GO TO Q3-IF Ql b=2 or 3,GO TO Q2a]
3-Thought I used less water than bill indicated/Meter misread--[IF
Qlb =l--GO TO Q3-IF Qlb=2 or 3,GO TO Q2a]
4---Why different amount from same month last year--[IF Ql b =l--GO
TO Q3-IF Qlb=2 or 3,GO TO Q2a]
5-Question about message box on bill--[IF Qlb =l--GO TO Q3-IF
Qlb=2 or 3,GO TO Q2a]
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
45 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
6-Address change-[IF Q1b =1--GO TO Q3-IF Q1b=2 or 3,GO
TO Q2a]
7---Start service-[IF Q1b =1--GO TO Q3-IF Q1b=2 or 3,GO TO
Q2a]
8---Stop Service-[IF Q1 b =1--GO TO Q3-IF Q1 b=2 or 3,GO TO
Q2a]
9-Reconnect Service after shutoff--[IF Q1b =1--GO TO Q3-IF
Q1 b=2 or 3,GO TO Q2a]
15-0ther?SPECIFY -[IF Q1b =1--GO
TO Q3-IF Q1 b=2 or 3,GO TO Q2a]
20-DKIREF [Go to Q3]
Q2a.[IF Q2 =1-15]Did you make any other calls to customer service in the past
12 months?
1-YES
2-NO-GO TO Q3
3--DK -GO TO Q3
Q2b.What was the reason for that customer service call?[DO NOT
VOLUNTEER]
1-Did not understand bill
2-Thought I was charged too much for the amount of
water I used
3-Thought I used less water than bill indicated/Meter
misread
4---Why different amount from same month last year
5-Question about message box on bill
6-Address change
7---Start service
8---Stop Service
9-Reconnect Service after shutoff
10--a pipeline break,
11 - a problem with supply to your home
15-0ther?SPECIFY _
20-DKIREF
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
46 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Q3.How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the service you received as far as....
a.your ability to reach a service representative?Were you ...*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
b.the courtesy of the service representative?Were you ...*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
c.the professionalism of the service representative?Were you...*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
d.the knowledge and expertise of your service representative?Were
you...*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
e.getting your problem resolved?Were you ...*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
Q4.0verall,how would you rate the quality ofservice that you received?Would you
say
1 -excellent,
2 -good,
3 -fair
4 -poor
9 -OK/REF
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
47 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Q5.With regard to the problem or question you called about,how many calls did it take
to get your issue resolved?
Q5a.[IF QS >1-0THERWISE,GO TO Q6]Was your question or
problem ultimately resolved to your satisfaction?
1-YES
2-NO
3-DK/REF
Q6.Did your call require a field visit to your property?
1-YES
2-NO -------------[GO TO Q12]
3-DK/REF------------------[GO TO Q12]
Q7.[IF Q6 =1]What did the field representative do?
.Q8.How satisfied were you with the field service outcome?Were you*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
Q9.How satisfied were you with the time required to come to your property to provide
the field service?Were you*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
Q10.How satisfied were you with the amount of time the field service representative
needed at your property?Were you*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
Q11.Please rate your overall satisfaction with the field service you received.
1 -excellent,
Otay Water District
2006 CustomerServices Survey
48 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
2 -good,
3 -fair,or
4 -poor?
9 -OK/REF
012.Have you also contacted the Otay Water District by any of the following methods?
Yes No OK/REF
1.e-mail 1 [12a]2 9
2.mailed letter 1 [12b]2 9
3.in person 1 [12c]2 9
012a-c
How satisfied were you with the service you received from those contacts?
12a 12b 12c
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
013.How do you pay your water bill most months?
1-Send check by mail
2-Automatic bank deduction
3-Credit card over the telephone
4-ln person at the Otay Water District office
5-ln person at payment center
6-0n-line (Internet)
014.No matter how you presently pay your bill,how would you prefer to pay your bill
most of the time?
1-Send check by mail·········GO TO 015
2-Automatic bank deduction·········GO TO 015
3-Credit card over the telephone·········GO TO 015
4-ln person at the Otay Water District office
5-ln person at payment center
6-0n-line (Internet)·········GO TO 015
014a.[IF 014 =4 or 5]Why do you prefer to pay in person?DO NOT
VOLUNTEER
1-save postage
2-get receipt
3-1 usually pay at the last minute
4-1 enjoy the personal contact/getting out of the house
9-0ther-SPECIFY _
015.In the past 6 months,have you used the Otay Water District website to obtain
information or other service from the Otay Water District?
1-YES
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
49 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
2-NO···········GO TO 016
3-DK/REF···········GO TO 016
015a.[IF 015=1]How satisfied were you with the web service you received?
Were you*
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
016.The Otay Water District has an Interactive Voice Response feature in their
telephone system.This new feature provides the customer with account
information,total amount due,and last payment received.Have you used this
feature?
1-YES
2-NO···········GO TO 017
3-DK/REF···········GO TO 017
Q16a.[IF 016 =1]How did you find out about the Interactive Voice
Response Feature?
1-Bill inserts
2-Offered option when you called
3-Word of mouth-friends/family
8-Other,specify _
9-OK/REF
Q16b.Did you find this feature to be useful?
1-YES
2-NO
3-DK/REF
Q16c.How easy was the system to use?
1-Veryeasy
2-Somewhat easy
3-Somewhat difficult
4-Very difficult
9-DK/REF
Q16d.When you last called the Otay Water District for customer service,
were you able to resolve your question or problem using the automated
system only?
1-YES
2-NO
3-DK/REF
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
50 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
016e.Are there any other features that you would like to have offered by
the Interactive Voice Response system?
1-Yes
2-No ---[GO TO Q17]
3-0K/REF ---[GO TO Q17]
016f.[IF Q16e =1]What feature or features would you like the
Automated Voice Response system to offer?[RECORD UP TO
2]
017.Regarding your monthly billing,How satisfied are you with the accuracy of your
water bill?
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
018.How satisfied are you with the ease of understanding your water bill?
1 -very satisfied,
2 -somewhat satisfied,
3 -somewhat dissatisfied,or
4 -very dissatisfied?
9 -OK/REF
019.How confident are you in the accuracy of your monthly meter reading?
1 -very confident,
2 -somewhat confident,
3 -not very confident,or
4 -not at all confident?
9 -NOT SURE/REF
020.Do you read the messages in the message box on your monthly bill?
1-YES
2-NO
3---010 NOT EVEN KNOW MESSAGES WERE THERE
[VOLUNTEERED]
021.What changes,if any,would you suggest to the Otay Water District that you think
could improve the convenience of your monthly bill?
O=No changes
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
51 Rea &Parker Research
February, 2007
022.In comparison to other companies that bill you monthly,such as electricity,cable
TV,or others,how would you rate your overall customer experience with us on a scale
of 1-5,where 5 means that the Otay Water District is the best of these companies and 1
means that the Otay Water District is the worst.
In closing,these next questions are for comparison purposes only.
CUST.How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District?
_____YEARS
PPH.How many persons,including yourself,live in your household?
99 -OK/REF
TEN.Is your residence owned by someone in your household,or is it rented?
1 -OWN
2 -RENT/OTHER STATUS
9 -OK/REF
EDD.What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and
received credit for...
1 -high school or less,
2 -at least one year of college,trade or vocational school,
3 -graduated college with a bachelor's degree,or
4 -at least one year of graduate work beyond a bachelor's degree?
9 -OK/REF
AGE.Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age...
1 -18 to 24,
2 -25 to 34,
3 -35 to 44,
4 -45 to 54,
5 -55 to 64,or
6 -65 or over?
9 -OK/REF
ETH.Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background...
Otay Water District 52 Rea &Parker Research
2006 Customer Services Survey February,2007
1 -white,not of Hispanic origin;
2 -black,not of Hispanic origin;
3 -Hispanic or Latino;
4 -Asian or Pacific Islander;
5 -Native American;or
6 -another ethnic group?[SPECIFY:]_
9 -DK/REF
INC.Now,we don't want to know your exact income,but just roughly,could
you tell me if your annual household income before taxes is...
1 -under $25,000,
2 -$25,000 up to but not including $50,000,
3 -$50,000 up to (but not including)$75,000,
4 -$75,000 up to (but not including)$100,000,or
5 -$100,000 or more?
9 -DK/REF
LAN.[LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW:]
Otlly Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
1 -ENGLISH
53
2 -SPANISH
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
Encuesta del Distrito de AQua de Otay
Servicio de Atencion al Cliente 2006
INT.Hola [SUGGEST:Buenas tardes/buenos dfas/buenas noches],mi nombre es
______.Estoy lIamando de parte del Distrito de Agua de Otay.
Estamos realizando un estudio sobre algunos temas que tienen que ver con el
servicio que ha recibido por parte del Distrito.Nos interesan sus opiniones[EN
CASO DE SER NECESARIO]l.,Tiene usted por 10 menos 18 anos de edad?[SI
NO SE ENCUENTRA DISPONIBLE AHORA UNA PERSONA DEL HOGAR DE
18+ANOS,PREGUNTE POR EL PRIMER NOMBRE V HAGA ARREGLOS
PARA REGRESAR]
VER.[VERSION DE ENTREVISTA:]1 -VERSION A 2 -VERSION B*
*=LAS OPCIONES DE RESPUESTAS SE INVIERTEN EN LA VERSION B PARA TODAS LAS
PREGUNTAS INDICADAS
IC.Permftame asegurarle que ningun nombre y ninguna direcci6n estan asociados
con los numeros telef6nicos;todas sus respuestas son completamente
an6nimas.Las preguntas toman unos diez minutos.Para asegurar que mi
trabajo se realiza honesta y correctamente,esta lIamada puede ser controlada
(monitareada).l.,Tiene usted algunos minutos ahara?
[SI SE LE PREGUNTA ACERCA DEL CONTROL (MONITOREO)]Mi
supervisor(a)escucha las entrevistas de manera aleatoria para cerciorarse que
leemos las preguntas exactamente como fueron escritas y que no influimos en
las respuestas de ninguna manera.
TOP.[SOLAMENTE SI SE LE PREGUNTA MAs INFORMACION ACERCA DEL
TEMA 0 i,QUIEN LO PATROCINA?:]Este proyecto es patrocinado por el
Distrito de Agua de Otay,y se trata acerca de algunos temas relacionados con
mejorar el servicio al cliente.[SI SE LE DIO INFORMACION DEL
PATROCINADOR AL ENTREVISTADO,"TEMA"=1]
SEX.[ANOTE GENERO DEL (DE LA)ENTREVISTADO(A):]
1 -MASCULINO
2 -FEMENINO
LP.[SI LO INDICA EL ACENTO:]l,Prefiere usted que hablemos en...
1 -Ingles 0
2 -Espanol?
P1.l,Usted 0 alguien de su hogar 0 negocio ha Hamado al Distrito de Agua de Otay
para pedir servicio u otra ayuda en los ultimos 6 meses??
1 -sf
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
54 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
2 -NO -DAR GRACIAS V TERMINAR ENTREVISTA
9 -NS/REF -DAR GRACIAS V TERMINAR ENTREVISTA
PIa-Por favor indique el tipo de cliente que usted es
l-Residencial
2-Negocio
3-Riego
4-0tro,ESPECIFICAR _
P1 b.[SI RESPONDE QUE SI:]l,EI prop6sito principal de su ultima lIamada fue ...
1 -un asunto de reparaci6n,
2 -un asunto relacionada a la cuenta u ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P2
3 -otro asunto?--->CONTINUE EN LA P2
9 -NS/REF ------------>CONTINUE EN LA P3
P1c.[SI FUE UN ASUNTO DE REPARACION:]l,Con respecto a que
tipo de reparaci6n lIam6 usted?Fue...
1 -una rotura en la tuberfa,
2 -un problema con el suministro a su casa,
3 -sospecha de una fuga
4 -otro problema?[ESPECIFICAR:]_
9 -NS/REF
P1 d.l,Hizo usted algunas otras lIamadas al servicio de atenci6n al
cliente en los ultimos 12 meses que no se relacionaron a reparaciones?
1-S1
2-NO-CONTINUE EN LA P3
3--NS -CONTINUE EN LA P3
P2.l,Cwll fue el motivo de esa lIamada?[NO OFREZCA RESPUESTAS]
1-No entendi61a cuenta-[SI P1b =1--CONTINUE EN LA P3-SI
P1b=2 63,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
2-Pense que me cobraron demasiado por la cantidad de agua que
use-[SI P1b =1--CONTINUE EN LA P3-SI P1b=2 6 3,CONTINUE
EN LA P2a]
3-Pense que use menos agua de la que indic6 la cuenta/lectura
equivocada del medidor--[51 P1 b =1--CONTINUE EN LA P3-51
P1 b=2 6 3,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
4---Por que cantidad diferente del mismo mes el ana pasado-[SI P1 b =
1--CONTINUE EN LA P3-51 P1b=2 6 3,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
55 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
5-Pregunta sobre el cuadro de mensajes en la cuenta-[51 P1 b =1--
CONTINUE EN LA P3-51 P1 b=2 6 3,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
6-Cambio de domicilio-[51 P1 b =1--CONTINUE EN LA P3-51
P1 b=2 6 3,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
7---lniciar servicio-[51 P1b =1--CONTINUE EN LA P3-51 P1b=2 6 3,
CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
8---Cancelar servicio-[51 P1b =1--CONTINUE EN LA P3-51 P1b=2 6
3,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
9-Reconectar servicio despues de estar cerrado-[51 P1 b =1--
CONTINUE EN LA P3-51 P1 b=2 6 3,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
15-0tro?ESPECIFICAR -[51 P1b =1--
CONTINUE EN LA P3-51 P1 b=2 6 3,CONTINUE EN LA P2a]
20-NS/REF [Continue en la P3]
P2a.[51 P2 =1-15]l,Hizo usted algunas otras lIamadas al servicio de atenci6n
al c1iente en los ultimos 12 meses?
1-S1
2-NO-CONTINUE EN LA P3
3--NS -CONTINUE EN LA P3
P2b.l,Cual fue el motive de esa lIamada al servicio de atenci6n al
cliente?[NO OFREZCA RE5PUE5TA5]
1-No entendi6 la cuenta
2-Pense que me cobraron demasiado por la cantidad de
agua que use
3-Pense que use menos agua de la que indic6 la
cuenta/lectura equivocada del medidor
4---Por que cantidad diferente del mismo mes el ana pasado
5-Pregunta sobre el cuadro de mensajes en la cuenta
6-Cambio de domicilio
7---lniciar servicio
8---Cancelar servicio
9-Reconectar servicio despues de estar cerrado
10--una rotura en la tuberfa
11 -un problema con el suministro a su casa
15-0tro?ESPECIFICAR _
20-NS/REF
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
56 Rea &Parker Research
February.2007
P3.l.,Que tan satisfecho(a)0 insatisfecho(a)estuvo usted con el servicio que recibi6
en cuanto a....
a.su habilidad de comunicarse con un(a)representante del servicio?Estuvo
usted...*
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
b.la cortesfa brindada por el (Ia)representante del servicio?Estuvo usted...*
1 -mu¥satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
c.al profesionalismo del (de la)representante del servicio?Estuvo usted...*
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
d.al conocimiento y habilidades de su representante del servicio?Estuvo
usted...*
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
e.la soluci6n de su problema?Estuvo usted...*
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
P4.En general,l,c6mo calificaria la calidad del servicio que recibi6?Dirfa usted que
1 -excelente,
2 -buena,
3 -regular
4 -mala
9 -NS/REF
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
57 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
P5.Con respecto al problema 0 a la pregunta por la cualllam6,l,cuantas lIamadas se
realizaron para resolver su asunto?
P5a.[51 P5 >1-DE LO CONTRARIO,CONTINUE EN LA P6]l,Se
resolvi6 finalmente su pregunta 0 problema a su satisfacci6n?
1-S1
2-NO
3-NS/REF
P6.l,SU lIamada requiri6 una visita del (de la)representante a su propiedad?
1-S1
2-NO -------------[CONTINUE EN LA P12]
3-NS/REF------------------[CONTINUE EN LA P12]
P7.[51 P6 =1]l,Que hizo el (Ia)representante del servicio?
P8.l,Que tan satisfecho(a)estuvo usted con el resultado del servicio en su propiedad?
.Estuvo usted *
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
P9.l,Que tan satisfecho(a)estuvo usted con el tiempo que se requiri6 para que fueran
a su propiedad para proveerle el servicio?Estuvo usted*
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
P10.l,Que tan satisfecho(a)estuvo usted con la cantidad de tiempo que necesit6 el (Ia)
representante del servicio en su propiedad?Estuvo usted *
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
P11.Por favor califique su satisfacci6n general con el servicio que recibi6 en su propiedad.
1 -excelente,
2 -buena,
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
58 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
3 -regular 0
4 -mala?
9 -NS/REF
P12.l,Se ha comunicado tambien con el Distrito de Agua de Otay por alguno de los
siguientes metodos?
1.correo electr6nico
2.carta por correo postal
3.en persona
Sf No
1 [12a]2
1 [12b]2
1 [12c]2
NS/REF
9
9
9
P12a-c
l,Que tan satisfecho(a)estuvo usted con el servicio que recibi6 de esos
contactos?
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
12a 12b 12c
P13.l,C6mo paga su cuenta de agua la mayorfa de los meses?
1-Envfa cheque por correo
2-Deducci6n bancaria automatica
3-Por telefono con tarjeta de credito
4-En persona en la oficina del Distrito de Agua de Otay
5-En persona en un centro de pagos
6-En Ifnea (Internet)
P14.Sin importar c6mo paga su cuenta en la actualidad,l,c6mo preferirfa pagar su
cuenta la mayorfa del tiempo?
1-Enviar cheque por correo ---------CONTINUE EN LA P15
2-Deducci6n bancaria automatica ---------CONTINUE EN LA P15
3-Por telefono con tarjeta de credito ---------CONTINUE EN LA P15
4-En persona en la oficina del Distrito de Agua de Otay
5-En persona en un centro de pagos
6-En linea (Internet)---------CONTINUE EN LA P15
P14a.[51 P14 =465]l,Por que prefiere pagar en persona?NO OFREZCA
RESPUESTA5
1-ahorra estampillas (sellos,timbres)
2-obtiene recibo
3-Generalmente pago en el ultimo minuto
4-Disfruto del contacto personal/salir de la casa
9-0tro-ESPECIFICAR _
P15.En los ultimos 6 meses,l,ha utilizado el sitio Web del Distrito de Agua de Otay
para obtener informaci6n u otro servicio del Distrito?
Otay Water District 59 Rea &Parker Research
2006 Customer Services Survey February,2007
1-S1
2-NO-----------CONTINUE EN LA P16
3-NS/REF-----------CONTINUE EN LA P16
P15a.[SI P15=1]l,Que tan satisfecho(a)estuvo usted con el servicio Web que
recibio?Estuvo usted *
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
P16.EI Distrito de Agua de Otay tiene un componente de Respuesta de Voz Interactiva
en su sistema telefonico.Este nuevo componente proporciona al cliente con
informacion de su cuenta,la cantidad total que se debe y el ultimo pago recibido.
l,Ha utilizado este componente?
1-S1
2-NO-----------CONTINUE EN LA P17
3-NS/REF-----------CONTINUE EN LA P17
P16a.[SI P16 =1]l,Como se entero del Componente de Respuesta de
Voz Interactiva?
4-Folletos en la cuenta
5-Le ofrecieron la opci6n cuando usted llama
6-Medios verbales ("de boca en boca")-amistades/familiares
10-Otro,especificar _
11-NS/REF
P16b.l,Se Ie hizo utH este componente?
1-S1
2-NO
3-NS/REF
P16c.l,Que tan fl:kil fue utilizar el sistema?
1-Muyfacil
2-Algo facil
3-Algo diffcil
4-Muy diffcil
9-NS/REF
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
60 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
P16d.Cuando lIam61a ultima vez al Distrito de Agua de Otay para
servicio de atenci6n al cliente,iPudo resolver su pregunta 0 problema
utilizando unicamente el sistema automatizado?
1-S1
2-NO
3-NS/REF
P16e.iExisten algunos otros componentes que Ie gustarfa que Ie
ofrecieran mediante el sistema de Respuesta de Voz Interactiva?
1-S1
2-No ---[CONTINUE EN LA P17]
3-NS/REF ---[CONTINUE EN LA P17]
P16f.[51 P16e =1]iQue caracterfstica 0 caracterfsticasle
gustarfa que ofreciera el sistema Automatizado de Respuesta de
Voz?[ANOTE HA5TA 2]
P17.Con respecto a su cuenta mensual,ique tan satisfecho(a)esta usted con la
exactitud de su cuenta de agua?
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
P18.iQue tan satisfecho(a)esta usted con la facilidad para entender su cuenta de agua?
1 -muy satisfecho(a),
2 -algo satisfecho(a),
3 -algo insatisfecho(a)0
4 -muy insatisfecho(a)?
9 -NS/REF
P19.iQue tan confiado(a)esta usted con la exactitud de la lectura mensual de su medidor?
1 -muy confiado(a),
2 -algo confiado(a),
3 -no muy confiado(a)0
4 -nada confiado(a)?
9 -NO ESTA SEGURO(A)/REF
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
61 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
P20.l,lee usted los mensajes en el cuadra de mensajes en su cuenta mensual?
1-SI
2-NO
3---NI SIQUIERA SABIA QUE HABIA MENSAJES AHI [DE MODO VOlUNTARIO]
P21.l,Que cambios,de existir estos,sugerirfa al Distrito de Agua de Otay y que usted
piensa mejorarfa la facilidad de su cuenta mensual?
O=Ningunos cambios
P22.En comparaci6n con otras comparHas que Ie cobran mensualmente,tal como la
electricidad,el cable de la TV u otros,l,c6mo calificarfa su experiencia general como
cliente con nosotros en una escala del 1 al 5,en donde el 5 significa que el Distrito de
Agua de Otay es la mejor de estas companfas y el 1 significa que el Distrito de Agua de
Otay es la peor companfa?
Para concluir,estas siguientes preguntas son unicamente para prop6sitos de
comparaci6n.
CUST.l,Cuanto tiempo tiene de ser cliente del Distrito de Agua de Otay?
_____,ANOS
PPH.l,Cuantas personas,incluyendose usted,viven en su hogar?
99 -NS/REF
TEN.l.Su resideneia es propiedad de alguien en su hogar 0 es alquilada?
1 -PROPIEDAD
2 -AlQUllADAlOTRA SITUACION
9 -NS/REF
EDU.l.CmU es el grade 0 ano de eseolaridad mas alto que usted ha eompletado y
par el eual ha reeibido eredito...
1 -preparatoria (high school)0 menos,
2 -por 10 menos un ano de universidad 0 escuela de comercio 0 vocacional,
3 -graduado de la universidad con una licenciatura 0
4 -por 10 menos un ano de trabajo de posgrado,ademas de la licenciatura?
9 -NS/RE
Otay Water District
2006 Customer Services Survey
62 Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
AGE.Por favor dfgame cuando mencione la categorfa que induye su edad...
1 -18 a 24,
2 -25 a 34,
3 -35 a 44,
4 -45 a 54,
5 -55 a 64 6
6 -65 6 mayor?
9 -NS/REF
ETH.Cual de los siguientes describe mejor su origen etnico 0 racial...
1 -blanco,no de origen Hispano;
2 -negro,no de origen Hispano;
3 -Hispano 0 Latino;
4 -Asiatico 0 Isleno del Pacifico;
5 -Americano Nativo;u
6 -otro grupo etnico?[ESPECIFICAR:]_
9 -NS/REF
INC.Ahora,no queremos saber sus ingresos exactos,pero aproximadamente,
(,podrfa decirme si sus ingresos anuales del hogar antes de deducir impuestos son...
1 -menos de $25,000,
2 -$25,000 hasta pero no incluyendo $50,000,
3 -$50,000 hasta (pero no incluyendo)$75,000,
4 -$75,000 hasta (pero no incluyendo)$100,0006
5 -$100,000 6 mas?
9 -NS/REF
LAN.[IOIOMA DE LA ENTREVISTA:]1 -INGLES
Otay Water District 63
2006 Customer Services Survey
2-ESPANOL
Rea &Parker Research
February,2007
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 9a
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board Meeting
SUBMITTED BY:Mark Watton,
General Manager
MEETING DATE:
W.O./G.F.NO:
March 7,2007
DIV.NO.
SUBJECT:Board of Directors 2007 Calendar of Meetings
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
At the request of the Board,the attached Board of Director's
meeting calendar for 2007 is being presented for discussion.
PURPOSE:
This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the
opportunity to review the 2007 Board of Director's meeting
calendars and amend the schedules as needed.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
N/A
ANALYSIS:
The Board requested that this item be presented at each meeting
so they may have an opportunity to review the Board meeting
calendar schedule and amend it as needed.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
GeJferal Ma-i1.ager
Attachments:Calendar of Meetings for 2007
G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTSIBoardMeeting Calendar3-7-07.doc
Regular Board Meetings:
January 3,2007
February 7,2007
March 7,2007
April 4,2007
May 2,2007
June 6,2007
July 10,2007
August 1,2007
September 5,2007
October 3,2007
November 7,2007
December 5,2007
Board Workshops:
Board of Directors,Workshops
and Committee Meetings
2007
Special Board or Committee Meetings (3 fd
Wednesday ofEach Month or as Noted)
January 17,2007
February 21,2007
March 21,2007
April 18,2007
May 16,2007
June 20,2007
July 18,2007
August 15,2007
September 19,2007
October 17,2007
November 21,2007
December 19,2007
Budget Workshop,TBD
Board Retreat Workshop,TBD
G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar Attach A for 2007 3-7-07.doc
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM 10
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITIED BY:
STAFF REPORT
Regular Board MEETING DATE:
Sean Prendergast,principa~W.OJG.F.NO,
Accountant
March 7,2007
DIV.NO.
APPROVED BY:Joseph Beachem,Chief Financial Officer.
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:German Alvarez,Assistant General Manager
(AssL GM):
SUBJECT:Accounts Payable Demand List
PURPOSE:
Attached is the list of demands for the Board's information.
FISCAL IMPACT:
SUMMARY-~._---------------------------
CHECKS (2004701-2005032)
NET DEMANDS-------
$3,618,602.26
WIRE TO:
JP MORGAN SECURITIES -REMARKETING FEE
LANDESBANK -CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
PLAN HANDLERS -MEDICAL CLAIMS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY -DECEMBER
UNION BANK -PAYROLL TAXES
UNION BANK OF CALIF -ID 81 CERT OF PARTICIPATION
UNION BANK OF CALIF -ID 27 BOND DEBT
TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Board receive the attached list of demands.
jb
Attachment
$2,903.67
$36,945.67
$170,553.33
$1,821,329.70
$248,233.10
$220,194.68
$224,609.29
$6,343,371.70
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 217/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004953 02/28/07 02164 AAA RADIATOR WAREHOUSE 01115488 01/24/07 REPAIR PARTS 141.78 141.78
2004713 02/07/07 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 786378 01/16/07 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,590.66 1,590.66
2004792 02/14/07 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 786519 01/22/07 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,364.12
786542 01/22/07 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 801.49
786670 01/24/07 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 121.23 2,286.84
2004863 02/21/07 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 786819 01/29107 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,444.15
786820 01/29/07 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 877.82 2,321.97
2004954 02/28/07 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 787037 02/05/07 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,116.67
787038 02/05/07 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,056.33 2,173.00
2004714 02/07/07 00132 AIRGASWEST 103913309 01/17/07 BREATHING AIR 102.47 102.47
2004864 02/21/07 00132 AIRGASWEST 103108522 01/31/07 BREATHING AIR 21.08 21.08
2004793 02/14/07 02618 ALHAMBRA RUBBER&GASKET CO 23585 01/25/07 METER GASKETS 620.71
23586 01/25/07 METER GASKETS 504.81 1,125.52
2004715 02/07/07 03787 ALLIED TRENCH SHORING SERVICE 746777 01/18/07 SHORING REPAIR 114.46 114.46
2004794 02/14/07 03787 ALLIED TRENCH SHORING SERVICE 747658 01/22/07 STEEL PLATES RENTAL 342.00
747659 01/22/07 HYDRAULIC SHORING 167.44 509.44
2004865 02/21/07 03787 ALLIED TRENCH SHORING SERVICE 749477 01/30107 STEEL PLATE RENTALS 204.26 204.26
2004795 02/14/07 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0509002629645 01/25/07 TRASH REMOVAL SERVICES 623.26
0509002631204 01/25/07 TRASH REMOVAL SERVICES 171.61
0509002632283 01/25/07 TRASH REMOVAL SERVICES 63.53 858.40
2004716 02/07/07 05414 AMARR ENTERPRISES 015606 01/18/07 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION SHIRTS 2007 535.52 535.52
2004955 02/28/07 02966 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 83803 02/02/07 SPRAY MIST &POWER FOAM 1,010.85 1,010.85
2004717 02/07107 06166 AMERICAN MESSAGING L1109570HB 02101/07 PAGER SERVICES 483.40
L1034315HB 02/01/07 PAGER SERVICES 8.13 491.53
2004718 02/07/07 00107 AMERICAN WATER WORKS 200533130 11/15/06 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 4,596.00
2000534441 11/15/06 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 173.00
2000534282 11/15/06 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 173.00
2000534634 11/15/06 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 71.00 5,013.00
2004796 02/14/07 02518 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN 1000339242 01/29/07 BOOK 74.50 74.50
Page 1 of21
--------_.._---~~~~~
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 21712007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004797 02/14/07 00002 ANSWER INC 015619 01/22/07 TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES 1,240.80 1,240.80
2004719 02/07107 02829 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC 178667 01/16/07 CONNECTORS AND PIGTAILS 320.96 320.96
2004956 02/28/07 05758 AT&T 015677 02/07/07 PHONE SERVICE 33.29 33.29
2004798 02/14107 06272 AT&T/MCI T6094386 01/17/07 PHONE SERVICE 6,314.88
T6090136 01/16/07 PHONE SERVICE 737.23 7,052.11
2004957 02/28/07 04997 AVONDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 015684 02/26/07 SCHOOL SITE GARDEN FUNDING 300.00 300.00
2004720 02107107 00145 BARRETT ENGINEERED PUMPS 053884 01/17/07 ROTATING ASSEMBLY COTTON WOOD LIFT 2,076.34 2,076.34
2004958 02/28/07 00145 BARRETT ENGINEERED PUMPS 054180 02/05/07 LIFT STATION PARTS 1,110.67
054341 CREDIT FREIGHT CHARGE (69.80)1,040.87
2004866 02/21/07 03360 BEHIND THE SCENES INC 8815 01/30/07 CATERING SERVICES 694.45
8805 01/30/07 CATERING SERVICES 598.01 1,292.46
2004799 02/14/07 02570 BEST LIFE &HEALTH INSURANCE 015669 02/14/07 VOLUNTARY LIFE INSURANCE 227.40 227.40
2004959 02/28/07 04806 BJ'S RENTALS 95381 02/07/07 CONCRETE 116.37
95500 02/08/07 CONCRETE 100.21
95310 02/07/07 CONCRETE 100.21 316.79
2004800 02/14/07 03404 BLAIR RASMUSSEN CONSTRUCTION 5 11/29/06 RETENTION PMT/CIP P2359 6,257.48 6,257.48
2004960 02/28/07 02197 BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA 40519 02/15/07 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SERVICES 575.39 575.39
2004721 02/07/07 01712 BNI BUILDING NEWS 015635 02/01/07 BOOKS 93.94 93.94
2004961 02/28/07 00146 BOB STALL CHEVROLET 344586 01/30/07 REPAIR PARTS 117.93 117.93
2004722 02107107 02342 BOOT WORLD INC 10332561N 01/16/07 SAFETY BOOTS 136.37 136.37
2004867 02/21/07 02342 BOOT WORLD INC 10336271N 01/31/07 SAFETY BOOTS 87.66 87.66
2004962 02/28/07 02342 BOOT WORLD INC 10335221N 01/30/07 SAFETY BOOTS 126.63 126.63
2004868 02/21/07 00559 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION 039463 01/17107 RECYCLED WATER PLAN CHECKING SERVICES 6,104.02 6,104.02
2004723 02107107 03679 BRG CONSULTING INC 06120915 12/31/06 1296-3 RESERVOIR PROJECT 8,827.50 8,827.50
2004963 02/28/07 03679 BRG CONSULTING INC 07011016 01/31/07 1296-3 RESERVOIR PROJECT 412.50 412.50
2004964 02/28/07 01232 BRODING'S BATTERYWAREHOUSE 45178 01/18107 AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES 170.14
Page 2 of 21
.--------~_._-
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
45718 02/02/07 AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES 129.19
45887 02/08/07 AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES 340.27 639.60
2004801 02/14/07 05115 BROOKFIELD SHEAOTAY LLC 015654 02/07/07 CIP'S REIMBURSEMENTS 1,521,777.60 1,521,777.60
2004724 02/07/07 03721 BULLETLOGISTICS INC 01150703350 01/15/07 COURIER SERVICES 227.70 227.70
2004802 02/14/07 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 23474 01/17/07 CRUSHED ROCK 338.86
23541 01/22/07 CRUSHED ROCK 67.32 406.18
2004869 02/21/07 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 23636 01/29/07 CRUSHED ROCK 269.80 269.80
2004965 02/28107 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 23720 02/06/07 CRUSHED ROCK 105.42
23620 01/26/07 GRANITE 478.68 584.10
2004803 02/14/07 00251 CALIFORNIA ASSOC OF PUBLIC 015656 01/28/07 AGENCY ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 130.00 130.00
2004870 02/21/07 02989 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL 6081501 08/15/06 DEBT STATEMENT FOR CAFR 475.00 475.00
2004804 02/14107 00693 CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DIST ASSOC 015653 02/12/07 MEETING RESERVATION 32.00 32.00
2004871 02/21107 03684 CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-WEST 3666299 02/01/07 COPIER MAINTENANCE 970.72 970.72
2004966 02/28/07 03684 CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-WEST 3669107 02/06/07 COPIER MAINTENANCE 774.06
3669107A 02/06/07 COPIER MAINTENANCE 74.97 849.03
2004872 02/21/07 03572 CARLTON,DISANTE &44072 01/31/07 LEGAL SERVICES 58,315.50
44073 01/31/07 LEGAL SERVICES 17.00 58,332.50
2004873 02/21/07 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 6423 02101/07 STORAGE &DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 2,131.50 2,131.50
2004967 02/28/07 03491 CASADE ORO CARWASH 326 02/02/07 CAR WASH SERVICES 985.00
314 12/01/06 CAR WASH SERVICES 765.99 1,750.99
2004805 02/14107 03232 COW GOVERNMENT INC DGP4669 01/25/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 385.93 385.93
2004701 02/07/07 06652 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Ben2371712 02/06/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 655.38 655.38
2004874 02/21/07 06652 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Ben2372035 02/20/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 655.38 655.38
2004968 02/28/07 02026 CHULAVISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 015685 02/22/07 BUS FUNDING FOR GARDEN FIELD TRIP 245.00 245.00
2004806 02/14/07 05008 CINGULARWIRELESS X02082007 01/31/07 WIRELESS PHONE SERVICE 17.49 17.49
2004725 02/07/07 06656 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DE2038 01/24107 PLAN CK,INSPECTION SVCS DEPOSIT 24,004.93 24,004.93
Page 3 of21
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004726 02/07/07 00234 CITYTREASURER 456354 12/29106 METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE SYSTEM 153,037.00 153,037.00
2004807 02/14/07 00234 CITY TREASURER 459466 02/06/07 WATER DELIVERIES-DEC 2006 24,944.57 24,944.57
2004875 02/21/07 01666 COMMERCIAL PRINTING CENTRE 42902 01/31/07 METER REPLACEMENT COURTESYNOTICES 172.12 172.12
2004808 02/14/07 04398 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 015657 02108107 EVENT REGISTRATION FEE 30.00 30.00
2004876 02/21/07 03774 CONSTRUCTION RESIDUE RECYCLING 974353 01/31/07 DUMPING SERVICES 60.00 60.00
2004969 02/28/07 03706 CONSUMERS PIPE &SUPPLY CO S1019005001 02102107 RECTORSEAL #5 109.97
S1015135002 01/05/07 WAREHOUSE SUPPLY 821.59 931.56
2004727 02/07/07 02509 COSTCO 015631 02/05/07 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM 1,400.74 1,400.74
2004809 02/14107 02612 COUNCIL OFWATERUTILITIES 015660 02/08/07 MEETING REGISTRATION 20.00 20.00
2004970 02/28/07 02697 COUNTY MOTORPARTS 056454 12/20/06 PARTS 2.03
056081 12/18/06 PARTS 14.21
057145 12/28/06 PARTS 113.76
057066 12/27/06 PARTS 68.34
056729 12/22/06 PARTS 113.34
056709 12/22/06 PARTS 3.08
056775 12/22/06 PARTS 76.52
056289 12/19/06 PARTS 79.31
056327 12/19/06 PARTS 188.95
056290 12/19/06 PARTS 34.50
056109 12/18/06 PARTS 21.54
056147 12/18/06 PARTS 7.53
056146 12/18/06 PARTS 7.53 730.64
2004728 02/07107 00433 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO P097094303 02/01/07 PERMIT RENEWAL FEES 2,034.00
P097094563 01/31/07 PERMIT RENEWAL FEES 2,034.00
P097094565 01/31/07 PERMIT RENEWAL FEES 109.00 4,177.00
2004810 02/14/07 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEH070146D11 01/19/07 RECLAIMED WATER SHUTDOWN TEST 805.00
DEH070155D11 01/19/07 RECLAIMED WATER SHUTDOWN TEST 805.00
DEH070154D11 01/19/07 RECLAIMED WATER SHUTDOWN TEST 805.00 2,415.00
2004811 02/14/07 00206 COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO 1521 02/08/07 ELECTION COST FORADS 303.80 303.80
2004812 02/14/07 06827 CUYAMACACOLLEGE BOTANICAL 015661 02/07/07 SEMINAR REGISTRATION 75.00 75.00
2004971 02/28/07 03354 DATAPROSE INC 39625 02/02107 BILLING PRINT SERVICES 9,131.94
39626 02/02/07 JANUARY POSTAGE 14,624.54 23,756.48
Page 4 of 21
--_.._--~-_._--
OTAYWATERDISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004881 02/21107 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0194746 01/30/07 GASKETS AND BOLT KITS 962.06
0194748 01/31/07 INVENTORY 582.38 1,544.44
2004976 02/28/07 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS CM013026 CREDIT PLUG VALVE (926.05)
0192105 02/05/07 INVENTORY 4,529.81
0192233 02/05/07 SHELL CUTTER 2,435.11
0192261 02/05/07 SHELL CUTTER 1,987.78
0194730 02/05107 INVENTORY 603.24
0194651 02/06/07 GASKETS AND BOLT KITS 290.93
0195683 02/06/07 12"STEEL BLIND FLG 273.39
01946511 02/08/07 GASKETS AND BOLT KITS 1,335.05 10,529.26
2004882 02/21/07 03544 FILEFAX 10017131 01/30/07 CLASSIFILE FOLDERS 199.48 199.48
2004815 02/14/07 00843 FIRE &ICE HEATING AND 11247 01/23107 AIR CONDITIONER REPAIR 912.36 912.36
2004735 02/07/07 03051 FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE 20349069 01/16/07 METROSCAN SERVICES 4,497.64 4,497.64
2004883 02/21107 02470 FIRST BANKCARD 015675 02/07/07 DISTRICT EXPENSES 52.78 52.78
2004977 02/28/07 02470 FIRST BANKCARD 015690 02/22/07 DISTRICT EXPENSES 5,829.00 5,829.00
2004816 02/14/07 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES-SD 275867 01/24/07 COFFEE SUPPLIES 240.09 240.09
2004978 02/28107 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES-SD 276573 02/07/07 COFFEE SUPPLIES 285.98 285.98
2004736 02/07/07 00035 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 7999146 PIPET CLEANING SET (581.04)
7855642 01/08/07 LAB SUPPLIES 772.08
7855643 01/08/07 LABORATORYSUPPLIES 193.00 384.04
2004884 02/21/07 02591 FITNESS TECH INC 3864 02/01/07 MAINTENANCE FOR FITNESS EQUIPMENT 100.00 100.00
2004737 02/07/07 01327 FRANK &SON PAVING INC 17002 01/15/07 PAVING SERVICES 25,974.00 25,974.00
2004885 02/21/07 01327 FRANK&SON PAVING INC 01003 01/24/07 PAVING SERVICES 4,810.00
01004 01/24/07 PAVING SERVICES 4,342.00 9,152.00
2004738 02107/07 02254 FRY'S ELECTRONICS INC 015645 02/07/07 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM 3,000.00 3,000.00
2004886 02/21107 02028 FT INTERACTIVE DATA CORP 06095017 01/31/07 DIAL-UP SERVICE FOR INVESTMENTS 85.00 85.00
2004739 02/07/07 05626 GAME 7 CONSULTING 1494 02/05/07 CONSULTING SERVICES -IS DEPT 3,000.00
1498 02/06/07 CONSULTING SRVCS -IS DEPT 3,000.00 6,000.00
2004887 02/21/07 05626 GAME 7 CONSULTING 1506 02/20/07 CONSULTING SERVICES -IS DEPT 2,062.50 2,062.50
Page 6 of21
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECKREGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004979 02/28/07 05626 GAME 7 CONSULTING 1509 02127107 CONSULTING SERVICES -IS DEPT 2,362.50 2,362.50
2004817 02/14/07 06291 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ 1180 02/07/07 LEGAL SERVICES JAN 2007 57,851.13 57,851.13
2004740 02/07/07 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 411666 01/18/07 BUSINESS DESKTOP 2,985.86
410883 01/15/07 HP XW4400 WORKSTATION MICROSOFT WINDC 1,044.07
410785 01/15/07 TONER 273.60
410782 01/15/07 ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS2 185.24
410780 01/15/07 VIDEO CARD 99.56 4,588.33
2004818 02/14107 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 412559 01/25/07 BUSINESS DESKTOP 1,346.01 1,346.01
2004888 02121/07 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 412881 01/26/07 HP 19"LCD MONITORS 2,464.08
413571 01/31/07 TONER 534.66 2,998.74
2004980 02/28/07 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 412558 01/25/07 TONER CARTRIDGES 510.02
414009 02/02/07 BUSINESS DESKTOP 2,985.86 3,495.88
2004981 02/28107 06276 GIFFORD ENGINEERING INC 50467 02/05/07 TWO-WAY RADIO REPAIR 187.00 187.00
2004741 02107/07 03289 GRANGER,WILLIAM E 015638 02/05/07 REIMB TRVL CONF EXPENSES 191.96 191.96
2004889 02/21/07 04979 GROSSMONT WORK TRAINING CENTEF 20007 01/31/07 RECRUITMENT/ORANGE COUNTY 682.56 682.56
2004890 02/21/07 03773 GTC SYSTEMS INC 26070 01/31/07 TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR CITRIX 1,353.24 1,353.24
2004891 02/21/07 00174 HACH COMPANY 5021201 02/01/07 ANALYZER PARTS 345.53
5021202 02/01/07 ANALYZER PARTS 243.19 588.72
2004982 02/28/07 00174 HACH COMPANY WI218405 01/26/07 VALVE ASSEMBLY 380.52
WI219221 02/02/07 ANALYZER REPAIR PARTS 153.19
WI219234 02/02/07 ANALYZER REPAIR PARTS 167.20 700.91
2004983 02/28/07 02629 HANSON AGGREGATES PACIFIC 504381 02/02/07 CRUSHED AGGREGATES &ROCK 540.24 540.24
2004742 02/07/07 00201 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 00476926 01/12/07 CHOPPER PUMP WWTP 360.95 360.95
2004819 02/14/07 00201 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 00477088 01/19/07 CHOPPER PUMP WWTP 237.24 237.24
2004820 02/14/07 04217 HATCH &PARENT 412662 01/31/07 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY DEC 2006 750.00 750.00
2004984 02/28/07 00150 HAWTHORNE MACHINERY CO PS010215609 01/31/07 GASKET 51.68
PS010215610 01/31/07 SEALER 91.58 143.26
2004892 02/21107 04472 HECTOR IMARES-COSSIO 22 01/01/07 CONSULTANT CONTRACT 3,000.00 3,000.00
Page 7 of21
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 21712007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004893 02/21/07 00062 HELIX WATER DISTRICT 174639860207 02/06/07 WATER BILL -RUSSELL sa 31.23
178540010207 02/06/07 Service from 1216/06 to 2/6/07 29.65 60.88
2004743 02/07/07 01820 HENDERSON,DONALD R 015640 02/05/07 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM 1,222.95 1,222.95
2004821 02/14/07 00713 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 41702507 01/24/07 LASER JET PRINTER 812.44 812.44
2004894 02/21/07 01109 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6014196 02/09/07 LUMBER FOR RAMAR STORAGE CRATES 231.50 231.50
2004985 02/28/07 01109 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3192753 02/22/07 WAREHOUSE SHOVELS 344.35
3170488 02/28/07 DOOR KNOBS 24.64
3192752 02/22/07 DOORKNOBS 121.02 490.01
2004744 02/07/07 03743 HYDROTEX 528895 01/05/07 OIL 1,266.56
529139 01/12/07 OIL 1,146.58 2,413.14
2004822 02/14/07 03615 I.M.PAC.GOVERNMENT SERVICES 015659 01/22/07 DISTRICT EXPENSES 1,238.50 1,238.50
2004745 02/07/07 06266 IDEALWIPING RAG COMPANY 037761 01/17107 WHITE KNIT RAGS 237.05 237.05
2004986 02/28/07 03280 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 2511 01/26/07 640-1 RESERVOIR PROJECT 8,430.97
2510 01/26107 36"PIPELINE PROJECT 17,179.74
2500 01/26/07 944 PUMP STATION EVALUATION 3,300.00 28,910.71
2004746 02/07/07 04197 INTEGRITY STAFFING INC 3460 01/30107 TEMPORARY SERVICES -HR DEPT 1,908.00 1,908.00
2004823 02/14/07 04197 INTEGRITY STAFFING INC 3474 02/06/07 TEMPORARYSERVICES-HR DEPT 1,884.15 1,884.15
2004895 02/21/07 04197 INTEGRITY STAFFING INC 3484 02/12/07 TEMPORARYSERVICES -HR DEPT 1,908.00 1,908.00
2004987 02/28/07 04197 INTEGRITY STAFFING INC 3514 02/26/07 TEMPORARYSERVICES -HR DEPT 1,526.40
3314 11/29/06 TEMPORARYSERVICES -HR DEPT 1,287.90
3500 02/19/07 TEMPORARYSERVICES-HR DEPT 1,735.09 4,549.39
2004896 02/21/07 02372 INTERIOR PLANT SERVICE INC 23588 01/31/07 PLANT SERVICE 199.00 199.00
2004702 02/07/07 02267 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Ben2371698 02106/07 PAYROLLDEDUCTION 50.00 50.00
2004703 02107/07 04077 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Ben2371708 02/06/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 64.00 64.00
2004897 02/21/07 02267 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Ben2372021 02/20107 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 50.00 50.00
2004898 02/21/07 04077 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Ben2372031 02/20/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 64.00 64.00
2004747 02107107 03250 INTERNATIONAL PERSONNEL 015642 02/06/07 HR /MANAGERS TRAINING 170.00 170.00
Page 8 of21
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2nJ2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004988 02/28/07 06630 J.C.HEDEN AND ASSOCIATES,INC OWD002 02/06/07 AS NEEDED ENG DRAFTING SVCS 10,311.77 10,311.77
2004899 02/21/07 03077 JANI KING OF CALIFORNIA INC SD002070413 02/01/07 JANITORIAL SERVICES 3,905.00
SD002070422 02/01/07 OFF-SITE JANITORIAL SERVICES 990.00 4,895.00
2004748 02/07/07 03172 JONES &STOKES 0039292 01/18/07 LA PRESA PIPELINE WETLAND PERMITTING 2,371.48
0039252 01/18/07 CALAVO SEWER LIFT STATION 1,296.79
0039273 01/18107 MEETINGS &PROJECT COORDINATION 741.60
0039290 01/18/07 RWCWRF FORCE MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJ 655.00 5,064.87
2004749 02107/07 03172 JONES &STOKES 0039293 01/18/07 1004-2 RESERVOIR PROJECT 405.15 405.15
2004824 02/14/07 03172 JONES&STOKES 0039332 01/19/07 SAN MIGUEL HABITAT MGMT AREA 17,281.59 17,281.59
2004989 02/28/07 03172 JONES&STOKES 0040010 02/15/07 1004-2 RESERVOIR PROJECT 405.15 405.15
2004825 02/14/07 06823 JUAN MANUEL DELA TORRE PROP.015650 02/09/07 REFUND WIO #D0483-010109 2,771.78 2,771.78
2004750 02/07/07 06820 JUAN QUINTERO 015647 02/06/07 REIMBURSE CASH FOR PLANTS PROGRAM 1,874.00 1,874.00
2004751 02/07/07 00056 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 016756 01104/07 BLOWER COUPLING 202.43 202.43
2004826 02/14/07 05126 KEN DAROIS FEB2007 02/08/07 PROGRAMMING SERVICES 2,475.00 2,475.00
2004827 02/14/07 04996 KNOX ATTORNEY SERVICE INC 220982 01/22/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50
220983 01/22/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50
220984 01/22/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50 82.50
2004990 02/28107 04996 KNOXATTORNEYSERVICE INC 224095 02/08/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50
224098 02/08/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50
224096 02/08/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50
224097 02/08/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50
223561 02/05/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50
223562 02/05/07 DELIVERY OF BOARD &COMMITTEE PACKETS 27.50 165.00
2004900 02/21/07 01859 LA PRENSASAN DIEGO 20906 01/30107 JOB POSTING 76.95 76.95
2004828 02/14/07 06497 LAKESIDE LAND COMPANY 187085 01/23/07 ASPHALT 90.00 90.00
2004901 02/21/07 06830 LANCE PICOTE 05 02/12/07 SAFETY ACP PIPE TRAINING 55.00 55.00
2004991 02/28/07 06273 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 73626 01/31/07 LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES 2,000.00 2,000.00
2004992 02/28/07 06263 LINTNER,JERRY 16296 02/21/07 CERT RENEWAL REIMBURSEMENT 60.00 60.00
2004752 02/07/07 03784 L1VESCAN SAN DIEGO 0741 01/16/07 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 80.00 80.00
Page 9 of21
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004902 02/21/07 03784 L1VESCAN SAN DIEGO 0772 01/30/07 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 100.00 100.00
2004903 02/21/07 05220 LOGICALIS INTEGRATION SOLUTION S713022 01/31/07 CONSULTING SVCS-IS DEPT 18,300.00
S713023 01/31107 CONSULTING SVCS-IS DEPT 3,900.00 22,200.00
2004829 02/14/07 06825 MANAGING GROUP INC 015651 02/09/07 REFUND W/O #D0265-010133 5,863.98 5,863.98
2004830 02/14/07 00628 MANHATTAN NAT'L LIFE INS CO 015668 02/21/07 VOLUNTARYLIFE INSURANCE 433.80 433.80
2004831 02/14/07 06155 MANJARREZ,CONNIE 015631 02/05/07 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM 1,400.74 1,400.74
2004753 02/07/07 06160 MANNY RAMIREZ 2002 01/12/07 PHOTOS 60.00 60.00
2004754 02/07/07 06818 MARISOL PEREZ 015639 02/06/07 PAYMENT REFUND 114.32 114.32
2004904 02/21107 02902 MARSTON &MARSTON INC 20071 02/01/07 PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICES 3,960.00 3,960.00
2004755 02/07/07 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 57289632 01/11/07 PARTS TO REPAIR CLARIFIER 188.40
56810880 01104107 REPAIR CHOPPERPUMP 183.99 372.39
2004832 02/14/07 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 57825258 01/19/07 SEAL WATERSUPPLY FITTINGS 964.78
58152901 01/24/07 GARDEN HOSE 94.61 1,059.39
2004833 02/14/07 03745 MEDEROS,CHARLES 015666 02/13/07 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM 1,958.47 1,958.47
2004834 02/14/07 03169 MENDEZ-SCHOMER,ALICIA 015658 01/30/07 REIMB TRAINING EXPENSE 121.28 121.28
2004993 02/28/07 00887 MIRAMAR TRUCKCENTER-SAN DIEGO 202125 12/04/06 BRAKE PARTS 162.57
205177 01/11/07 BRAKE PARTS 48.88 211.45
2004756 02/07/07 01363 MISSION LINEN &UNIFORM 18042046 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 634.95
18042913 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 561.11
18045481 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 550.21
18044637 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 542.58
18043767 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 528.14
18042911 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 286.44
18044635 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS&MATS 243.12
18045479 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 197.89
18042044 02/07/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 196.53
18043765 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 195.71
18044636 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 138.80
18042047 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 130.52
18042914 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 130.52
18043768 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 130.52
18044638 01/01/07 ADMIN/OPS UNIFORMS,TOWELS &MATS 130.52
Page 10 of21
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2m2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
059501 01/19/07 REPAIR PARTS 67.34
059431 01/19/07 REPAIR PARTS 68.83
059493 01/19/07 REPAIR PARTS 75.40
061926 CREDIT MEMO (84.68)
057491 01/02/07 REPAIR PARTS 21.75
060689 01/29/07 REPAIR PARTS 4.81
060701 01/30/07 REPAIR PARTS 13.43
060780 01/30/07 REPAIR PARTS 3.22
060796 01/30/07 REPAIR PARTS 78.80
063588 CREDIT MEMO (15.09)
061927 CREDIT MEMO (61.96)
063548 CREDIT MEMO (268.83)
063589 CREDIT MEMO (75.41)
063590 CREDIT MEMO (251.60)
060843 01/31/07 REPAIR PARTS 44.52
061790 02/07/07 REPAIR PARTS 25.32
055353 CREDIT MEMO (5.61)
055352 CREDIT MEMO (60.94)
056542 CREDIT MEMO (64.59)
056539 CREDIT MEMO (13.88)
058458 CREDIT MEMO (250.82)
060144 CREDIT MEMO (21.75)
061928 CREDIT MEMO (44.52)
056204 CREDIT MEMO (14.48)
059473 01/19/07 REPAIR PARTS 7.29
059289 01/18/07 REPAIR PARTS 21.75
059128 01/17/07 REPAIR PARTS 25.49
059012 01/16/07 REPAIR PARTS 3.87
060853 01/31/07 REBUILD PART 172.39
060543 01/29/07 REPAIR PARTS 12.92
060537 01/29/07 REPAIR PARTS 39.85
059083 01/16/07 REPAIR PARTS 44.07
058670 01/12/07 REPAIR PARTS 62.19
058716 01/12/07 REPAIR PARTS 39.09
058344 01/10/07 REPAIR PARTS 27.91
058409 01/10107 REPAIR PARTS 16.96
058206 01/09/07 REPAIR PARTS 25.75
058292 01/09/07 REPAIR PARTS 10.05
058230 01/09/07 REPAIR PARTS 13.35
057660 01/04/07 REPAIR PARTS 40.04
057689 01/04/07 REPAIR PARTS 3.44
057609 01/03/07 REPAIR PARTS 31.00
057610 01/03/07 REPAIR PARTS 7.69
060867 01/31107 REPAIR PARTS 11.72
061124 02/01/07 REPAIR PARTS 6.15
061555 02105/07 REPAIR PARTS 86.16
Page 12 of21
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
061632 02/06/07 REPAIR PARTS 101.26
061591 02/06/07 REPAIR PARTS 3.35
061581 02/06107 REPAIR PARTS 79.59
061648 02/06/07 REPAIR PARTS 16.85
061771 02/07/07 REPAIR PARTS 75.41
061789 02/07/07 REPAIR PARTS 16.37
061772 02/07/07 REPAIR PARTS 15.12
061774 02/07/07 REPAIR PARTS 53.86
061787 02/07/07 REPAIR PARTS 8.65
061989 02/08/07 REPAIR PARTS 76.19
061963 02108/07 REPAIR PARTS 268.83
061115 02101/07 REPAIR PARTS 16.15
057454 01/02/07 REPAIR PARTS 21.75
057119 12/28/06 REPAIR PARTS 310.72
058307 01/09/07 REPAIR PARTS 229.57
058306 01/09/07 REPAIR PARTS 229.57
060858 01/31/07 REPAIR PARTS 32.93
056541 CREDIT MEMO (16.65)1,869.89
2004704 02/07/07 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2371694 02/06/07 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 9,996.86 9,996.86
2004907 02/21/07 03523 NATIONALDEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2372017 02/20/07 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 10,002.05 10,002.05
2004999 02/28/07 03733 NEC UNIFIED SOLUTIONS INC VSH10233721 02/05/07 LABOR FOR PHONES SVCS 229.50 229.50
2005000 02/28/07 03733 NEC UNIFIED SOLUTIONS INC VSH10233694 02/02107 LABOR FOR PHONES SVCS 113.00
VSH10233692 02/02/07 LABOR FOR PHONES SVCS 173.00 286.00
2004908 02/21/07 03487 NETWORKINSIGHT NISD200702008 01/31107 NETWORK MONITORING SERVICES 4,755.00 4,755.00
2004760 02/07107 06817 NEW HILL SERVICES D17RAE01 01/08/07 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL FEE 134.95 134.95
2004838 02/14/07 02848 NEWMAN,E PATRICK 015667 02/13/07 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM 1,098.99 1,098.99
2004761 02/07/07 03571 NEXTLEVELINTERNET 11980 01/14/07 INTERNET WEB HOSTING 357.00 357.00
2004909 02/21/07 05332 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC 7050068 01/29/07 LA PRESA 850-4 RESERVOIR 1,285.00 1,285.00
2005001 02/28/07 06837 NOVA INFORMATION SYSTEMS 015679 01/31/07 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEE 20.00 20.00
2004762 02107/07 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 370828324001 01/17/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,212.39
370456265001 01/17/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 365.39
371522409001 01/17/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.36
365840449001 12/06/06 OFFICE SUPPLIES 47.51
371576041001 01/17/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.55
370829471001 01/17/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.09 1,730.29
Page 13 of 21
~""'...o-=-"",..-~."",,,
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2n12007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004839 02/14/07 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 372397242001 CREDIT RETURNED MERCHANDISE (16.19)
370362130001 01110/07 FRAMES 85.46
371820361001 01124/07 OFFICESUPPLIES 66.75
372725044001 01124/07 OFFICESUPPLIES 29.08
371822374001 01124107 OFFICESUPPLIES 25.19
372256163001 01124107 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.29
372723917001 01124107 OFFICESUPPLIES 13.07 225.65
2004910 02121107 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 373192182001 CREDIT MEMO (135.66)
372972312001 01/31/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 276.86
372816978001 01131/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 150.19
373289299001 01131/07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 130.82
373622527001 01131107 OFFICE SUPPLIES 46.33
372815827001 01131107 OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.62 509.16
2005002 02128/07 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 374873353001 02107107 INKJET CARTIDGES 162.49 162.49
2004763 02107107 01837 OFFICE TEAM 17819730 01129107 TEMPORARY SVCS-PUBLIC SERVICES 747.84
17775142 01123/07 TEMPORARY SERVICES -METER DEPT 463.98
17791933 01129107 TEMPORARY SVCS-PUBLIC SERVICES 42.00
17775143 01/23107 TEMPORARY SERVICES -METER DEPT 37.62 1,291.44
2004840 02/14107 01837 OFFICE TEAM 17821165 01129/07 TEMPORARY SVCS-METER DEPT 902.88
17866770 02/05/07 TEMPORARY SERVICES -METERDEPT 576.84
17874821 02105107 TEMPORARY SERVICES -METERDEPT 25.08 1,504.80
2004911 02/21107 01837 OFFICE TEAM 17874176 02105107 .TEMPORARY SVCS-PUBLIC SVCS 934.80
17905231 02112107 TEMPORARY SERVICES -PUBLIC SVCS 934.80 1,869.60
2005003 02/28107 01837 OFFICE TEAM 17924153 02112107 TEMPORARY SVCS-METER DEPT 639.54
17924146 02112107 TEMPORARY SVCS-METER DEPT 75.24
17957949 02/19107 TEMPORARY SERVICES -PUBLIC SVCS 934.80 1,649.58
2004912 02121107 03149 ON SITE LASER 38636 01/29107 PRINTER SERVICE 337.30 337.30
2005004 02128/07 02721 ORTIZ CORPORATION 20 01/15/07 30"RECYCLED WTRPIPELINE PROJ 18,293.09 18,293.09
2004764 02/07107 02334 OTAY LANDFILL 004308 01115/07 WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES 1,062.80 1,062.80
2004841 02114/07 02334 OTAY LANDFILL 004358 01131107 WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES 851.43
004163 12115106 WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES 651.10 1,502.53
2004842 02114107 01718 OTAY MESACHAMBEROF COMMERCE 015662 02108107 ANNUAL INSTALLATION DINNER 950.00 950.00
2004705 02107107 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2371696 02106107 PAYROLL DEDUCTION -ASSN DUES 777.00 777.00
Page 14 of21
=-,~,,,_w~_,,·_·
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 21712007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004913 02/21/07 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2372019 02/20/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION -ASSN DUES 784.00 784.00
2004765 02/07/07 04463 PACIFIC GREEN LANDSCAPE INC 00419851N 01/15/07 LANDSCAPING SERVICES 7,850.00
0042070lN 01/15/07 LANDSCAPE TREE REMOVAL 500.00 8,350.00
2004914 02/21/07 05497 PAYPAL INC 4628880 01/31/07 ON-LINE PAYMENT SERVICES 364.50 364.50
2004766 02/07/07 03308 PBS&J 0317485 01/16/07 OWD WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT REV 4,181.34 4,181.34
2005005 02/28/07 03308 PBS&J 0311840 11/17/06 1485 PS REPLACEMENT 660.00 660.00
2004767 02/07/07 00227 PELL MELL SUPPLY 43577400 01/15/07 BOLTS 604.00 604.00
2004915 02/21/07 00227 PELL MELL SUPPLY 43629400 01/29/07 STAINLESS NUTS AND BOLTS 978.75 978.75
2004768 02/07/07 03790 PENHALL COMPANY 5099 01/18/07 FLAT SAW CUTTING SERVICES 318.00 318.00
2004843 02/14/07 03790 PENHALL COMPANY 5210 01/25/07 FLAT SAW CUTTING SERVICES 240.00 240.00
2004916 02/21/07 03790 PENHALL COMPANY 5243 01/31/07 FLAT SAW CUTTING SERVICES 370.00
5295 01/31/07 FLAT SAW CUTTING SERVICES 233.00 603.00
2004769 02/07/07 00593 PEPPER OIL COMPANY INC 600927 01/10/07 UNLEADED FUEL 11,850.10 11,850.10
2004706 02/07/07 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 015641 02/06/07 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 1,027.29 1,027.29
2004917 02/21/07 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 015676 02/20107 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 1,145.56 1,145.56
2004770 02/07/07 02786 PIONEER AMERICAS LLC 5538775900 01/17/07 CHLORINE 2,187.55 2,187.55
2004918 02/21/07 02786 PIONEER AMERICAS LLC 5538779775 02/01/07 CHLORINE 1,458.38 1,458.38
2004844 02/14/07 05333 PITTMAN,TINA 015664 02/07/07 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 125.00 125.00
2004771 02/07/07 06419 PLANT SOUP INC 412 01/14/07 PROFESSIONAL WRITING SERVICES 469.50 469.50
2004919 02/21/07 01715 PORRAS,PEDRO J 015599 01/22/07 CONFERENCE TRVL EXPENSES 684.05 684.05
2004772 02/07/07 05499 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 25059450 01/17/07 WELDING SUPPLIES 351.49
25042002 01/12/07 WELDING SUPPLIES 171.31 522.80
2005006 02/28/07 05499 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 25098152 01/20/07 WELDING SUPPLIES 435.10 435.10
2005007 02/28/07 02976 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 015688 02/26/07 LEGAL SERVICES 89.70 89.70
Page 15 of21
..".__._-,-,,~~.
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004845 02/14/07 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Ben2371690 02/06/07 PERS CONTRIBUTION 104,515.73 104,515.73
2005008 02/28/07 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Ben2372013 02/20/07 PERS CONTRIBUTION 104,887.29 104,887.29
2004920 02/21/07 01342 R J SAFETYSUPPLYCO INC 23318800 01/31107 SAFETY 575.17
23302900 02/01/07 WAREHOUSE SAFETY 119.89 695.06
2005009 02/28107 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 23302901 02/07/07 SAFETY APPAREL 116.43 116.43
2005010 02/28/07 06840 RANCHWOOD DELI 015686 02/21/07 CATERING SERVICES 594.00 594.00
2004921 02/21/07 02041 RBF CONSULTING 6120809 01/26/07 AS NEEDED ENG DRAFTING SVCS 12,211.26 12,211.26
2004846 02/14/07 02891 RED WING SHOE STORE 8270000000822 01/25/07 SAFETY BOOTS 124.78 124.78
2004773 02/07/07 06645 RELIABLE ELEVATOR INC 8175 01/12/07 ELEVATOR SERVICE &MAINTENANCE 390.00 390.00
2004922 02/21107 06645 RELIABLE ELEVATOR INC 8284 02/01/07 ELEVATOR SERVICE &MAINTENANCE 390.00 390.00
2005011 02/28/07 01789 RIPPERGER,RONALD H 015681 02/26/07 CONF TRAVEL EXPENSES 155.48 155.48
2005012 02/28/07 04542 ROBAK,MARK 7014107 01/31/07 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 66.45 66.45
2004923 02/21/07 00217 RW LITTLE CO INC 81131 01/30/07 POWDER COATING SEWER PUMP PARTS 150.00 150.00
2004847 02/14/07 05130 SAFARI MICRO INC 153806 01/22/07 DLT TAPES FOR BACK-UP 4,956.50 4,956.50
2005013 02/28/07 03687 SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC M003953396 01/22/07 USED OIL 25.00 25.00
2004774 02107107 03069 SAN DIEGO CITY TREASURER 015646 02106107 COMPANY PICNIC RESERVATION DEPOSIT 100.00 100.00
2004924 02/21/07 03069 SAN DIEGO CITY TREASURER 015670 02/14/07 ADDL DEPOSIT FOR COMPANY PICNIC 100.00 100.00
2004925 02/21/07 03803 SAN DIEGO CLIPPING SERVICE INC 439070201 02/01/07 NEWSPAPER CLIPPING SERVICE 86.00 86.00
2004775 02/07/07 02680 SAN DIEGO COUNTY 015622 01/30/07 SEMINARREGISTRATION 75.00 75.00
2004926 02/21/07 06828 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF G11558 01/18/07 SCHOOLS DIRECTORY 32.33 32.33
2004776 02/07/07 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER 6206 01/25/07 RESIDENTIAL ULFT/HET VOUCHERPROGRAM 12,370.58
6174 01/24/07 RESIDENTIAL HEW VOUCHER PROGRAM 3,768.00
6219 01/25/07 SMART LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 1,014.00 17,152.58
2004848 02/14107 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER 6240 02/05/07 CII VOUCHER PROGRAMS 292.50 292.50
2005014 02/28/07 00247 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT 39321 02/08107 ENG SERVICES ADVERTISEMENT 87.00 87.00
Page 16 of21
OTAYWATERDISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004777 02/07/07 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 015630 01/31/07 UTILITY EXPENSES 55,119.46
015636 01/31/07 UTILITY EXPENSE 348.16
015637 01/31/07 UTILITY EXPENSE 82.76 55,550.38
2004849 02/14107 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 015663 01/31107 UTILITY EXPENSES 1,344.33 1,344.33
2004927 02/21/07 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 015674 02/15/07 UTILITY EXPENSES 26.42 26.42
2005015 02/28/07 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 015682 02/22/07 UTILITY EXPENSES 519.83
015678 02/16/07 UTILITY EXPENSES 13,005.17 13,525.00
2004928 02/21/07 03809 SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOOD NEWS 01524366001 01/26/07 JOB POSTING 147.00 147.00
2004929 02/21/07 03273 SAN DIEGO READER 170 01/31107 JOB POSTING 152.15 152.15
2005016 02/28/07 03273 SAN DIEGO READER 173 02/06/07 JOB POSTING 137.45 137.45
2004778 02/07/07 06821 SAN DIEGO RECREATION AND 015648 02/06/07 MEMBERSHIP FEE 220.00 220.00
2004930 02/21/07 06651 SEDONA STAFFING SERVICES 133774 02/15/07 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 45.50 45.50
2004850 02/14/07 01651 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL CTRS 184C 01/20107 PREPLACEMENT EXAM 88.00
184B 01/20107 PREPLACEMENT EXAM 88.00
184A 01/20107 PREPLACEMENT EXAM 88.00
184 01/20107 PREPLACEMENT EXAM 88.00 352.00
2004779 02/07/07 05983 SIEMENS WATER 2011052 01/16/07 DEPOLOX MEMBRANE SENSOR PACK 217.20 217.20
2004931 02/21/07 05983 SIEMENS WATER 2023634 01/30107 ACUTEC 35 GAS DETECTOR PARTS 1,104.73 1,104.73
2005017 02/28/07 05983 SIEMENS WATER 2028206 02/02/07 MICRO 2000 CL2 ANALYZER PARTS 1,727.96 1,727.96
2004851 02/14107 06824 SIEMPRE VIVA BUSINESS PARK LLC 015649 02/06/07 REFUND WIO #00180-010033 631.40 631.40
2004852 02/14/07 06643 SIGMA CONTROLS INC 011136 01/23107 LEVEL TRANSMITTER 904.02 904.02
2004932 02/21/07 05627 SIGNA DIGITAL SOLUTIONS INC ARS06485 01/31107 COPIER MAINTENANCE 101.00
ARS06459 01/31107 COPIER MAINTENANCE 100.00 201.00
2005018 02/28/07 05627 SIGNA DIGITAL SOLUTIONS INC ARS06557 02/06/07 COPIER MAINTENANCE 101.00
ARS06592 02/07/07 COPIER MAINT 24.00 125.00
2004780 02/07107 01691 SKILLPATH SEMINARS 9012190 01/26/07 SEMINAR REGISTRATION FEE 199.00 199.00
2005019 02/28/07 01691 SKILLPATH SEMINARS 9041632 02/15/07 SEMINAR REGISTRATION 149.00
Page 17 of21
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
9041633 02/15/07 SEMINAR REGISTRATION 149.00 298.00
2004933 02/21/07 00258 SLOAN ELECTRIC CO 0051318 01/30/07 EFFLUENT CHECK VALVE PARTS WWTP 1,189.73 1,189.73
2005020 02/28/07 00258 SLOAN ELECTRIC CO 0051337 01/31/07 EFFLUENT PUMP REPAIRS 24,573.82 24,573.82
2004781 02/07/07 03071 SOCO GROUP INC,THE 105457 01/16/07 MOBIL SHC 626 805.16 805.16
2005021 02/28107 03592 SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION 1301475 02/01/07 SYMANTEC BACKUP EXEC SOFTWARE 2,899.78 2,899.78
2004853 02/14/07 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 647026 01/19/07 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 68.62
647025 01/19/07 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 67.02
647028 01/19/07 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 67.02
647027 01/19/07 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 67.02
647374 01/22/07 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 67.02 336.70
2004934 02/21/07 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 550941 11/09/06 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 84.13
649071 02101/07 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 84.12
550762 11/08/06 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 55.64
648846 01/31/07 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL 55.64 279.53
2004782 02/07/07 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 8940 01/15/07 SECURITY SERVICE &REPAIRS 149.05 149.05
2004935 02/21/07 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 8990 01/29/07 SECURITY SERVICE &REPAIRS 444.16
8991 01/29/07 SECURITY SERVICE &REPAIRS 127.50 571.66
2005022 02/28/07 06524 STANLEYACCESS TECH LLC 97973839 12/30/06 AUTOMATIC SWING DOOR MAINT 125.00 125.00
2004707 02/07/07 06295 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2371704 02/06/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 294.46 294.46
2004708 02/07/07 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2371702 02/06/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69
2004709 02/07/07 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2371706 02/06/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 482.76 482.76
2004936 02/21/07 06295 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2372027 02/20/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 294.46 294.46
2004937 02/21107 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2372025 02120/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69
2004938 02/21/07 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2372029 02/20/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 482.76 482.76
2005023 02/28/07 00274 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 29586 02/26/07 RENEWAL APPLICATION FEE 125.00 125.00
I
2004710 02/07/07 02261 STATE STREET BANK &TRUST CO Ben2371692 02/06/07 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 3,794.46 3,794.46
2004939 02/21/07 02261 STATE STREET BANK &TRUST CO Ben2372015 02/20/07 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 4,568.37 4,568.37
Page 18 of21
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2n12007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004940 02/21/07 03263 STRUNKS JR,DALE R 015671 02/15/07 EXAMINATION/CERTIFICATION FEE 145.00 145.00
2004941 02/21/07 04221 SUTHERLIN ASSOCIATED SERVICES OWD120106 12/07/06 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,067.00
OWD010107 01/04/07 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 375.00 1,442.00
2004854 02/14/07 02799 TARULLI TIRE INC -SAN DIEGO 20028175 12/27/06 TIRES &REPAIR SERVICES 107.79 107.79
2004943 02/21/07 01834 TC CONSTRUCTION INC 18359 01/29107 450-1 RW RESERVOIR &680-1 RW P STATION 743,090.20 743,090.20
2004783 02107107 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 1908 01/15/07 MISCELLANEOUS SCADA LABOR TASK 275.00 275.00
2004855 02/14/07 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 1909 01/19/07 LOPS FLOW TOTALIZATION IN HMI 1,320.00 1,320.00
2005024 02/28/07 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 1914 02/05/07 INSTALL SOFTWARE/HARDWARE ON NEW SER'9,890.00 9,890.00
2004856 02/14/07 05004 TEG STAFFING INC 10308349 02/09/07 TEMPORARY SERVICES-HR DEPT 1,085.70 1,085.70
2004944 02/21/07 05004 TEG STAFFING INC 10309390 02/16/07 TEMPORARY SERVICES -HR DEPT 1,848.00 1,848.00
2005025 02/28/07 05004 TEG STAFFING INC 10310045 02/23/07 TEMPORARY SERVICES -HR DEPT 1,201.20 1,201.20
2004857 02/14/07 04216 TELE ATLAS NORTH AMERICA INC INV35569 10/24/06 DYNAMAP/2000 FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY 900.00 900.00
2005026 02128/07 06664 TELEPHONE DOCTOR INC 53184 01/25/07 CUSTOMER SERVICE DVD TRAINING 3,630.00 3,630.00
2005027 02/28/07 00196 THE DRAWING BOARD 2475736 02/08/07 MAILING LABELS 338.69 338.69
2004942 02/21/07 04977 T-MOBILE 015665 02/05/07 CELL PHONE &BLACKBERRIES SERVICE 2,318.63
4272085930207 02/04/07 CELL PHONE &BLACKBERRY SERVICE 92.49 2,411.12
2004945 02/21/07 06829 USSECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 773304 01/25/07 Monthly response servicesfor period 110.00 110.00
2004946 02/21/07 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 120070461 02/01/07 UNDERGROUND TRENCH SVC ALERTS 360.00 360.00
2004947 02/21107 00075 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO C070102779 01/31/07 JOB POSTINGS 2,667.52 2,667.52
2004784 02/07/07 02613 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC 62239915001 01/18/07 CONCRETE 172.48
62211647001 01/17107 CONCRETE 118.53 291.01
2004711 02/07/07 05417 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ben2371710 02/06/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 100.00 100.00
2004948 02/21/07 05417 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ben2372033 02/20/07 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 100.00 100.00
2004858 02/14/07 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 015655 02/12/07 REIMBURSE POSTAGE MACHINE 1,500.00 1,500.00
2005028 02/28/07 00853 UNIVAR USA INC SD626150 02/08/07 BULK AQUAAMMONIA 2,101.64 2,101.64
Page 19 of21
------
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2/7/2007 TO 2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004949 02/21/07 03212 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE Ben2372011 02/20/07 LONG TERM DISABILITY 5,507.01 5,507.01
2004712 02/07/07 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2371700 02/06/07 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 5,771.39 5,771.39
2004950 02/21/07 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2372023 02/20/07 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 4,982.93 4,982.93
2004785 02/07107 03329 VERIZON WIRELESS 2108410399 01/21/07 CELL PHONESERVICE 5,254.61 5,254.61
2004786 02/07/07 00101 W W GRAINGER INC 9269318755 01/09/07 LU 70 WATT LAMPS 125.94
9277826641 01/18/07 POCKET TOOL POUCH 36.37 162.31
2004859 02/14/07 00101 W W GRAINGER INC 9282752766 01/25/07 HEATER BLOWER MOTOR 191.06
9282752774 01/25/07 HEATER BLOWER MOTOR 191.06
9278770962 01/19/07 VARIOUS HARDWARE 175.40
9281486721 01/23/07 LAMPS &SENSOR 43.20 600.72
2004951 02/21/07 00101 W W GRAINGER INC 9286398764 01/30107 FLUORESCENT LAMPS 22.63 22.63
2005029 02/28107 00101 W W GRAINGER INC 9294172680 02/08/07 WEATHERPROOF COVERS 97.75 97.75
2004787 02/07/07 00262 WATER AGENCIES ASSOCIATION 015628 01/24/07 200712008 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP DUES 100.00 100.00
2004788 02/07/07 00014 WAXIE SANITARYSUPPLY 69843949 01/17/07 SANITARY SUPPLIES 974.38 974.38
2004860 02/14107 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL 39481 01/10107 PEST CONTROL SERVICE 200.00
39101 12/13/06 PEST CONTROL SERVICE 200.00
39378 01/04/07 BEE REMOVAL 115.00
35567 06/15/06 PEST CONTROL SERVICE 115.00
39445 01/05/07 BEE REMOVAL FROM METER BOXES 115.00
38980 12/06/06 BEE REMOVAL 115.00
39554 01/11/07 BEE REMOVAL 115.00
39444 01/05/07 BEE REMOVAL FROM METERBOXES 115.00
35992 07/05/06 BEE REMOVAL 115.00
39108 12/13/06 PEST CONTROL 40.00
38693 11/17/06 PEST CONTROL 40.00
39209 12/20/06 PEST CONTROL 40.00
39704 01/23/07 PEST CONTROL 40.00 1,365.00
2004789 02/07/07 00190 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 812970422 01/20107 LEGAL LIBRARY UPDATES &SUBS SVC 122.84 122.84
2004790 02/07/07 06816 WESTEND SERVICES 015632 02/02/07 REFUND OF OVER-PAYMENT ON TESTER 5.00 5.00
2004861 02/14/07 00125 WESTERN PUMP 00564971N 01/29/07 APCD TESTING 625.00 625.00
2004952 02/21/07 00125 WESTERN PUMP INC 00572791N 01/31/07 APCD TESTING 625.00 625.00
Page 20 of 21
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2004701 THROUGH 2005032
RUN DATES 2m2007 TO2/28/2007
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2004791 02/07/07 03692 WESTIN ENGINEERING INC 27356 01/12/07 SCADA DOCUMENTATION PROJECT 1,012.50 1,012.50
2005030 02/28/07 03437 WIENHOFF DRUG TESTING INC 13451 02/01/07 RANDOM TESTING 110.00 110.00
2005031 02/28/07 02725 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN 69772527 02/08/07 MOBILE OFFICE RENTAL 310.52
69635127 02/02/07 28'TRAILER RENTAL 287.53 598.05
2004862 02/14/07 03468 WILSON,PETTY,KOSMO &20873 12/31/06 LEGAL SERVICES DECEMBER 2006 1,624.00
20872 12/31/06 LEGAL SERVICES DECEMBER 2006 44.00 1,668.00
2005032 02/28/07 06288 ZONDIROS CORPORATION 2 02/05/07 1905 UTILITYRELOCATIONS 135,229.98 135,229.98
GRAND TOTAL 3,618,602.26 3,618,602.26
Page 21 of21
--------------~-----------._------~-
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY
FOR SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31,2007
Exhibit A
Annual YTD YTD YTD
Budget Actual Budget Variance Var%
REVENUE:
Water Sales $29,866,000 $18,973,046 $18,755,100 $217,946 1.2%
Energy Charges 1,853,000 1,259,266 1,187,600 71,666 6.0%
System Charges 8,529,300 4,851,226 4,848,400 2,826 0.1%
Penalties 704,500 415,917 408,600 7,317 1.8%
MWD &CWA Fixed Charges 2,178,000 1,154,502 1,153,500 1,002 0.1%
Total Water Sales 43,130,800 26,653,957 26,353,200 300,757 1.1%
Reclamation Sales 4,485,400 2,620,630 2,598,700 21,930 0.8%
Sewer Charges 2,568,100 1,447,658 1,435,500 12,158 0.8%
Meter Fees 278,500 140,701 162,400 (21,699)(13.4%)
Capacity Fee Revenues 1,000,200 809,035 583,700 225,335 38.6%
Annexation Fees 1,216,900 1,158,822 730,100 428,722 58.7%
Non-Operating Revenues 1,674,100 851,267 783,400 67,867 8.7%
Tax Revenues 3,427,400 1,970,104 1,872,500 97,604 5.2%
Interest 1,005,600 698,075 586,600 111,475 19.0%
General Fund Draw Down 283,600 165,400 165,400 0.0%
Total Revenue $59,070,600 $36,515,651 $35,271,500 $1,244,151 3.5%
EXPENSES:
Water Purchases $22,954,900 $14,571,115 $14,501,400 $(69,715)(0.5%)
CWA-Infrastructure Access Charge 1,003,900 574,297 574,300 3 0.0%
CWA-Customer Service Charge 846,800 479,735 479,600 (135)(0.0%)
CWA-Emergency Storage Charge 1,230,600 697,795 697,600 (195)(0.0%)
MWD-Capacity Res Charge 514,800 303,108 300,300 (2,808)(0.9%)
MWD-Readiness to Serve Charge 512,200 298,788 298,700 (88)(0.0%)
Subtotal Water Purchases 27,063,200 16,924,838 16,851,900 (72,938)(0.4%)
Power Charges 2,677,800 1,527,663 1,499,600 (28,063)(1.9%)
Payroll &Related Costs 14,606,300 8,234,793 8,553,340 318,547 3.7%
Material &Maintenance 4,623,700 2,251,891 2,697,163 445,272 16.5%
Administrative Expenses 4,888,600 2,221,883 2,868,575 646,693 22.5%
Legal Fees 671,000 425,123 391,417 (33,707)(8.6%)
Replacement Reserve 4,540,000 2,648,300 2,648,300 0.0%
Total Expenses $59,070,600 $34,234,492 $35,510,295 $1,275,803 3.6%
Excess Revenue (Expense)$$2,281,159 $(238,795)$2,519,954
F:/MORPT/FS2007-0107 2/26/2007 10:15 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW
JANUARY 31,2007
INVESTMENT OVERVIEW &MARKET STATUS:
The Federal Reserve Board's federal funds rate remains unchanged since its Jun-06 rise to 5.25%.Investment analysts are now
projecting rates will remain at this level through the second quarter of2007,with a possible rise to 5.50%after June.Because of this,
bond yields have edged back up slightly from levels seen during the last 2 - 3 months.This forecast is uncertain enough that long-
term interest rates remain very close to short-term rates,with very little reward for investing in securities beyond 12 -18 months.
There continues to be an inverted yield curve with many bonds in the 2 - 3 year maturity range having a lower yield than shorter term
bonds.Based on this assessment,we plan to maintain our current strategy ofinvesting in short-term Federal Agency securities until
longer term investments become more attractive.
The District's overall return on investment continues to increase,as the last of several longer term investments (with rates below
5.0%)mature,while the LAIF return on deposits appears to have stabilized at about 8 -10 basis points below the federal funds rate.
The majority ofour investment portfolio is now above 5.0%,and our overall return on investment is within 30 basis points ofour
strategic goal to meet or exceed 100%ofLAIF.
In accordance with the District's Investment Policy,all District funds continue to be managed based on the objectives,in priority
order,ofsafety,liquidity,and return on investment.
PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE:January 31,2007
Investment
8.01:Treasury Securities
8.02:Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
8.03:Federal Agency Issues
8.04:Certificates ofDeposit
8.05:Short-Term Commercial Notes
8.06:Medium-Term Commercial Debt
8.07:Money Market Mutual Funds
8.08:San Diego County Pool
12.0:Maximum Single Financial Institution
State Limit
100%
$40 Million
100%
30%
25%
30%
20%
100%
100%
Otay Limit
100%
$40 Million
100%
15%
15%
15%
15%
100%
50%
Otay Actual
4.28%
$10.5 Million
77.05%
0.11%
o
o
o
0.15%
3.47%
Performance Measure F-12'
Return on Investment
Target:Meet or Exceed 1000/0 of LAIF
6--.-----------------------------.
o...c
CD
E...oCD>s::::-s::::o
CJo.
:::J...CDa:
5.11
5 -j-------------~52.--------
4.05
4,
3.
2 .,'--~
1
Otay 0t2nd ~::Y06 3rd ~::Y06 ~ili ~::Y06 Vst ~~:~Y~d ~~:Y07:Ja:::07 I~LAiF r~64_-4~~_-4.52 4.93 ~~.5.1i---=1 ~~_..·-=i
,I I
[0 Difference ,0.81 0.79 0.50 0.43 0.38!0.2_1__
Month
~Otay •LAIF D Difference -Lin~ar (Difference:D
Otay Water District
Investment Portfolio
3.59%
o Banks (Passbook/Checking/CD)•Pools (LAlF & County) 0 Treasuries 0 Agencies
15.09%
4.28%
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
January 31,2007
Investments
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
Treasury Securities -Coupon
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
San Diego County Pool
Investments
Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM
Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv.365 Equiv.
54,000,000.00 53,914,739.68 53,983,908.33 79.82 488 316 5.140 5.211
3,000,000.00 2,993,437.50 2,996,641.17 4.43 429 58 4.431 4.492
79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 0.12 730 355 3.880 3.934
10,471,886.34 10,466,068.44 10,471,886.34 15.48 1 1 5.085 5.156
103,358.99 103,303.45 103,358.99 0.15 1 1 5.031 5.101
67,654,353.33 67,556,657.07 67,634,902.83 100.00%409 255 5.099 5.169
Cash
Passbook/Checking
(not included in yield calculations)
Total Cash and Investments
Total Earnings
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
2,434,412.25
70,088,765.58
January31 Month Ending
298,631.10
70,989,623.28
4.95%
2,434,412.25
69,991,069.32
Fiscal Year To Date
1,976,614.42
71,901,362.62
4.67%
2,434,412.25
70,069,315.08 409 255
2.144
5.099
2.174
5.169
I hereby certify that the investments contained in this report are made in accordance with the District Investment Policy Number 27 adopted by the Board of Directors on January 19,2000.The market
value informa~~~~p~rOVide~~y_~~ractiveData Corporation.The investments provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow requirements of the District for the next six months ofexpenditures.
---~-7=-;2/--07~~,~
Run Date:02120/2007 -12:55
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF_PM1)SymRept6.41.200
Report Ver.5.00
OTAY
Portfolio Management Page 2
Portfolio Details -Investments
January 31 J 2007
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment #Issuer Balance Date ParValue Market Value BookValue Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Date
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
31359M2L6 2012 FANNIE MAE 12/1112006 3,000,000.00 2,992,500.00 3,000,000.00 5.250 5.178 496 06/11/2008
3133XEMS5 1998 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/28/2006 3,000,000.00 2,991,562.50 3,000,000.00 5.000 4.943 300 11/28/2007
3133XEP45 1999 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/02/2006 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 3,000,000.00 5.000 4.932 29 03/02/2007
3133XETX7 2001 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/14/2006 3,000,000.00 2,995,312.50 3,000,000.00 5.125 5.055 225 09/14/2007
3133XF2C9 2002 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/25/2006 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 3,000,000.00 5.250 5.175 244 10/03/2007
3133XFBX3 2003 Federal Home Loan Bank 05/04/2006 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 3,000,000.00 5.250 5.178 92 05/04/2007
3133XHOA 2009 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/20/2006 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 3,000,000.00 5.150 5.076 68 04/10/2007
3133XJ2P2 2010 Federal Home Loan Bank 12105/2006 3,000,000.00 2,995,312.50 3,000,000.00 5.200 5.129 307 12/05/2007
3133XHR46 2011 Federal Home Loan Bank 12104/2006 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 5.300 5.225 469 05/15/2008
3133XJ606 2013 Federal Home Loan Bank 12129/2006 3,000,000.00 2,986,875.00 3,000,000.00 5.125 5.055 697 12129/2008
3133XGNZ3 2014 Federal Home Loan Bank 01108/2007 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,001,326.70 5.500 5.375 385 02121/2008
3133XJJV1 2015 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/10/2007 3,000,000.00 2,997,187.50 3,000,000.00 5.375 5.301 525 07/10/2008
3133XJR91 2016 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/30/2007 3,000,000.00 2,995,312.50 3,000,000.00 5.400 5.326 729 01/30/2009
3133XJS01 2017 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/30/2007 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 3,000,000.00 5.250 5.173 335 01/02/2008
3128X4K67 2000 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 03/07/2006 3,000,000.00 2,990,321.96 3,000,000.00 5.250 5.178 400 03/07/2008
3128X4DY4 2004 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 05/18/2006 3,000,000.00 2,982,719.88 2,984,407.01 4.000 5.129 162 07/13/2007
3128X4CE9 2005 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 05/18/2006 3,000,000.00 2,997,947.84 2,998,174.62 3.625 5.161 14 02/15/2007
31359MG31 1997 Federal National Mortage Assoc 02/24/2006 3,000,000.00 2,994,375.00 3,000,000.00 5.000 4.932 204 08/24/2007
Subtotal and Average 49,528,844.12 54,000,000.00 53,914,739.68 53,983,908.33 5.140 316
Treasury Securities -Coupon
912828000 1994 USTREASURY 01/26/2006 3,000,000.00 2,993,437.50 2,996,641.17 3.750 4.431 58 03/31/2007----------
Subtotal and Average 5,897,519.24 3,000,000.00 2,993,437.50 2,996,641.17 4.431 58
Certificates ofDeposit -Bank
2050003183R 1996 California Bank &Trust 01/22/2006 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 3.880 3.880 355 01/22/2008
Subtotal and Average 79,108,00 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 3.880 355
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 10,471,886.34 10,466,068.44 10,471,886.34 5.156 5.085
Subtotal and Average 13,142,280.84 10,471,886.34 10,466,068.44 10,471,886.34 5.085
San Diego County Pool
SO COUNTY POOL 9007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 103,358.99 103,303.45 103,358.99 5.101 5.031
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date:0212012007 -12:55 PM (PRF_PM2)SymRepI6.41.200
Report Ver.5.00
-"-._---_.-.-_.__._.._~----------_..-.._,•.._.~.'~',..._-"~~--_.
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details -Investments
January 31,2007
Page 3
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Average
Balance
Purchase
Date Par Value Market Value
Stated
Book Value Rate Moody's
YTM Daysto
360 Maturity
Subtotal and Average
Total and Average
103,358.99
70,989,623.28
103,358.99
67,654,353.33
103,303.45
67,556,657.07
103,358.99
67,634,902.83
5.031
5.099 255
Run Date:02/2012007 -12:55
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM(PRF_PM2)SymRepI6.41.200
.c_.~~-----.------.--.~.
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details -Cash
January 31,2007
Average Purchase
CUSIP Investment#Issuer Balance Date ParValue
Union Bank
UNION BANK 9002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 200,189.02
PETTY CASH 9003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 2,800.00
CALIF BANK &TR 9004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 1,063,523.90
PAYROLL 9005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 54,522.17
UNION IOC 9008 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 05/01/2006 1,113,377.16
Average Balance 0.00
Total Cash and Investmentss 70,989,623.28 70,088,765.58
RunDale:0212012007 -12:55
~~~~.-,.._..__...---.-----
MarketValue
200,189.02
2,800.00
1,063,523.90
54,522.17
1,113,377.16
69,991,069.32
Page 4
Stated YTM Days to
Book Value Rate Moody's 360 Maturity
200,189.02 1.300 1.282
2,800.00 0.000
1,063,523.90 0.000
54,522.17 0.000
1,113,377.16 4.520 4.458
70,069,315.08 5.099 255
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.200
OTAY
Activity Report
Sorted By Issuer
July 1,2006 -January 31,2007
Par Value ParValue
Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending
CUSIP Investment #Issuer ofPortfolio Balance Rate Date Deposits Withdrawals Balance
Issuer:STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Union Bank
UNION BANK 9002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1.300 54,330,944.81 54,185,774.07
CALIF BANK &TR 9004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3,494,747.26 3,327,306.93
PAYROLL 9005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7,524.25 1,901.01
UNION IOC 9008 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4.520 12,856,758.01 11,774,073.82
Subtotal and Balance 1,033,493.75 70,689,974.33 69,289,055.83 2,434,412.25
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5.156 28,054,365.99 30,150,000.00
Subtotal and Balance 12,567,520.35 28,054,365.99 30,150,000.00 10,471,886.34
San Diego County Pool
SO COUNTY POOL 9007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5.101 4,267.26 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 99,091.73 4,267.26 0.00 103,358.99
Issuer Subtotal 18.562%13,700,105.83 98,748,607.58 99,439,055.83 13,009,657.58
Issuer:California Bank &Trust
Certificates ofDeposit -Bank
Subtotal and Balance 79,108.00 79,108.00
Issuer Subtotal 0.113%79,108.00 0.00 0.00 79,108.00
Issuer:FANNIE MAE
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
31359M2L6 2012 FANNIE MAE 5.250 12/11/2006 3,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00
IssuerSubtotal 4.280%0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00
RunDate:02120/2007 -12:56
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DA(PRF_DA)SymRept6.41.200
ReportVer.5.00
'~~~=~~~=""'==--'-'-,..~-..-.-.~~-------_...,~---------
OTAY
Activity Report Page 2
July 1,2006 -January 31,2007
Par Value ParValue
Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending
CUSIP Investment #Issuer ofPortfolio Balance Rate Date Deposits Withdrawals Balance
Issuer:Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3133X5ZG6 1977 Federal Home loan Bank 2.510 07/28/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133X6lN4 1980 Federal Home loan Bank 2.650 08/10/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133X8KE1 1988 Federal Home loan Bank 3.025 12129/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133X8KC5 1989 Federal Home loan Bank 3.000 09/28/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133XARM1 1990 Federal Home loan Bank 3.470 09/08/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133XASF5 1991 Federal Home loan Bank 3.500 12/08/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133XARK5 1992 Federal Home loan Bank 3.510 12/08/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133XFS72 2007 Federal Home loan Bank 5.350 12128/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133XGCU6 2008 Federal Home loan Bank 5.450 07/28/2006 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XGCU6 2008 Federal Home loan Bank 01/29/2007 0.00 3,000,000.00
3133XHDA 2009 Federal Home loan Bank 5.150 10/20/2006 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XJ2P2 2010 Federal Home loan Bank 5.200 12/05/2006 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XHR46 2011 Federal Home loan Bank 5.300 12104/2006 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XJ6Q6 2013 Federal Home loan Bank 5.125 12129/2006 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XGNZ3 2014 Federal Home loan Bank 5.500 01/08/2007 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XJJV1 2015 Federal Home loan Bank 5.375 01110/2007 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XJR91 2016 Federal Home loan Bank 5.400 01130/2007 3,000,000.00 0.00
3133XJSD1 2017 Federal Home loan Bank 5.250 01/30/2007 3,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotaland Balance 39,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 39,000,000.00
IssuerSubtotal 55.644%39,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 39,000,000.00
Issuer:Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3128X5CCO 2006 Federal Home loan Mortgage 5.340 12101/2006 0.00 3,000,000.00
Subtotaland Balance 12,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 9,000,000.00
IssuerSubtotal 12.841%12,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 9,000,000.00
Issuer:Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
Subtotal and Balance 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
Run Date:02120/2007 ..12:56
-----"".----_._----_.-...._--._-~--------._._._--._---=
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DA (PRF_DA)SymRept 6.41.200
ReportVer.5.00
OTAY
Activity Report
July 1,2006 -January 31,2007
Page 3
CUSIP
Issuer:US TREASURY
Investment#Issuer
Issuer Subtotal
Percent
of Portfolio
4.280%
Par Value
Beginning
Balance
3,000,000.00
Current Transaction
Rate Date
Purchases or
Deposits
0.00
ParValue
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
0.00
Ending
Balance
3,000,000.00
Treasury Securities -Coupon
Subtotal and Balance
IssuerSubtotal 4.280%
Total 100.000%
912828DJ6
912827Z62
1993
1995
US TREASURY
US TREASURY
9,000,000.00
9,000,000.00
76,779,213.83
3.125
6.500
01/31/2007
10/15/2006
0.00 3,000,000.00
0.00 3,000,000.00
0.00 6,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
0.00 6,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
128,748,607.58 135,439,055.83 70,088,765.58
Run Date:02/2012007 -12:56
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DA(PRF_DA)SymRepI6.41.200
ReportVer.5.00
OTAY
Duration Report
Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type
Through 01/31/2007
Investment Book Par Market Current YTM Current Maturity/Effective
Security 10 Investment#Fund Issuer Class Value Value Value Rate 365 Yield Call Date Duration
3133XFBX3 2003 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 5.250 5.250 5.314c 02104/2007 0.000
3133XHDA 2009 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 5.150 5.146 5.214 04/10/2007 0.186
3133XF2C9 2002 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 5.250 5.247 5.309 10/03/2007 0.642
3133XEMS5 1998 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,991,562.50 5.000 5.012 5.578c 02/28/2007 0.073
3133XEP45 1999 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 5.000 5.000 5.064 03/0212007 0.079
31359M2L6 2012 99 FANNIE MAE Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,992,500.00 5.250 5.250 5.764c 06/11/2007 0.356
3133XETX7 2001 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,995,312.50 5.125 5.125 5.395 09/14/2007 0.590
3133XGNZ3 2014 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,001,326.70 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 5.500 5.450 5.500c 02/21/2007 0.054
3133XJ2P2 2010 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,995,312.50 5.200 5.200 5.521 c 03/05/2007 0.000
3128X4K67 2000 99 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,990,321.96 5.250 5.250 5.562 03/07/2008 1.032
3128X4DY4 2004 99 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Fair 2,984,407.01 3,000,000.00 2,982,719.88 4.000 5.200 5.182 07/13/2007 0.443
3128X4CE9 2005 99 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Fair 2,998,174.62 3,000,000.00 2,997,947.84 3.625 5.232 3.764 02115/2007 0.038
31359MG31 1997 99 Federal National MortageAssoc Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,994,375.00 5.000 5.000 5.385c 02124/2007 0.063
3133XJ606 2013 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,986,875.00 5.125 5.125 6.026c 06/29/2007 0.405
3133XJSD1 2017 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,999,062.50 5.250 5.245 5.290 01102/2008 0.885
3133XHR46 2011 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 5.300 5.298 5.300c 02115/2007 0.000
3133XJJV1 2015 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,997,187.50 5.375 5.375 5.568c 04/10/2007 0.000
3133XJR91 2016 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,995,312.50 5.400 5.400 5.721 c 04/30/2007 0.000
912828DOO 1994 99 USTREASURY Fair 2,996,641.17 3,000,000.00 2,993,437.50 3.750 4.492 4.197 03/31/2007 0.158
2050003183R 1996 99 California Bank &Trust Amort 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 3.880 3.934 3.880 01/22/2008 0.953 t
Report Total 57,059,657.50 57,079,108.00 56,987,285.18 5.296 0.264t
t =Duration can not be calculated on these investments due to incompleteMarket price data.
Run Date:02/20/2007 -12:56
---_._-._~---------
Page 1
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DU (PRF_DU)SymRepI6.41.200
ReportVer.5.00
AGENDA ITEM 10
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:March 7,2007TYPEMEETING:Regular Board Meeting
SUBMITTED BY:Mark Watton,
General Manager
W.O./G.F.NO:N/A DIV.NO.N/A
SUBJECT:General Manager's Report
GENERAL MANAGER:
•Update on the 36-inch East County Regional Treated Water
Improvement Program (ECTWP)Pipeline Project:
~Monthly progress meetings are held with IEC to discuss
the team's progress on the five (5)alternative
alignments.Staff will meet on March 5 to select the
best alternative.
•Update on
Reservoir,
the 30-inch Recycled Water
and 680-1 Pump Station Projects:
Pipeline,450-1
~The start-up plan for the pipeline,reservoir and pump
station has been finalized.Start up preparation and
coordination with City of San Diego is underway.
~Permanent power has been provided to the reservoir and
pump station site,and the SDG&E gas meter has been
installed.
~CB&I,the reservoir sub-contractor,applied the final
coat of paint to the exterior tank vertical shell.
~TC Construction began painting interior piping in the
pump station.They also paved the area around the pump
station and conducted general interior and exterior
cleanup.
~The regional board staff has issued a temporary order
allowing the blending of the City's South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant water into the District's recycled
water system.The Regional Water Quality Control Board
is scheduled to meet in April 2007 to take formal
action.
•Update on the 640-1 & 2 Reservoirs Project:
~The contractor completed excavation underneath the
reservoir and the pipe gallery to rock.Blasting
occurred on February 26,2007 without any issues.
Neighboring residents were notified as required by the
project contract documents .
•Update on the 36-inch La Presa Transmission Main Shutdown:
~OPS staff dewatered the pipe from the old #11 CWA
connection to La Presa Pump Station and shut it down
for maintenance,repair and work by Schiff Assoc.OPS
rehabilitation of air vacs and man-ways was also
completed.
~The Pointe's "cutting in"of two tee assemblies was
completed successfully and ahead of schedule.Staff's
communication and coordination with The Pointe
Development contractor helped to ensure that the
transmission main was out of service for a minimal
amount of time.
•Fluoridation:The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California is advising its member agencies that it will be
delaying water fluoridation until October 2007.It was
originally planned that fluoridation would begin July 1,
2007.MWD began the process of converting its five water
treatment plants in February,2003.In conjunction with
MWD,the Helix Water District will begin fluoridating water
in October as well.Otay staff expects there will be no
operational issues when the conversion occurs.
With regard to public notification of the conversion,Otay
staff began advising customers of the pending change in
July,2006.This consisted of a column width article in
the 2006 Consumer Con·fidence Report providing customers
with information about fluoridation and encouraging those
with questions to talk with their medical or dental health
care professional,and provided them with Internet links to
the Center for Disease Control and Prevention,the American
Dental Association,and MWD.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND FINANCE:
Administrative Services:
•Three new hires started employment in the month of
February;Two GIS Technicians and a Survey Technician.
2
•The Safety &Risk Administrator has completed the "Hand
Trap"safety audit with SDRMA using PowerPoint as a tool
to help inform the affected departments.Each department
has viewed the presentation.
• A new Safety Procedure has been developed to formally
address hand signals used in the field for work around
equipment.Each work group will be provided with a chart
of signals.Each supervisor is responsible for ensuring
their staff is trained.
•CAL/OSHA citations -District counsel has been successful
in negotiating a settlement with CAL/OSHA over the
citations following the partial amputation of Mr.Alan
Biery's finger in a dump truck bed lock.There were
originally a total of four citations (one general,one
regulatory and two serious violations)totaling
$23,715.00.A settlement was reached with CAL/OSHA in
which one of the serious violations was reduced to a
general violation and the regulatory citation waived.
The original general citation was upheld for a total
settlement in the amount of $4655.00 and a non-admission
clause and waiver of legal costs.The District is
comfortable with this direction and has taken additional
steps to identify and address any other pinch point
conditions during a safety audit conducted jointly by
Safety &Risk Administration and Special District Risk
Management Authority.Meetings were held with the
departments and work sections to discuss the results of
the safety audit and to have any findings immediately
addressed .
•By the end of the month of February,approximately 11,000
of the District's pre-1994 homes will have received a
letter announcing the rapidly approaching end of the
single-family toilet voucher program which is scheduled
to end on March 31,2007.Program activity is currently
20%higher than last year's activity.NBC Channel 7/39
also interviewed Water Authority staff and Doug Brooks
from the Oakwood Development on February 14 with regard
to their recent commitment to install high efficiency
toilets in their new homes.
•School Program Activity:Staff conducted four school
tours at the Water Conservation Garden this month,
involving 195 students and 24 adults from Eastlake,
Parkview and Sweetwater Springs Elementary Schools.
Along with Helix and Sweetwater staff,Otay staff
conducted a 6 hour Project WET workshop for teachers at
3
the Garden this month.Staff also participated in an East
County Educators'meeting.
•Staff gave a presentation on the District's Cash for
Plants Program to the Helix Board on February 21st .
Highlights included:Over 32,500 square feet of Turf
grass that has been replaced through our program to date;
Southern Nevada Water Authority has replaced 78.5 million
square feet of turf grass and now offers $2/square foot;
El Paso Water has replaced 10.5 million square feet of
turf grass and offers $1 per square foot;at least 15
other water agencies in California offer an incentive to
replace unused turf grass.
•Thirty-four smart irrigation controllers were distributed
at the District's Smart controller training event which
was held at the District's offices on February 17.To
date,150 smart controllers have been distributed to Otay
customers since March of 2006.
•The revised draft of the Water Conserving Rates Best
Management Practice (BMP 11)was approved by the MET
Board of directors and the Water Authority General
Managers and then at the Steering Committee of the
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC)in
February.Both MET and the Water Authority serves on the
CUWCC steering committee.This BMP had been unchanged
since 1991.The revision will require that a minimum of
70 percent of a retail water agency's rates-based revenue
come from volumetric rates,while allowing local control
over the form of the water rates and provides alternative
methods for compliance.Otay staff has been involved in
the revision of this BMP.BMP 11 will be voted upon at
the CUWCC's June Plenary and will need support from
2/3rds of the water agency members as well as from 2/3rds
of the environmental groups in order to be approved.
•In the month of February there were 109 purchase orders
issued for a total of $183,440.19.
Information Technology and Strategic Planning:
•Staff is implementing a new Eden module for "Contract
Management.This module will significantly simplify
tracking of all business contracts.
•IT will begin working with Engineering in March to
implement the IMS system in two sections of Engineering.
4
•Staff has contracted for additional staff training from
Eden Systems to be sure the District is realizing full
value of the new billing system.Changes have also been
implemented in the database and backup procedures to
improve system performance.
•IT submitted a proposal,which was accepted by ESRI to
present a paper at this year's user conference.The
conference will be held in June in San Diego.
Finance:
•Bond Sale -On February 21st the District received pricing
from five underwriters on the District's bonds.The
District received an interest rate of 4.327%from the
firm of Citigroup Global Markets Inc.The next lowest
bid was at a rate of 4.335%from the firms of DBS
Securities LLC.The bonds were awarded to Citigroup and
the District will receive the funds at the closing date,
March 7th •This is an excellent rate which in large part
is due to the District's new underlying rating of AA-.
•Bond Insurance -The Bonds will be sold with an AAA
rating as the District purchased bond insurance.This
insurance lowers the District's interest cost of the
debt.On February 12th the District received five bids
from insurance companies and awarded the insurance to the
firm Ambac at a cost of 172,203.This is expected to
save the District $1,065,000 of which $100,000 is due to
the ratings upgrade to AA-.
•The bond documents are being finalized by bond counsel
and the financial advisor and will be signed by the March
7th close date,when the District will receive the
$42,000,000.
•IVR -Payments with credit card by phone are nearing
implementation pending approval of the contract by legal
counsel.The contract issues are delaying the
implementation by a few weeks,however,the resolution of
these issues are expected to protect the District's
interest.When this system is implemented,staff expects
that as many as 1,700 calls will be diverted to this
system,saving a significant amount of staff time and
holding down the number of future FTE's.Staff
anticipates that the implementation will be complete
before the May Board meeting.
5
•Budget -The 2008 budget process is underway.By the
time of this Board meeting,workbooks will have been
distributed to the various departments.Staffing
requests,capital purchases,materials,and
administrative costs will all be developed over the next
month.The CIP review and cost development are a key
part of the District's budgeting process and follows
along the same time-line.
•On February 16th,the District received a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from
GFOA.This is the third year in a row that the
District's has received this prestigious award for its
quality preparation of financial statements.This along
with quality management and planning are examples of
reasons why the District was able to receive an AA-bond
rating.The financial statements are recognized by the
District's peers as an excellent communication tool
providing quality information to all of the District
constituents.
The financial reporting for January 2007 is as follows:
•For the seven months ended January 31,2007,there are
total revenues of $36,515,651 and total expenses of
$34,234,492.The revenues exceeded expenses by
$2,281,159.
The financial reporting for investments for January 31,
2007 is as follows:
•The market value of the Portfolio Master Summary and
the Investment Portfolio Details as of January 31,
2007 total $69,991,069.32 with an average yield to
maturity of 5.099%.The total earnings year-to-date
are $1,976,614.42.The effective duration is .264 of
a year.
6
Engineering:
•Staff received eight improvement plans from developers
for potable/recycled plan checks.
•
•
Fifty-six (56)meters were sold as of February 20,
2007,generating $577,828 in revenue.Total meters
sold for FY06-07 were 484 to date,which generated
$6,454,824 for the District.Meter sales are short of
projections by 14%or 100 meters and revenues
generated by meter sales is 7%below the projection of
$7,042,086.
The Construction Division received no new projects to
be constructed by developers and performed four pre-
construction meetings.In addition,one project was
completed and no projects were released from warranty.
•Approximately 7,782 linear feet of both CIP and
developer project pipelines were installed totaling
31,852 feet since July 2006.The Construction
Division performed quality assurance for these
pipelines.
•213 underground facilities were located,8 hydrostatic
pressure tests,1 wet tap and tie-in,20 meter set
inspections,and 7 project walk-throughs were
performed during the month.
•The LOPS Pump Station access road pavement was
completed.
•Zondiros installed approximately 500 feet of the
Pacific Rim SR905 pipeline relocation project.
•The Otay Water District has three upcoming Water
Supply Assessment (SB610)and Water Supply
Verification (SB221)reports to prepare this spring.
These reports are dependant on the San Diego County
Water Authority's (CWA)completion and board
acceptance of CWA's Urban Water Management Plan at
their April Board meeting.
•The preparation of the Integrated Water Resources Plan
(IRP)is moving along very well.CDM,our consultant
working on the IRP,has submitted for review and
comment the first draft of the IRP report.CDM and
7
staff plan on making a presentation to the Board in
the next 30 days.
•The City of San Diego has prepared and submitted for
review and comment to Otay and SDCWA the first draft
of an agreement for the San Diego 17 project (SD17)
The SD17 is an approximately $20,000,000 project
consisting of a 60 million gallons per day pump
station and a flow control facility that is planned to
be located at the Alvarado Water Treatment Plant
site.The Otay Water District is requesting 50 MGD
capacity and the City may retain 10 MGD or more.The
City has an opportunity to acquire a $10,000,000
Proposition 50 Grant for the project and is willing to
share the grant in proportion to capacity acquired by
Otay.SDCWA does not desire to acquire any capacity
in the pump station and,thus,will not financially
participate.SDCWA staff is debating whether or not
they should be the owner of the pump station as the
City wants to retain ownership.The City has offered
SDCWA the right to operate the pump station.
•The following table summarizes purchase and change
orders issued during the period of January 27,2007
thru February 22,2007 that are within staff signatory
authority:
Contractor/
Date Action Amount Consultant Project
640-1 &640-2
Reservoirs Project
(P2185-30018)-2/5/07 PO 705704 $24,894,000 Pacific Hydrotech Corp.Approved by the Board
at the 2/7/07 board
meeting.
2/8/07 CO #1 $12,546 COM IRP
Water Operations:
•Water purchased for the month of January was 2,896.1
acre-feet.Beginning FY 06/07 to date,July 1,2006 to
January 31,2007,there has been 26,808.80 acre-feet
of water purchased.This is a one percent increase
from the same period last year,July 1,2005 to
January 31,2006.
•The AMR change-out program is progressing.The
District's contractor,Underground Utility,Inc.
8
(UUI),has replaced 5,434 RAMAR/Badger units as of
January 31,2007,leaving 1,377 RAMAR units still in
use.
•There were 23 new Automated Meter Reading (AMR)meters
installed,516 meters were replaced with new AMR
meters and 226 meters were retrofitted to AMR meters
for the month of January.As of January 31,2007
there were a total of 1,377 RAMAR meters and 11,949 3-
G Master Meters installed for a total of 13,326 Radio
Read Meters.
Total number of potable water accounts is 47,428.
•Recycled water consumption for the month of January is as
follows:
Total flow was 207.4 acre-feet or 67,561,604 gallons
and the average daily flow was 2,179,407 gallons per
day.
Total number of recycled water accounts is 553.
•Wastewater flows for the month of January were as
follows:
Total basin flow,gallons per day:2,102,000.
Total Otay flow,gallons per day:1,404,000.
Flow Processed at the Ralph W.Chapman Water
Recycling Facility,gallons per day:1,214,000.
Flow to Metro from Otay Water District,gallons per
day:190,000.
Total number of sewer connections is 6,048.
•The District received the 2006 Water Agency of the
Year Award from the San Diego County Water Works Group
for its proactive potable water and recycled water
programs.
This award is recognized by the 24 other San Diego
water agencies as being a role model in providing safe
and reliable water services.
Genlral Manager
G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\GM Report 3-7-07.doc
9
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA
Executive Office
February 7,2007
Mr.Mark Watton
General Manager
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,CA 91978
Dear Mr.Watton:
Fiscal Year 2005/06 Production Assessment
for the Otay Water Reclamation Project,Agreement No.22158
The Metropolitan Water District ofSouthern California (Metropolitan)has completed the fiscal
year 2005/06 production assessment for the Otay Recycled Water System (Project).The Otay
Water District (Otay)has provided Metropolitan with production records and recycled water
deliveries.Metropolitan has reviewed the records and confirmed the provisions ofthe
Agreement are being met.
Records indicate that during fiscal year 2005/06,Otay delivered 1,121.9 acre-feet to end-users
and is eligible to receive the fixed financial contribution of$1851AF.Metropolitan's total
contribution during fiscal year 2005/06 is $207,551.5 (1,121.9 AF X $185/AF).
This credit has been previously advanced to Otay through Metropolitan's LRP monthly invoice
credits process.Also,enclosed for your records is the Summary ofProduction Table 1 for fiscal
years 2005/06.
Metropolitan would like to thank Ms.Rita Bell,Finance Manager,and Grace Clemente for
their efforts in supporting the production assessment activities.Ifyou have any questions,
please contact me at (213)217-6489 or beubank@mwdh20.com.
Very truly yours,
H::,u2-...~~
13ilK Eubank
Regional Supply Unit
BDE:am
O\a\s\c\BDE_2005-06 Otay Assess Ur.
Enclosures
700 N.Alameda Street,Los Angeles,California 90012·Mailing Address:Box 54153,Los Angeles,California 90054-0153 •Telephone (213)217-6000
!
THE METROPOLITAN WATER OISTRICT Of SOUTHERN CALifORNIA
Mr.Mark Watton
Page 2
February 7,2007
cc:Ms.Toby Roy
San Diego County Water Authority
4677 Overland Avenue
San Diego,CA 92123
Ms.Maria Mariscal
San Diego County Water Authority
4677 Overland Avenue
San Diego,CA 92123
TABLE No.1
OTAY RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
FISCAL YEAR 2005/06
Certified Allowable Difference
Yield Yield
(AF)(AF)(AF)
MonthlYear
July 2005 112.7 112.7 0.00
August 111.5 111.5 0.00
September 108.4 108.4 0.00
October 109.7 109.7 0.00
November 105.2 105.2 0.00
December 110.5 110.5 0.00
January 2006 105.6 105.6 0.00
February 100.1 100.1 0.00
March 34.4 34.4 0.00
April 13.2 13.2 0.00
May 105.0 105.0 0.00
June 105.6 105.6 0.00
Total 1,121.9 1,121.9 0.00
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
FLUORIDATION
Background
•at a glance
"CI....nlt,water
fl.erldltl.n cln-
tilies t.be tile
...st CISt effec-
tive,prleticll
Ind slfe ..elns
for redlclng Ind
c.nU.lllng tile
occlrrenee .f
t••tll decI,In
I c••••nlty."
u.s.Surgeon General's Office
December 2001
In February 2003,Metropolitan Water
District's board ofdirectors joined a majority
ofthe nation's publicwatersuppliers in
adopting a policy to add fluoride to treated
drinkingwater supplies in orderto prevent
tooth decay.The addition offluoridation
facilities at Metropolitan's five water treat-
ment plants is expected to take about30
months and cost an estimated $5.5 million.
In line with recommendations from the state
ofCalifornia Department ofHealth Services,
as well as the U.S.Centers for Disease
Controland Prevention,
Metropolitan will adjust the nat-
uralfluoride concentration in the
water,ranging from 0.1 to 0.4
parts per million,to a target dose
of0.7 to 0.8 parts permillion
which is recommended for
optimal dental health.This
would be like adding less than
three drops to a 42-gallon barrel.
Fluoride levels in drinkmg water
are limited under state regulations
at amaximum dosage of2 parts
per million.
Benefits
•Communitywater fluoridation
is the most cost-effective and safe way to
reduce and control tooth decay,according
to the CDC.Metropolitan estimates the
total cost to be $1.75 per acre-foot ofwater.
An acre-foot serves two typical Southland
families for one year.
•The American Dental Association
estimates that the lifetime cost per person
to fluoridate a watersystem is less than the
cost ofone dental filling.
•More than 50 years ofscientific research
have found that people living in communities
with fluoridated waterhave healthier teeth
and fewer cavities than people living where
thewater is not fluoridated.
•Fluoridatedwater cuts across SOClOeco-
nomic dividers gIVmg everyone equal health
benefits.
About Fluoride
•Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral
found both in surface water (water from
snowmelt,rivers and streams)as well as
groundwater.
•Fluoride's benefits for teeth were discov-
ered in the 1930s by scientists who saw
Fluoridated water gives everyone equalhealth benefits
extremely low tooth decay rates among
people whose water supplies had a significant
amount ofnatural fluoride.
•Fluoride helps teeth resist decay by
strengthening the protective layer oftooth
enamel,and can reverse newly formed
cavities.
•Fluoride has been added to U.S.drinking
water supplies since 1945.
-Ofthe 50 largest cities in the U.S.,43 fluo-
ridate theIr drinkingwater.
WHAT IS METROPOLITAN?
The Metropolitan Water District of Southem California is a cooperative of 26 cities and wateragen-
cies serving nearly 18 million people in six counties.The district imports water from the Colorado
River and Northem California to supplement local supplies,and helps its members to develop
increased water conservation,recycling,storage and other resource-management programs.
Metropolitan's Position
Informed consumers maystill decide not to
drinkfluoridated tapwater.There are always
choices when it comes to drinking water.
The fact is that 70 percentofthe population
already choose to drinkbottledwater.Most
brands ofbottled water,water sold invend-
ing machines and waterfrom "water stores"
contain only lowlevels offluoride.Some
bottled water compames do offerfluoridated
water.Manyhometreatment systems
remove fluoride from tap water including
those that use reverse osmosis.For a list of
systems that reduce or remove fluoride,go
to http://www.ns£org/CertifiedIDWTU/.
Metropolitan is
in discussion with
dental health
organizations about
covering theinitial
$5.5 mi1Iion in
capital costs.The
CaliforniaDental
Association
Foundation,a
non-profit public benefit corporation,in
cooperationwith a statewide fluoridation
taskforce,has offered to pay for construction
and installation offluoridation equipment
at Metropolitan's five treatment plants.
Even though Metropolitan was exempt from
the conditions ofthe law,local public health
officials pushed hard for large-scale fluorida-
tion atMetropolitan's treatment plants.
Public health officials representing each
ofMetropolitan's six Southern California
counties served,urged the board at its
December 2001 meeting to reconsider
fluoridating its supplies.
state funding.Two ofMetropolitan's mem-
ber agencies-the cities ofLongBeach and
Beverly Hills-aswell as member agencies
ofthe MunicipalWater DistrictofOrange
County,the cities ofFountain Valley and
Huntington Beach-fluoridated water prior
to the 1995 law.
Choices
•While exposure to
fluoride cancause den-
tal fluorosis,most cases
in communities with
optimally fluoridated
water are very mild and
characterized bybarely
visible white opaque
spots on the teeth.
Metropolitan's board first tooka serious
lookat fluoridation in October 1995 when
then-Gov.Pete Wilson signed a new state
law conditionally requiring fluoridation of
any public water supplywith at least 10,000
service connections or customers.Because
the law did not provide funding for utilities,
manywater agencies found the cost of
fluoridating prohibitive.Some cities,like
Los Angeles and Santa Monica,did move
forward with fluoridation in the absence of
•Almost all major national
and international health service
agencies and professionals sup-
port communitywaterfluoridation and
include the American Dental Association,
AmericanMedicalAssociation,American
Academy ofPediatric Dentistry,CDC and
theWorld Health Organization.
•The CDC has recognized fluoridation of
drinkingwater as one ofthe 10 great public
health achievements ofthe 20th century.
•TheU.S.Department ofHealth Services
has not recognized claims that low-level
fluoride exposure is linked to occurrences
ofcancer,brain damage or osteoporosis.
•The three primary agents used to fluori-
date water are sodium fluoride (made of
sodium and fluoride atoms bonded togeth-
er),sodium fluorosilicate (sodium,silicon
and fluoride)andfluorosilic acid (hydrogen,
silicon and fluoride).
supporters
MIIIIOI STARlIT
-lit
n...I....If,...MlIlr8polllan
....,DIabIIl ..IIIIIIIm
Clilfli'llllil"""III111
uni.lrawillt alll_n..
..II reOalll•..,,11..If11I111-
_.auty ....,.......pres...
1.11'11I".1111In In
IblromnlAlll1y anll
...n.ml.ll,responlibll .ay.
MetropolitanWater District
ofSoatbetn e.utomia
Poat0fIialBoalS4153
LaaAIP.CA~3
TeD mephoneIIIIIIIher
(800)665-8555
www.nnnlh2o.com
"",."."""".".,.",...,.....
www.ballledw_.IIllI
Apomo!W.RIiIoURcUfOlll!lfOllIM1'lOlt
1lIInareMI'ipIIClIstolIDfar
addilIanIIlnIarlnItIoIIabauta.1IuoIlda-
tIon01 drinIImgwallr.1hIYinttudB:
U.I.c.-.""....."'*"_..........
1-88tH:1)C.23Q8
1IlIp:J1WWw.~
~nd.hlm.............,...,.,"'"
,..,.".,......
IllIp:JJInIdcr.nlg~
fIuotIdaIIOn,hl
1II1IIftII",.,..."
hIlP:lfcls.ncI.nIfI.oovllllctAU5Jam
."",.".",.,..,,."..
www.ada.OIVPUblk:ltoptes/lllllll1dil
f1uor-llnkL"ml
~~..• --..-••r~..."-
Your Consumer
Confidence Report
The Otay Water District is pleased to provide you with your annual consumer confidence
report.This annual water quality report outlines important information about the quality of your
drinking water supply,including what we look for when we test your water,the results of those
tests,and information on some of the more common elements found in your water.
The information included in this report represents only a small fraction of what we do to
ensure high quality drinking water.Together,with state certified laboratories,the San Diego
County Water Authority,and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,we routinely
scrutinize the water supply for an entire range of elements that have the potential to degrade the
quality of your water.This report summarizes water quality results from calendar year 2005.
Sources
The Otay Water District imports an average of 97 percent
of its water.This imported water is provided by the San
Diego County Water Authority,which purchases water from
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).
Imported water is a blend of Colorado River water and State
Water Project water.The Otay Water District also purchases
treated water from the Helix Water District (Helix).
The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled
water)include rivers,lakes,streams,ponds,reservoirs,
springs,and wells.As water travels over the surface of the
land or through the ground,it dissolves naturally-occurring
minerals and,in some cases,radioactive material,and can
pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or
from human activity.
The Otay Water District continuously monitors the quality
of your water to ensure all drinking water standards are met.
50YMR
TIM6LlNf
FIFTY YEARS OF QUALITY WATER
~~-~
DRINKING WATER SOURCES FOR
TAP AND BOTILED WATER
1956 Coliforni;6 Legislature authorizes tile Otay MuniQipal
Water DistriCll to an enlitlemenllo'import waler.
PaIlIInelel'Unlts StaIllIIJ PItG State Range TmatmentPlant Effluents MajorSoIIItlIBit
l'tIderaI (MCl.G)QUI Average Drinkil!llwater
MCl l'fi'lUJUll GOm~nedll HelixLIlVY![MIlD~J SkIIln8tl!1ants P18nt
PercentState %NA NA NA Range 27-69 27~69
ProjectWater Average 40 40
PRIMARY STANDARDS -Mandatory Health Related Standards
•- - -••-?--,••
CLARITY
COmbined Riter NTU 0.3 Highest 0.18 0.17
EffIuentllJrbldlly %95 (a)NA NA %<0.3 96%Soil runoff
MICROBIOLOGICAL
TotalColifonn Bacteria 5.0 (b)(0)NA Otay DISlribulionSyslem=O%Naturally presentin theenvironment
Otay DistributionSysIem=O%
Fecal COlifonnand E.Coli (c)NA DistSyslemFecal Colifonn-positive samples=O"lo
Dist SyslemE.coli positive samples=O%
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
Aluminum (d)1000 600 50 Range:NO "151 64 -120 Residue from water treatment process;
Average:73 94 naturaldeposits;erosion
Barium 1000 2000 100 Range:NO -100 Oil and metal refineries discharges;
Average:·NO nallJral deposits;erosion
Fluoride(naturally occuring)ppm 2.0 0.1 Range:0.16 -0.28 0.17 -0.21 Erosionof nalural deposits;water addi-
Average:0.23 0.19 Uvesfor tooth health
Nitrate (as N)(e)ppm 10 0.4 Range:ND-O.75 NO Runoffand leai:hing fro!n fiJrtilizeruse;
Average:NO NO sewage;nallJral erosion
Nitrate andNlirite (as N)10 0.4 Range:NO -0.75 NO Runoffand leaching frOm fiJrtitizeruse;
Average:NO NO sewage;nalural erosion
RADIOLOGfGAI.S (t)
GrosSAlpha ParticleActivity pCVL 15 (0)3 ND-5.5 1.5 3.2 'Erosion ofna1ura1 deposits
4.2 2.4
Gross Beta ParticleActiVity pCI/L 50 (0)4 NO NO -5.9 Decayof nallJral and
NO NO man-made deposils
Uranium pCilL 20 0.43 2.0 Range:2.9-3.2 ND-2.2 Erosion ofnalural deposits
Average:3.0 NO
DISlNFECJlON BY-PRODUCTS;DISINFEcTANT RESIDUALS,AND DISINFJ;CJIO.~;By-!PROI)UCTSPRI:CURSORS(t=EDERALRUlE),
Total Trihalomelhanes ppb 80 0.5 Olay Distribution System:41 -86 By-product ofdrinking waterchlorina-
(TTHM)(g)Highest RAA:74 lion
Haloace1icAcids (five)ppb 50 NA 1(g)OlayDistribution System:14-39 By-product ofdrinking waterchlorina-
(HAAS)(g)HighestRAA:32 lion
TotalChlorineRestdual ppm [4.0)[4.0)NA Olay DistributionSystem:0.2 -3.8 Drinking waterdisinteclantadded for
OlayDistributionSystem:2.5 treatment
Bromate(h)ppb 10 5 Range:NA NO By-product ofdrinkingwater ozonalion
HighestAM:NA NO
DBP Precursors COntrol ppm TT NA 0.30 Range:TT 3.3 -4.1 Variousnatural andman-madesources
(TOG)(g)Average:TT 3.8
SECONDARY STANDARDS -Aesthetic Standards
Aluminum (d)ppb 200 600 NO -151 64-120 Residue.from watertreatment p~;
73 94 nalural depositserosion
Chloride ppm 500 NA NA Range:83-92 71-80 RunoffJteaching from nallJral deposits;
Average:88 76 seawaterinfluence
COlor Unlls 15 NA NA Range:1-3 1·c2.5 Naturally occUrring organic materials
Average:2 1
Manganese ppb 50 20 Range:·NO Leachingfrom na1lJral dePosits
Average:NO
Odor Threshold (i)Unlls 3 NA Range:2 NA NallJrallyoccurring organic materials
Average:2 NA
SpecificCOnductance liS/em 1600 NA NA Range:687-938 685-799 SUbstances that fonn ions in water;
Average:854 738 seawater influence
lIararnelec'UnlIs SlalBor PRO Slam A='ltelilme1rt.P1antEffltP .~~I (MCI.Pl DI!R
MilL ('MI'ID~Gl CillII_II lleliKteW(MRDt)~pliJOij 1'I811t
SECONDARY STANDARDS -Aesthetic Standards (continued)
Suliate ppm 500 NA 0.5 Range:103,210 110-180 Runofflleachingfrom naluraldeposits;
AVl!filge:173 140 industrialwastes
Total OiSsolYed SoIIrt;(TDS)ppm 1000 NA NA Rangel 386-554 411 -471 Runoff/leachi~g fl'(Jll)nait.Jraldeposits;
Averag~501 435 seawaterinfluence
Tilrbidlty (a)NTU 5 NA NA (lange:0.06 -0.08 0.04-0.17 Soil Runoff
Average:0.07 0.07
LEAD AND COPPER RULE
Copper ppm NL=1.3 0.17 0.05 Osl~abolle NL outof~sampled InlelT1a1 corroSion ofhousehold pipeS;.
90tIIpercentile =0.33 erosioocifnalural d@OSlt$
lead ppb Nl==15 2 5 osites aboveNloutof54-sampled Internal corrosion of·hJJuselJold pipes;~pe,rcentl1e =2.9'eroslOll01 naluratd~
UNREGULATED CHEMICALS REQUIRING MONITORING
Boron ppb NA Nl=1000 100 Range:150-160 120 -140 Runoff/leaching Iromnalural depositS;
Average:150 125 industrial wastes
Percl1lorate (j)ppb NA 6 4 Flange:NO-2.3 NO Indusbjalw.aste discharge
Average:NO NO
Vanadium ppb NA Nl=50 3 Range:NO 3.7-5.2 Nalurally occurring;industrial waste
Average:NO 4.5 discharge
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS
Alkalinity NA
Calcium NA
Hardness ppm NA
Magnesium ppm NA
N,Nitrosodimethylamine ppt NA
(NOMA)(k)
pH pH\Jnits NA
Potassium ppm NA
Radon (f)pCi/l NA
Sodium ppm NA
TOCII)ppm IT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA .0.30
Rall!le:9&-114 102-107
Average:107 104
Range:38-62 40-57
AI/erage:~48
Range:169·260 174-241 Ifhardnessisneeded in grainspergallon
Merag&.231 207 instead 01PPm,dMdenumbers by17
Range:18-25.5 18,24
Average:23 21
Range:NO --2:2 NA By-productot drinkingwater
Average:NO -8.0 NA chlorination;industrial processes
Rqnge:8.1 -8.2 7;1-8.0
Average:8.1 7.9
Rall!le:3.8.4.6 4.0-4.7
Average;4.3 4.3
NO NO
NO NO
69.88 69-81
82 75
2.3-3.1 3.3 "4.1 Various nalural and man-made sources
2.7 3.8
(/)
Co
1\1
>~
.D
.D<t
0<5
U)
Q)
-0c+-l0-oLL
(9)The turbidity level ofthefiltered watershall belessthanorequal to 0.3NTUin 95%ofthe measurementstaken each month andshall
notexceed 1 NTUatanytime.Turbidity is ameasure ofthe cloudinessof the waterand is an indicatorottreatment performance.
~t;I)Total coliform MCLs:Nomore than 5.0%ofthemonthlysamples maybetotal coliform-positive.
Compliance isbased on the combined distributionsystemsamplingfrom all thetreatment plants.
----
(c;:)Fecal coliform/E.coli MCls'-The dccurrenGeof2consecutivetotalcoliform-positive$arnples;oneofwhich contains fecal coliform/E.
coli,constitutesan acute MCl violation.The·MClwasIlotviolated in 2005.
Aluminumnas bothprimaryand secondary standards.
r~1 State MCLis 45 ppmas nitrate,whichequals10mg/Las N.
m MWD Skinnerplants results based on two (2)quarterlysamplingsdone in 2005;four(4)Quarters ofmonitoring willbecompleted by
second quarterof2006.Helix results basedon 4quarters sampled in 2005.
-
(g)Helixand MWD werein compliancewith all provisionsofthe8tage1..Disinfectants/DisinfectionBy-Products (OIDBP)~ule.TOC
proVIdesamedium fortheformation of OSPs.MWOand Helixwerein compliance with the DBP precursorcontrol(TOG)portion ofthe
Stage1·D/DBPregulation.
(h)MWD:Running annual averagewascalculated fromweeklysamples
Helix:Saniplescollectedmonthlyand RAA iscalculated quarterly.Bromatereporting level.is3ppb.
m MWD hasdeveloped aflavor-profile analysismethodthatcannioreaccuratelydetectodoroccurrences.Formoreinformation,contact
MWD at (213)217-6850_
m 80thPHG (issuedbytheOfficeofEnvironmental Health Hazard Assessment}andNL(issued by
CADepartment ofHealthServices)weresetat 6ppb.Perchloratereportinglevet 1$2ppb.f------+------------~~-~----I
(tV Range forthe plantinfluentsandeffluentsweretakenfrom quarterly samples.The distributionsystem-widerangewastaken from nine
(9)samplescollected quarterly.
{g Average andrangeforthetreatmentplant effluents were taken from samplesatthecombinedfiltereffluent.
CFU/ml
DBP
DlR
HAA5
MGl
MGlG
MPN
MRDl
MRDlG
N
NA
ND
Nl
NTU
pCi/l
PHG
ppb
ppm
ppt
RAA
TOG
TIHM
TI
jJS/cm
Colony-Formmg Unitsper Milliliter
Disinfection By-Products
DetectionLimitsfor purposes of Reporting
Haloacetic Acids (five)
Maximum ContaminantLevel
MaximumContaminantLevel Goa!
Mostprobable Number
MaximumResidual Disinfectant Level
MaximumResidual Disinfectant Level Goal
Nitrogen
Not Applicable
NoneDetected
Notification Level·(also known asAction
Level through2004)
~~p~ejornetri_~TurbidityUnits
picoCuriesperliter
PublicHealth Goal
parts per billion ormicrograll1~p~rliter (J-lg/L)
parts per million ormilligramsperliter(mg/L)
parts pertrillion ornanograms perliter(ng/L)
Running Anllual Average
Total Organic Carbon
10talTrihalomethanes
TrE;latmE:':!nt Technique
microSiemen percentimeter;also equivalent
toJ-lmho/cm (micromho.percentimeter)
Conservation Fluoridation
ABOUT60%OF THE WATER USED BY HOUSEHOLDS
IS USED OUTDOORS.FOR INFORMATION ON WAYS
TO SAVE WATER OUTDOORS,VISIT THE WATER
CONSERVATION GARDEN OR CHECK OUTTHEIR WEB
SITE ATWWWTHEGARDEN.ORG
Drinking water supplies for up to 18 million southern
California residents will be fluoridated in early 2007.In 2003,
the board of directors for the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (MWD)adopted a policy of converting
its water treatment processes to add this cavity fighting
agent.MWD is a consortium of Southern California cities and
water districts that provide drinking water to residents in Los
Angeles,Orange,San Diego,Riverside,San Bernardino and
Ventura counties.
In 1995,the State of California adopted the California
Fluoridation Act that required all water systems with more
than 10,000 service connections or customers to fluoridate
their water.The Otay Water District buys water from the San
Diego County Water Authority which has been treated by
MWD.MWDprovidesapproximately
half of all treated water consumed in
San Diego County.
The Otay Water District
neither advocates nor opposes
fluoridation.As a community
water district,regulated by state
law,the OtayWater District has no decision in the fluoridation
issue.It is the district's policy,however,to keep our customers
fully informed on issues affecting your water.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that fluoridation is safe,
beneficial,and needed regularly throughout life to protect teeth
against tooth decay.To ensure additional gains in oral health,
public health officials have urged that water fluoridation be
extended to additional communities,and fluoride toothpaste
should be used widely.Fluoride's benefits are particularly
important for those Americans,especially children,who lack
adequate access to dental care.
The OtayWater District encourages customers concerned
about fluoridation or who are already taking fluoride
supplements to talk to their medical or dental professional.
The American Dental Association
www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/news.asp
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
www.mwdh20.org
We encourage anyone with questions concerning fluoridation
to visit the following Web sites:
Centerfor Disease Control and Prevention
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
60%Outdoor use
1%Dishwashers
7%Faucets
11%Clothes washers
10%Toilets
2%Leaks
6%Bathing
3%Pool
It's Easy to Conserve!San Diego County has a semi-
arid climate that receives only about 10 inches of rainfall
per year.This does not provide enough water to meet local
needs and the region must import as much as
90 percent of its water from the Colorado River
and Northern California.To maintain our quality
of life and ensure adequate water supplies now
and for future generations,San Diego county
residents are encouraged to make a conscious effort to use
our limited supply of water as efficiently as possible.
The Otay Water District offers a number of programs
to save water both indoors and outdoors.For useful ways
to conserve water around the house visit our Web site at
www.otaywater.gov and click HpUSE or any of the other
useful links.
1969 Oley and La Prese-Boards of Directors vole unanimously,
to dissolve Ihe'La Presa CQunty Water Dislrici.Otay Waler
District lakes conlr-ol of all La Presa assets and resources.
1979 Jamacha Basin Waler Redamation Facility opens 10 provide
sewer service 10 tne Middle Swe.etwater River Basin.
FIFTY YEARS OF QUALITY WATER
For More Information
The Otay Water District appreciates your comments and questions.If
you have questions about the information contained in this report,or our
testing process,please contact Gary Stalker,System Operations Manager,
at (619)670-2228 or visit our Web site at www.otaywater.gov.You can also
find help information by contacting the following agencies:
State of California Department of Health Services
Office of Drinking Water
601 N.Seventh Street -MS92
Sacramento,CA 94234-7320
(916)449-5600
www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4101 M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W.
Washington,D.C.20460
Safe Drinking Water Hotline:(800)426-4791
www.epa.gov/safewater
Este informe contiene informacion muy importante sobre su agua
potable.Traduzcalo 0 hable con alguien que 10 entienda bien.
Mahalaga ang impormasyong ito.Mangyaring ipasalin ito.
Chi ti@t nay th~t quan tr9ng.Xin nha
nguoi dich cho quy vi.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2254 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2096
(619)670-2222
E-mail:opinion_form@otaywater.gov
Web site:www.otaywater.gov
MEXICO
1956-2006
THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT HAS PROVIDED
HIGH QUALITY WATER TO THE EAST COUNTY
AND SOUTH BAY SINCE 1956.
1986 Recyoled w.at~",used for 'dus~
Suppression and'oompaction in
eastel'O Chula V:istJ],
1997 dtay Water District'~new,administrative
office is dedicated.
200.6 The Otay Wat.er Districtcelebrates its
50th Anniversary.
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT 2006