HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-13 EO&WR Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING and SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Board Room
WEDNESDAY
January 16, 2013
12:30 P.M. This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations to the full board for its consideration and formal action.
AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JU-RISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. FOR THE 803-3 AND 832-2 RESERVOIRS INTERIOR/EXTERIOR COATINGS AND UPGRADES PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $946,900 (CAME-RON) [5 minutes] 4. APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH HECTOR MARES COMMENCING APRIL 1, 2013 FOR TWO YEARS (ENDING MARCH 31, 2015) FOR AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $60,000 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ON BI-NATIONAL WATER MATTERS FOR WORK RELATED TO THE OTAY MESA CONVEYANCE AND DIS-INFECTION SYSTEM PROJECT (WATTON) [5 minutes] 5. APPROVE TERMINATING WORK ON THE JOINT WATER AGENCIES NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (COBURN-BOYD) [5 minutes] 6. INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON THE RANCHO DEL REY GROUNDWATER WELL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MARCHIORO) [5 minutes] 7. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE (WATTON) [10 minutes]
2
8. ADJOURNMENT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING: David Gonzalez, Chair Gary Croucher All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be delibe-rated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the Dis-trict’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280. If you have any disability that would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici-pate 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 January 14, 2013 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 24 hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section
§54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on January 14, 2013. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Kevin Cameron
Assistant Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger
Engineering Manager
PROJECTS: P2518-001103
P2519-001103
DIV. NO. 5
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a construction contract to Advanced Industrial Services, Inc.
(AIS) and authorizes the General Manager to execute an agreement with
AIS for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coatings and
Upgrades Project in an amount-not-to exceed $946,900 (see Exhibit A-1
& A-2 for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
construction contract with AIS for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project in an amount-not-to
exceed $946,900.
AGENDA ITEM 3
2
ANALYSIS:
In June 2011, the District’s corrosion consultant, Schiff Associates
(Schiff), completed a Corrosion Control Program (CCP) that addressed
the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of corrosion protection
systems for the District’s steel reservoirs and buried metallic
piping. The CCP included a reservoir maintenance schedule that
showed the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs are due to be recoated on both
the interior and exterior surfaces. In addition to replacing the
coatings of the reservoir, structural upgrades will be added to
comply with the current American Water Works Association (AWWA) and
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for both
Federal (OSHA) and State (Cal-OSHA) levels.
An external inspection of the reservoirs was performed in 2008 by
Utility Service Company, Inc. as part of a multiple tank
investigation. An internal inspection was completed in October 2012
by Aqua Video Engineering, Inc. The recommended coating and
structural upgrades, developed with input from engineering and
operations staff, are as follows: replace the twenty (20) year old
coating on the interior and exterior surfaces, replace the existing
level indicators, install new fall prevention devices on the interior
ladders, modify anode access ports, replace all anodes, replace the
roof vents, install new lanyard cables, and add miscellaneous tank
penetrations for chlorination and sampling. These upgrades will
ensure compliance with AWWA, OSHA, Cal-OSHA requirements as well as
upgrade antiquated equipment on the tanks.
Staff developed the contract documents and the Project was advertised
for bid on November 28, 2012 on the District’s website and several
other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript.
Two (2) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to
address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during
the bidding period. Bids were publicly opened on December 20, 2012,
with the following results:
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
AMOUNT
CORRECTED
BID AMOUNT
1 Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. $946,900.00 -
2 Tri-State Painting, Inc. $994,670.00 $995,300.00
3 Blastco, Inc. $996,505.00 -
The Engineer’s Estimate is $948,000.
Staff reviewed the bids submitted for conformance with the contract
requirements and determined that AIS was the lowest responsive and
3
responsible bidder. AIS holds a Class C-33, Painting and Decorating,
Contractor’s License, which meets the contract document’s
requirements, and is valid through January 31, 2014. AIS also holds
a current QP-1 and QP-2 certification from Society for Protective
Coatings, which were also a requirement. The reference checks
indicated an excellent performance record on similar projects. An
internet background search of the company was performed and revealed
no outstanding issues with this company. AIS previously worked with
the District on the 850-3 Reservoir exterior coating in the spring of
2012 and completed the work on time and within budget.
Staff has verified that the bid bond provided by AIS is valid. Staff
will also verify that AIS’ Performance Bond and Labor and Materials
Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total budget for CIP P2518, as approved in the FY 2013 budget, is
$750,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $652,990.
The total budget for CIP P2519, as approved in the FY 2013 budget, is
$775,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $641,007.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that both budgets are sufficient to support the Project.
See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail for CIP P2518 and Attachment
B-2 for the budget detail for CIP P2519.
Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the
Replacement Fund for both CIP P2518 and CIP P2519.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay
Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner”
and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the
forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable
rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
4
KC/RR:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2518 & 2519 - 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoir Interior-Exterior Coating\Staff Reports\Staff
Report - 803-3 and 832-2 Reservoirs Coatings - 2-6-13.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B-1 – Budget Detail for CIP P2518
Attachment B-2 - Budget Detail for CIP P2519
Exhibit A-1 – 803-3 Location Map (P2518)
Exhibit A-2 – 832-2 Location Map (P2519)
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2518-001103
P2519-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 16, 2013.
The Committee supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any
discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
ATTACHMENT B-1
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2518-001103
P2519-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
Date Updated: 12/19/2012
Budget
750,000 CIP Budget1
Planning
Standard Salaries 678 678 - 678 Planning1 Planning 1
Total Planning 678 678 - 678
Design 001102
Service Contracts 992 874 119 992 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Design1 Design 1
45 45 - 45 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Design2 Design 2
Standard Salaries 22,258 22,258 4,742 27,000 Design3 Design 3
Total Design 23,295 23,177 4,861 28,037
Construction
Standard Salaries 418 418 74,582 75,000 Construction1 Construction 1
Construction Contract 475,500 - 475,500 475,500 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Construction2 Construction 2
Service Contracts - - 35,000 35,000 V & A CONSULTING Construction3 Construction 3
Project Closeout - - 15,000 15,000 CLOSEOUT Construction4 Construction 4
Project Contingency 23,775 - 23,775 23,775 5% CONTINGENCY Construction5 Construction 5
Total Construction 499,693 418 623,857 624,275
Grand Total 523,666 24,273 628,717 652,990
24,391 24,273 119 24,391 Total1 Total 1
FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2518-803-3 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
ATTACHMENT B-2
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2518-001103
P2519-001103
Award of a Construction Contract to Advanced Industrial
Services, Inc. for the 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoirs
Interior/Exterior Coatings and Upgrades Project
Date Updated: 12/19/2012
Budget
775,000 CIP Budget1
Planning
- - - - Planning1 Planning 1
Total Planning - - - -
Design 001102
Service Contracts 992 874 119 992 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Design1 Design 1
45 45 - 45 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Design2 Design 2
Standard Salaries 16,482 16,482 3,518 20,000 Design3 Design 3
Total Design 17,520 17,401 3,636 21,037
Construction
Standard Salaries 152 152 74,848 75,000 Construction1 Construction 1
Construction Contract 471,400 - 471,400 471,400 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Construction2 Construction 2
Service Contracts - - 35,000 35,000 V & A CONSULTING Construction3 Construction 3
Project Closeout - - 15,000 15,000 CLOSEOUT Construction4 Construction 4
Project Contingency 23,570 - 23,570 23,570 5% CONTINGENCY Construction5 Construction 5
Total Construction 495,122 152 619,818 619,970
Grand Total 512,642 17,554 623,454 641,007
17,672 17,554 119 17,672 Total1 Total 1
FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2519-832-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
Vista Rodeo Dr
Vista Sierra Dr
Pansy Way
Saltbush Ln
Vista Madera Ln
West Village Dr
Pence Dr
Brust Ct
Valhalla View Dr
Buttonbrush Ln
Bitterbush Ln
Pearlbush Ct
Buttonwood Ct
Vista Madera Way
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTS
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
P:\WORKING\CIP P2518 & 2519 - 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoir Interior-Exterior Coating\Staff Reports\Exhibit A-1-803-3 Location Map.mxd
OTAY WATER DISTRICT803-3 RESERVOIR INT./EXT. COATING & UPGRADESLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A-1 CIP P2518
0 350175Feet
PROJECT SITE
Campo Rd
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTS
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
P:\WORKING\CIP P2518 & 2519 - 803-3 & 832-2 Reservoir Interior-Exterior Coating\Staff Reports\Exhibit A-2-832-2 Location Map.mxd
OTAY WATER DISTRICT832-2 RESERVOIR INT./EXT. COATING & UPGRADESLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A-2 CIP P2519
0 200 400100Feet
PROJECT SITE
832-1 CONCRETERESERVOIR NOTINCLUDED
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Watton
General Manager
PROJECT: P2451-
001101
DIV. NO. 2
APPROVED BY:
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of a Consulting Services Contract for Professional
Consulting Work Related to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project for Consulting on Bi-national
Water Matters
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
authorize the General Manager to execute a Consulting Services
Agreement with Hector Mares (Attachment C) in an amount not-to-exceed
$60,000 annually commencing April 1, 2013 for two years ($120,000
total ending March 31, 2015) for professional consulting work on Bi-
national water matters related to the Otay Mesa Desalination Facility
Conveyance and Disinfection System Project (see Exhibit A for Project
location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
Consulting Services Agreement with Hector Mares in an amount not-to-
exceed $60,000 annually commencing April 1, 2013 for two years
($120,000 total ending March 31, 2015) for professional consulting
work on Bi-national water matters related to the Otay Mesa
Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project
(Project).
ANALYSIS:
The District is working with a private developer and several bi-
national governmental agencies to support the design, build, and
operation of a sea-water desalting facility in the area of Rosarito,
Baja California. The Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System
Project (Project) will provide a potable water transmission pipeline
AGENDA ITEM 4
and pump station to convey the desalinated water from the border of
Mexico to Roll Reservoir on Otay Mesa. The primary purpose of the
Project is to provide water service at a potable level to customers
in both the U.S. and Mexico.
Given the many challenges in advancing this Project, the District
will benefit by retaining the services of a bi-national consultant to
advise the board and management on matters concerning desalination in
Mexico among other subjects related to bi-national water development
opportunities.
Staff is recommending the engagement of Mr. Mares based on his
experience and knowledge in bi-national matters. Mr. Mares has been
engaged as a consultant to the District in a similar capacity under
the General Manager’s authority and his analysis, reporting, and
expertise has been of benefit to the District. By Mr. Mares’
efforts, the District has established very important contacts and
relationships with various Mexican water officials. This has
resulted in a better understanding of the various projects and
initiatives by local, state, and federal agencies in Mexico.
In addition to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System
Project, there are opportunities for bi-national water projects,
including but not limited to, recycled water, Colorado River aqueduct
transportation and desalination. Mr. Mares will continue to provide
valuable insight and assistance in these efforts.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total budget for CIP P2451, as approved in the FY 2013 budget, is
$30,000,000. Expenditures to date are $1,195,716. Total
expenditures, plus outstanding commitments, including this contract,
totals $5,270,198.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that the budget is sufficient to support this Project
(see Attachment B).
Finance has determined that 40% of the funding is available from the
New Water Supply Fund and 60% of the funding will be available from
the Betterment Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District's Mission statement, "To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of
Otay Water District, in a professional, effective, and efficient
manner" and the District's Strategic Goal, "To satisfy current and
future water needs for potable, recycled, and wastewater services."
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
BK:sc
P:\WORKING\CIP P2451 Desalination Feasibility Study\Staff Reports\Board 1-6-13 Mares Binational\BD 02-06-13, Staff Report, Award of
Consulting Services Contract to Mares Bi-national Consulting Services, (MW).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Location Map
Attachment C – Agreement
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2451-001101
Award of a Consulting Services Contract for Professional
Consulting Work Related to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project for Consulting on Bi-national
Water Matters
COMMITTEE ACTION:
This item was presented to the Engineering and Water Operations
Committee at a meeting held on January 16, 2013. The committee
supported presentation to the full board.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a committee approved item, or modified to reflect any
discussion or changes as directed from the committee prior to
presentation to the full board.
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2451-001101
Award of a Consulting Services Contract for Professional
Consulting Work Related to the Otay Mesa Conveyance and
Disinfection System Project for Consulting on Bi-national
Water Matters
Date Updated: January 11, 2013
Budget
30,000,000
Planning 001101
Labor 478,643 478,643 478,643
Printing 61 61 - 61 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
Mileage Reimbursement 138 138 - 138 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Parking and Tolls 88 88 - 88 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Parking and Tolls 45 45 - 45 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Parking and Tolls 21 21 - 21 WATTON, MARK
Airfare and Transportation 40 40 - 40 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Airfare and Transportation 9,781 9,781 0 9,781 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Airfare and Transportation 697 697 - 697 WATTON, MARK
Lodging 3,262 3,262 - 3,262 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Lodging 1,590 1,590 - 1,590 WATTON, MARK
Lodging 472 472 - 472 CONSOLIDATED WATER COMPANY
Meals and Incidentals 249 249 - 249 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Meals and Incidentals 38 38 - 38 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Meals and Incidentals 194 194 - 194 WATTON, MARK
Meals and Incidentals 395 395 - 395 CONSOLIDATED WATER COMPANY
Business Meetings 180 180 - 180 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Business Meetings 949 949 - 949 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Insurance 26 26 - 26 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Insurance 27 27 - 27 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional Legal Fees 43,175 43,175 - 43,175 SOLORZANO CARVAJAL GONZALEZ Y
Professional Legal Fees 15,914 15,914 - 15,914 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Professional Legal Fees 152,066 152,066 - 152,066 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
Other Legal Expenses 9,975 9,975 - 9,975 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
Other Legal Expenses 38 38 - 38 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Consultant Contracts 98,577 98,577 - 98,577 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC
Consultant Contracts 46,706 46,706 - 46,706 MARSTON+MARSTON INC
Consultant Contracts 994 994 - 994 CPM PARTNERS INC
Consultant Contracts 12,200 12,200 - 12,200 REA & PARKER RESEARCH
Consultant Contracts 4,173 4,173 - 4,173 SALVADOR LOPEZ-CORDOVA
Consultant Contracts 152,066 80,066 72,000 152,066 SILVA SILVA INTERNATIONAL
Consultant Contracts 70,200 64,800 5,400 70,200 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO
Consultant Contracts 120,000 - 120,000 120,000 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO
Consultant Contracts 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 BUSTAMANTE & ASSOCIATES LLC
Consultant Contracts 32,340 32,340 - 32,340 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
Service Contracts 500 500 - 500 REBECA SOTURA NICKERSON
Service Contracts 106 106 - 106 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Total Planning 1,262,926 1,065,525 197,400 1,262,926
Design 001102
Labor 76,660 76,660 76,660
Meals and Incidentals 14 14 - 14 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Consultant Contracts 5,535 5,535 - 5,535 MICHAEL R WELCH PHD PE
Consultant Contracts 3,910,297 33,215 3,877,082 3,910,297 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC
Consultant Contracts 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 ATKINS
Consultant Contracts 8,818 8,818 - 8,818 CPM PARTNERS INC
Consultant Contracts 276 276 - 276 MARSTON+MARSTON INC
Service Contracts 343 343 - 343 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
Total Design 4,006,943 129,861 3,877,082 4,006,943
Construction 001103
Labor 329 329 329
Total Construction 329 329 - 329
Grand Total 5,270,198 1,195,716 4,074,482 5,270,198
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2451 - Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
Page 1 of 7
CONSULTANT CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
BI-NATIONAL WATER AND RELATED ISSUES
THIS CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT (herein “Agreement”) is made and
effective as of April 1, 2013, by and between the Otay Water District, a municipal water district
organized pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, commencing
with Section 71000 of the Water Code of the State of California, as amended (herein “OWD”)
and Hector Mares (herein “Consultant”).
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.0 SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1. Scope of Services. In compliance with all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Consultant shall perform the work or services set forth in the Scope of Services
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The Consultant warrants that
all work and services set forth in the Scope of Services will be performed in a competent,
professional and satisfactory manner.
1.2. Compliance With Law. All work and services rendered hereunder shall be
provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the
OWD and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
1.3. Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. The Consultant shall obtain at
its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the
performance of the services required by this Agreement.
2.0 COMPENSATION
2.1. Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, and
costs incurred in connection therewith, Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with the
Schedule of Compensation attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this
reference.
2.2. Method of Payment . Provided that Consultant is not in default under the
terms of this Agreement, Consultant shall be paid monthly in accordance with the terms set forth
in Exhibit B.
Attachment C
Page 2 of 7
3.0 COORDINATION OF WORK
3.1. Representative of Consultant. Hector Mares is hereby designated as being
the principal and representative of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work and services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith.
3.2. Contract Officer. Mark Watton, General Manager of the OWD, is hereby
designated as being the OWD representative authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work and services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith (herein
“Contract Officer”). The General Manager of OWD shall have the right to designate another
Contract Officer by providing written notice to Consultant.
3.3. Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. Consultant shall not
contract with any person or entity to perform in whole or in part the work or services required
hereunder without the express written approval of OWD. Neither this Agreement nor any
interest herein may be assigned or transferred voluntarily or by operation of law, without the
prior written approval of OWD. Any such prohibited assignment or transfer shall be void.
3.4. Independent Contractor. Neither OWD nor any of its employees shall
have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees,
perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Consultant shall perform all
services required herein as an independent contractor of OWD and shall remain under only such
obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner
represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of OWD.
4.0 INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
4.1. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and
expense, in a form and content satisfactory to OWD, during the entire term of this Agreement
including any extension thereof, a policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance written
on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than either (i) bodily injury liability limits of
$250,000.00 per person and $500,000.00 per occurrence and property damage liability limits of
$100,000.00 per occurrence and $250,000.00 in the aggregate or (ii) combined single limit
liability of $500,000.00. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, leased and
hired cars.
The above policy of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name OWD, its
directors, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds. The insurer shall waive all rights
of subrogation and contribution it may have against OWD, its directors, officers, employees and
agents and their respective insurers. The policy of insurance shall provide that said insurance may
not be amended or canceled without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice by registered
mail to OWD. In the event said policy of insurance is canceled, the Consultant shall, prior to the
cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section 4.1 to the
Contract Officer. No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant
has provided OWD with Certificates of Insurance or appropriate insurance binders evidencing
the above insurance coverages and said Certificates of Insurance or binders are approved by
OWD.
Page 3 of 7
CANCELLATION:
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL MAIL THIRTY (30)
DAYS ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED THEREIN.
___________
Initials
The provisions of Section 4.1 shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to
which the Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or
property resulting from the Consultant's activities or the activities of any person or persons for
which the Consultant is otherwise responsible.
The insurance required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by
companies qualified to do business in California, rated A or better in the most recent edition of
Best Rating Guide, The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register, and only if they are of a
financial category Class VII or better, unless such requirements are waived by the Risk Manager
of OWD due to unique circumstances.
4.2. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify OWD, its directors,
officers, agents and employees against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless
from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties,
obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities, including applying any legal costs, attorneys fees, or
paying any judgment (herein “Claims or Liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any
person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work
or services of Consultant, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein,
or arising from the negligent acts or omissions of Consultant hereunder, or arising from
Consultant's negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision covenant or
condition of this Agreement, but excluding such Claims or Liabilities to the extent caused by the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of OWD.
5.0 TERM
5.1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of April 1, 2013. Unless
earlier terminated in accordance with Section 5.2 below, this Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect until March 31, 2015.
5.2. Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. Either party may terminate this
Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon ten (10) days written notice to the other
party. Upon receipt of the notice of termination, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work
or services hereunder except as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. In the
event of termination by OWD, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services
rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for such additional services
specifically authorized by the Contract Officer. OWD shall be entitled to reimbursement for any
compensation paid in excess of the services rendered.
Page 4 of 7
6.0 MISCELLANEOUS
6.1. Covenant Against Discrimination. The Consultant covenants that, by and
for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns and all persons claiming under or through them, that there
shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of
race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color,
creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry.
6.2. Non-liability of District Officers and Employees. No officer or employee
of OWD shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of
any default or breach by OWD or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to
its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
6.3. Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of OWD shall have any
financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee
participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his financial interest or the
financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or
indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation.
The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any
third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
___________
Initials
6.4. Notice. Any notice demand, request, document, consent, approval, or
communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person
shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of
OWD, to the General Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer, OWD, 2554
Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring Valley, CA 91978, and in the case of the Consultant, to the
person at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement.
6.5. Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either
party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might
otherwise apply.
6.6. lntegration: Amendment. It is understood that there are no oral
agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes
and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if
any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement
may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing.
6.7. Severability. If any part of this Agreement shall be declared invalid or
unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
Page 5 of 7
or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this Agreement which are
hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties
hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the
basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
6.8. Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a
nondefaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
A party's consent to or approval of any act by the other party requiring the party's consent or
approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the other party's consent to or
approval of any subsequent act. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and
shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this
Agreement.
6.9. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
the parties hereto warrant that (i) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement
on behalf of said party; (ii) the executing and entering into this Agreement does not violate any
provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound.
6.10 Governing Law/Venue. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall
be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any action or proceeding brought by any
party against any other party arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought
exclusively in San Diego County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this Agreement as
of the date first written above.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
__________________________
Mark Watton, General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel Shinoff, General Counsel
CONSULTANT:
By: ___________________________
Hector Mares
Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
All items described herein shall be provided by Consultant as part of his compensation to further
OWD's objectives regarding water delivery and supply, as such objectives are described below
and may be further described to Contractor by the Contract Officer in writing during the Term of
this Agreement:
1. Monitor and report from time to time on progress of the Mexican Colorado River
Aqueduct and associated facilities.
2. Provide research and a written report on the interest and viability of forming a committee
such as San Diego Dialogue to foster bi-national relations.
3. Monitor and report from time to time on existing bi-national committees and associations,
such as the San Diego Dialogue and the Institute of the Americas.
4. Provide oral and written reports on Mexicali, Mexico (MX) issues related to All-
American Canal lining and other water related activities.
5. Arrange and guide tours of Tijuana, MX water facilities involving appropriate Mexican
officials.
6. Provide a comprehensive report and analysis on Tijuana, MX water matters.
7. Arrange introductions for Tijuana, Rosarito Beach and Mexicali state and federal public
officials involved in water issues.
8. Arrange, organize, and invite Mexican water leaders and public officials for a tour of
OWD facilities.
9. Provide political analysis on Mexican water matters involving local, state and federal
jurisdictions.
10. Provide advice and analysis on the pending Rosarito Beach, MX desalination facility.
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
OWD shall pay Consultant a sum not to exceed $3,600.00 per month for a total sum not
to exceed $120,000.00 for all costs and services under this Agreement. Consultant shall submit
monthly invoices describing in detail the services and tasks performed during the prior calendar
month. Each invoice is payable within thirty (30) days of acceptance of the invoiced amounts by
OWD. Services under this Agreement shall commence on April 1, 2013 and end on March 31,
2015.
Consultant will be reimbursed for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
performance of the work identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall request written pre-approval
of any single expense in excess of $100.00 or any monthly sum of expenses in excess of $250.00.
Consultant shall submit to the OWD detailed receipts and a detailed invoice for said out-of-
pocket expenses. Any entertainment or meal expenses must be pre-approved by the Contract
Officer. Failure to obtain pre-approval may result in a denial of reimbursement.
SD #4836-3574-6304 v1
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Environmental Compliance
Specialist
Ron Ripperger
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: P2494-
001101
DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Termination of Work on the Joint Water Agencies Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) recommend that the District, along with the three other
Joint Water Agencies (JWA), terminate all work on the JWA
Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
(JWA NCCP/HCP) (see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To provide the Board with the history and background of the JWA
Plan so that they can make a recommendation regarding the
termination of work on the JWA Plan.
AGENDA ITEM 5
2
ANALYSIS:
In September, 2007 the District made the decision to pursue
becoming a partner in the Joint Water Agencies plan to produce a
NCCP/HCP. The three agencies that were a part of the JWA at
that time, Sweetwater Authority, Helix Water District, and Padre
Dam Water District had been working on putting together the
NCCP/HCP for about 10 years and were close to finishing the
Plan. The District recognized at that time that by becoming a
partner in the JWA Plan it would provide substantial benefits
for the biological permitting challenges of future CIP projects.
These benefits include the following:
Long-term self-permitting for habitat and species
impacts
Increased certainty with Project schedules, pre-
approved mitigation areas and mitigation ratios
Exchange or sale of mitigation credits among JWA
Partners
Reduced Wildlife Agency consultations
The JWA Partners supported the inclusion of the District, but
asked for a financial buy-in since the other three agencies had
expended a significant amount of money and time to get the Plan
to substantial completion. The District agreed and paid
$133,333 to each existing Partner, as approved by the Board in
January 2010. In addition, the District would fast-track the
preparation of its individual Sub-area Plan for the overall
NCCP/HCP and enter into contracts with the existing JWA Plan
Consultants to complete the NCCP/HCP.
The JWA NCCP/HCP covers approximately 8,388 acres in the
southwest quadrant of San Diego County, including lands within
the unincorporated area and the cities of Chula Vista, National
City, Santee, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, and El Cajon. The Plan
proposes coverage for 77 species (28 plants and 49 animals)
through coordinated conservation and management actions which
would be implemented within a 3,134 acre Conservation Easement
Area (CEA) dedicated on lands currently owned by the Partners,
including the District’s San Miguel Habitat Management Area.
The draft Plan which includes six components, a Sub-regional
Plan, a Conservation Plan, and four Sub-area Plans (one from
each Partner) was submitted to the California Dept. of Fish &
Game (CDFG) and the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), referred
to collectively as Wildlife Agencies (WLA’s), on March 7, 2011.
The JWA Partners and Consultants had been working with the WLA’s
3
throughout the process and were cautiously optimistic that it
would take three to six months to receive review comments from
the WLA’s because of their workloads. Unfortunately, the USFWS
sent a letter to the JWA Partners in December, 201l, saying that
their Agency would not be able to start the review of the
documents until April 2012 because of staffing issues, a backlog
of already submitted NCCP’s/HCP’s, and a priority shift that put
the review of any energy-related projects at the top of their
list. Although this news was discouraging, the JWA Partners’
staff members felt that having a start date for review was
positive.
In April, correspondence from USFWS indicated that they were
starting their review, but could only spend eight (8) hours per
week on the JWA Plan, which meant that the review period length
could be substantial because of the breadth of the Plan. The
JWA Partners staff met in May 2012 and again in July 2012 with
our General Managers to decide how to proceed. At the July
meeting, it was decided that the General Managers would meet
with representatives of the two agencies, CDFG and USFWS, to let
them know that the JWA Partners were considering not going
forward with the Plan.
The most significant concern that led the Partners to this
decision was the economics of moving forward. Current economic
conditions are such that the budgets for all four Agencies are
tight and CIP projects are being delayed and/or abandoned. The
costs associated with going ahead with the Plan include
additional consultant work to address the WLA’s review comments
and the associated CEQA/NEPA document and the more substantial
costs that would be incurred with the implementation of the Plan
upon approval. Implementation costs include the work associated
with setting up the conservation easements for mitigation lands
and the survey, management, and reporting for these lands on an
annual basis once they are established.
The District is in the unique position of having our conservation
lands already established, the District’s Habitat Management Area
(HMA). The District already manages, surveys, and reports on the
HMA. However, the WLA’s may have established other conditions
for the HMA land which would have needed to be met, increasing
our annual costs for this area. For the other three agencies,
the costs for this work would be significant and staff felt that
it would not be fiscally responsible to proceed.
The Partners’ General Managers met with the WLA representatives
in July 2012. The WLA’s asked that the General Managers delay
4
their decision for 60 days while they come up with a plan that
could reduce the costs associated with the conservation
easements. That deadline has come and gone without any word
from the WLA’s and the Partners have decided that it is in their
best interests to stop work on the Plan and abandon the JWA
NCCP/HCP.
Although the recommendation is to not go ahead with the JWA Plan
at this time, the work that has been done for the preparation of
the District’s Subarea Plan and the other JWA Plan documents can
still be used to explore other options for the District to
streamline our biological permitting in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total Project budget for CIP P2494 is $930,000, of which
$789,049 has been expended to date (see Attachment B for budget
detail). The committed funds for the Project are $934,017 which
exceeds the approved Project budget by $4,017 due to extended
effort by staff to monitor the ongoing review process.
Upon approval by the Board to terminate the work on the JWA
plan, the contracts for the JWA Plan consultants, TAIC, The Rick
Alexander Company, and A.D. Hinshaw would be terminated and
$65,905 of the committed budget amount would not be spent.
Staff will continue to work with the District’s Subarea Plan
consultant, RECON, to investigate how the District can
streamline our biological permitting.
The remaining fiscal issue concerns the payments that the
District made to the other three JWA Partners to “buy-in” to the
JWA Plan. Any refunds of this money to the District will be
worked out between the Partners’ General Managers.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To
provide high value water and wastewater services to the
customers of the Otay Water District in a professional,
effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s
Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to
provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation
for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
5
LCB/RR:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2494 MSCP\Staff Reports\BD 02-06-13, Staff Report, JWA Plan Termination, (LCB-RR).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Regional Location Map
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2494-001101
Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Termination of Work on the Joint Water Agencies Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 16, 2013.
The Committee supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any
discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2494-001101
Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Proposed
Termination of Work on the Joint Water Agencies Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
Date Updated: - 1/7/2013
Budget Committed Expenditures Outstanding
Commitment &
Projected Final
Cost Vendor/Comments
930,000
Planning
Construction Contracts 133,333 133,333 - 133,333 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
133,333 133,333 - 133,333 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER
133,333 133,333 - 133,333 HELIX WATER DISTRICT
Consultant Contracts 20,202 14,450 5,752 20,202 RICK ALEXANDER COMPANY, THE
34,625 8,501 26,125 34,625 A D HINSHAW ASSOCIATES
3,000 3,000 3,000 DR MARY ANNE HAWKE
4,332 4,332 - 4,332 TRAC
254,331 175,267 79,064 254,331 RECON
76,451 42,422 34,028 76,451 TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES
Meals and Incidentals 31 31 - 31 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional Legal Fees 11,388 11,388 - 11,388 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
22 22 - 22 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Service Contracts 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY SERVICES
- 3,000 (3,000) - MATTHEW RAHN
4,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 RAHN CONSERVATION CONSULTING
Standard Salaries 119,654 119,654 - 119,654
Total Planning 932,035 787,067 144,968 932,035
Design 001102
Standard Salaries 1,982 1,982 - 1,982
Total Design 1,982 1,982 - 1,982
Grand Total 934,017 789,049 144,968 934,017
P2494-Multiple Species Conservation Plan
Otay Water District
P:\WORKING\CIP P2494 MSCP\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Regional Locations of Water Agency Lands Relative to Conserved Lands.mxd
JOINT WATER AGENCIES NCCP/HCPREGIONAL LOCATIONS OF WATER AGENCY LANDSRELATIVE TO CONSERVED LANDS
EXHIBIT A CIP P2494FNOT TO SCALE
1
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 6, 2013
SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Marchioro
Senior Civil Engineer
Ron Ripperger
Engineering Manager
CIP./G.F. NO: P2434-
001102
DIV. NO. 2
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Update for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Development Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To update the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) on the progress of the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Development Project (Project).
ANALYSIS:
In 1997, the District purchased property along Rancho del Rey
Parkway within the City of Chula Vista with an existing brackish
groundwater production well on site (see Exhibit A for Project
location).
In 1999, the District split the property and sold the excess
land. The property modification was approved through the City
AGENDA ITEM 6
2
of Chula Vista planning process that included preparing a tract
map with plans for a developer to build a childcare facility
(Childtime) and a common driveway to serve Childtime’s and the
District’s sites. The District acquired an access easement from
Childtime in 2001. At the time the property was purchased, the
Project was considered economically unfeasible. Consequently,
the Project was suspended until the cost of imported water began
to escalate in recent years.
In 2010, a new production well was constructed by AECOM
Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). After development of the
well, AECOM recommended that 450 gallons per minute (725 acre-
feet per year) maximum safe yield pumping rate be used for
design purposes. Subsequently, staff contracted with Separation
Processes, Inc. (SPI), a well-known membrane treatment firm, to
conduct a feasibility study for the Project.
In April 2011, the Board awarded a professional services
contract to Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) to design the
treatment plant facility. To date, Tetra Tech has completed the
90% design submittal. Tetra Tech is currently proceeding to the
100% design level. In parallel with Tetra Tech’s ongoing design
effort, staff has been working on the following components of
the overall Project:
1. Sewer: Waste will be transported through the City of Chula
Vista’s (Chula Vista) existing sewer collection system, the
County of San Diego’s (County) existing Spring Valley
Outfall, and the Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers
Authority’s (Metro) sewage system for treatment. The
District will utilize existing sewer capacity rights in the
County’s Spring Valley Outfall and in Metro’s South Metro
Interceptor and Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
District will be invoiced by Chula Vista, the County, and
Metro for Project sewer discharges separately.
Staff is working with Chula Vista to develop a new sewer
agreement to discharge brine to the sewer. Staff is also
working with the City of San Diego to obtain a new Metro
Industrial User Discharge Permit. The overall cost for the
sewer connection including Chula Vista, County, and Metro
fees is anticipated to be roughly $200/acre-foot.
2. Storm Drain: Staff is working with the City of Chula Vista
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain
coverage under existing National Pollutant Discharge
3
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for discharge of non-spec
potable water to the storm drain.
3. Hazardous Materials Storage/Handling: Staff met with the
City of Chula Vista Fire Department in December 2011 to
review the draft design. A County Hazardous Materials
Business Plan application was submitted to the County in
April 2012.
4. Operation Options: Staff is currently considering three
options for operation of the facility including: a)
operation by a private company, b) operation by District
in-house staff, and c) operation by the Sweetwater
Authority.
5. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Power Supply:
Coordination with SDG&E has been completed for the design
phase. Staff is working with SDG&E to gain a better
understanding of future changes in electricity rates.
6. Funding: District staff is working on a Bureau of
Reclamation funding application for up to 25% of the cost
of the Project ($2.18M in initial cost savings, which is
equivalent to a $223/acre-foot savings). Funding through
the San Diego County Water Authority’s (SDCWA) Local Water
Supply Development (LWSD) Program (up to $200/acre-foot)
and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(up to $250/acre-foot) is currently unavailable.
7. Design: Tetra Tech has designed the treatment facility to
the 90% design level and is currently proceeding to the
100% design level.
Staff considers it prudent at this time to complete the
following items:
Design phase
Lock in the City of Chula Vista sewer agreement
Permit the storm drain connection
Continue Agency coordination regarding hazardous
materials
Obtain a better understanding of future changes in
electricity rates
Secure available funding
4
However, once the design has been completed, the Project
construction phase should be put on hold due to the uncertainty
of the items summarized in the table below:
Assumption: Economic Impact: Reliability Impact:
SDCWA/Poseidon
Resources current
draft water
purchase agreement
moves forward
Increase in SDCWA
Rates would
increase Project
appeal
No change - regional
treated water supply
would increase; however,
the Project would remain
the sole non-SDCWA source
SDCWA and
Metropolitan Water
District of
Southern California
treated water rate
increases long-term
Increase in SDCWA
Rates would
increase Project
appeal Not applicable
Rosarito
Desalination
project moves
forward
Unknown
The additional non-SDCWA
source would decrease
Project appeal
SDG&E rate
increases per
November 7, 2012
District Staff
Report
Increase in
electricity cost
would decrease
Project appeal
Not applicable
Once staff has a better understanding of when the SDCWA all-
inclusive treated rate will approach the projected Project unit
cost (currently estimated at $2,000/acre-foot) continuing with
the construction phase could be re-evaluated (see presentation
attached as Exhibit B).
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
No fiscal impact. The total budget for CIP P2434, as approved
in the FY 2013 budget, is $8,700,000. CIP expenditures prior to
FY 2009 (prior to commencing the SPI feasibility study and prior
to drilling the new production well) were $551,303. CIP
expenditures to date (through October 24, 2012) were $3,481,978.
Total CIP expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are approximately $8,694,729. See Attachment B for
budget detail.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To
provide high value water and wastewater services to the
5
customers of the Otay Water District in a professional,
effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s
Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to
provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation
for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
JM/RR:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2434 - RDR Well\Staff Reports\BD 02-06-13, Attachment A, (JM-RR) (edits4).doc
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2434-001102
Informational Update for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater
Well Development Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 10, 2012 and
the following comments were made:
Staff provided a PowerPoint presentation on the progress of
the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project
(Project).
Staff stated that the Project is a new 600 AFY Potable
Water Source with a new brackish groundwater production
well, nested monitoring well, and reverse osmosis treatment
plant that will discharge brine to the sewer.
The Project is located in the City of Chula Vista along
Rancho del Rey Parkway in a mostly residential community
adjacent to an existing daycare facility called Childtime.
It was noted that the District’s property shares a common
driveway that is owned by Childtime.
A slide was provided to show current architectural
elevations for the Project. Staff and the consultant
(Tetra Tech) incorporated architectural concepts to blend
in with Childtime and the surrounding residential homes.
The idea was for the structure to appear similar to a 2-
story home.
It was noted that staff, California Department of Public
Health (CDPH), and the value engineering and
constructability consultant (Arcadis) reviewed Tetra Tech’s
90% design level submittal. Tetra Tech is currently
proceeding to the 100% design level.
A map was provided that showed the sewer flow path to
Metro’s south interceptor. Staff indicated that brine will
7
be transported through the City of Chula Vista’s sewer
system, then through the County’s Spring Valley Outfall and
Metro’s South Metro Interceptor, and ultimately to the
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Staff noted that the District will pay three (3) separate
bills, one to Chula Vista, one to the County, and one to
Metropolitan Water District (Metro).
It was indicated that District and Chula Vista staff have
been working together for a couple years to study Chula
Vista’s sewer system and determine its hydraulic capacity
to support the Project. Based on the technical results,
staff drafted and negotiated a new sewer agreement that is
nearly complete. The draft Chula Vista sewer agreement
includes initial and reoccurring transportation costs, and
possible other costs like manhole lining and scale removal;
however, it’s unlikely that it will be needed. Staff
stated that working with the County and Metro has been
straightforward because the District will utilize existing
capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall and Metro Wastewater
pursuant to existing agreements. Existing County and Metro
agreements will be utilized for reoccurring County and
Metro costs. District staff is working with the City of
San Diego to secure an Industrial User Discharge Permit.
It was noted that staff is also working on development of a
new storm drain connection to discharge non-spec potable
water to the storm drain.
Staff stated that the District is working with the Chula
Vista fire department and the County regarding hazardous
materials which are especially sensitive since the Project
will be adjacent to a daycare facility.
There was a discussion about who will operate the plant.
Staff indicated that the health department requires two (2)
T3 certified operators familiar with reverse osmosis
equipment until the plant is deemed reliable for remote
operation. If the District decides to operate the plant
in-house, it would need to hire from the outside because
the District currently does not employ T3 certified
operators. Staff stated that there may be an opportunity
for an outside company to operate the plant, but the
drawback is that there are no similar operations nearby and
the private companies may have difficulty keeping the T3
operators busy when not working on the well. It was noted
that Sweetwater may be a good fit to operate the plant
8
since they have a similar facility nearby, but it’s not
clear if they are interested.
Staff stated that coordination with SDG&E has been
completed for the design phase; however, staff is working
with SDG&E to gain a better understanding of future changes
in electricity rates.
It was noted that District staff is working on a Bureau of
Reclamation funding application for up to 25% of the cost
initial of the Project.
Staff provided a slide that showed the current schedule for
the Project. Staff, including the Engineering,
Operations, and Finance departments, will meet with the
City of Chula Vista on January 17, 2013 to negotiate a few
items in the agreement.
It was noted that the Project will not be placed on hold
until the design has been completed. Staff feels it is
important to work through details of the design,
permitting, and agreements to facilitate resurrecting the
Project in the future.
Staff indicated that some of the drivers influencing the
decision to place the Project on hold include the
uncertainty of the SDCWA/Poseidon Resources water purchase
agreement, long-term SDCWA and Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California treated water rates, Rosarito
Desalination project, and future SDG&E rate increases.
Staff stated that Sycuan is showing an interest in the
Project.
In response to a question by the Committee, staff indicated
that the District has so far invested $3.5 million into the
Project and has committed $3.8 million. It was noted that
staff will pause the construction of the Project to ensure
that the District is investing in the right areas.
The Committee recommended that staff add to the PowerPoint
presentation some focal points that emphasize the Project’s
potential, such as Sycuan’s interest in the Project and the
production of water at 600 AFY for approximately $2,000.
Following the discussion, the EO&WR Committee requested
that this item be brought back to the EO&WR Committee
before going to the full Board.
9
The following was provided after the Committee meeting in
response to the Committee’s inquiries described above:
o On April 4, 2007, the District adopted the Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP outlined which measures the
District needed to “wean” itself from CWA by developing
several alternative water supplies, including
groundwater, desalination, recycled water supplies, and
conservation. Thirty (30) potential alternative water
supplies were considered including Rosarito Desalination,
SD17 Pump Station with the City of San Diego, North
District Recycled Water Concept, Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well, Otay 7 Well, Otay River Sweetwater
Wells, etc.
o In the FY 2008 budget, a CIP was created to allocate
funds for the planning, exploration, testing, and
preliminary investigation of groundwater wells to
develop treatment requirements to meet water supply
diversification and reliability goals. In FY 2010, the
Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project was
specifically identified as a production well development
of approximately 300 GPM for potable water use as the
Project needed to meet the IRP water supply goals.
o In January 2010, staff brought for Board consideration
the awarding of a contract to AECOM in the amount of
nearly $1.6 million for technical services including the
planning, design, construction, and testing of a
production and monitoring well at Project site.
Attachment C of the January 2010 staff report justified
the need of taking the next step towards development of
a production groundwater well at the Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well site. At the time the staff report was
prepared, it was understood that land use development
projects planned to be served by the District, however,
not within the jurisdictions of the SDCWA, would likely
require alternative water resources.
o In January 2011, staff presented two staff reports to
the full Board including an AECOM change order in an
amount of $176,805 and authorization to issue a RFP for
the Design of Phase 2 of the Project.
o In April 2011, staff brought for Board consideration the
awarding of a contract to Tetra Tech in the amount of
$724,000 for design engineering, permitting assistance,
10
construction support services, and operations training.
In February 2012, staff updated the Board on the
progress of the Architectural Design relating to the
Project.
o The following recent developments have influenced the
decision to pause the construction phase of the Project.
Staff will continue to develop a better understanding of
the issues and outcomes below before more funds are
committed.
1. The Rosarito Desalination Project, which has
recently gained momentum, would reduce the need for
more local supply. The Rosarito Desalination
Project would be preferred compared to the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Development Project due to
its larger scale, probable lower unit cost of water,
and streamlined operations.
2. The impact of SDG&E rate increases per the
District’s November 7, 2012 Staff Report is unknown.
Electricity cost is very sensitive to the Project
since it’s currently estimated at $260,000 annually
which is equivalent to $430/acre-foot. Based on the
November 7, 2012 Staff Report, possible SDG&E rate
increases could add an additional $215/acre-foot to
the Project unit cost of water.
3. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California’s (MWDSC) $250/acre-foot local supply
rebate was made unavailable when SDCWA entered into
litigation with MWDSC over water rates. SDCWA’s
Local Water Supply Development (LWSD) Program’s
$200/acre-foot rebate was also made unavailable when
SDCWA did not include it in their FY 2011-12 budget.
4. The outcome of ongoing sewer connection
negotiations, partially related to unforeseen
existing hydraulic capacity issues in the City of
Chula Vista’s existing sewer system and other items,
are still unknown.
5. To partially mitigate City of Chula Vista sewer
capacity issues (see bullet #4 above) and discharge
off-spec potable water to the storm drain, the
Regional Water Control Board is currently reviewing
the District’s application for coverage under the
RWQCB’s General Permit for the Discharge of
11
Groundwater Extraction Waste to the Waters of San
Diego Bay, Order R9-2007-0034.
6. Staff is currently considering operation options in
response to the health department’s verbal
suggestion that they will require two (2) T3
certified operators with reverse osmosis experience
to operate the facility. If the District decides to
operate the plant in-house, it would need to hire
from the outside because the District currently does
not employ T3 certified operators. Appeal for an
outside company to operate the plant appears low
because there are no similar operations nearby and
the private companies may have difficulty keeping
the T3 operators busy when not working on the
Project.
7. Staff is also evaluating reimbursements to District
sewer customers for the Project to utilize existing
sewer capacity assets which were originally
purchased by sewer customers. These assets include
existing capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall and
Metro Wastewater pursuant to existing agreements.
If the District did not already own unused capacity
in Metro Wastewater, the City of Chula Vista would
charge the District an additional $802,276 one-time
payment based on Metro capacity rates per the City
of Chula Vista’s current (May 2005) Sewer Master
Plan. If the District did not already own unused
capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall, the pipeline
capacity one-time payment to City of Chula Vista
could double ($624,877 rather than $312,439). Based
on this, the internal reimbursement for the Project
to purchase capacity in the Spring Valley Outfall
and Metro from the District’s sewer customers would
be a one-time payment of approximately $1.1 million
which is equivalent to approximately $115/acre-foot
assuming 600 AFY. This internal reimbursement to
District sewer customers has not yet been included
in the Project cost model or Attachment B.
o The Project’s potential might be realized through a
better understanding of the following items:
8. When the SDCWA all-inclusive treated rate will
approach the projected Project unit cost considering
SDCWA’s recent approval of the water purchase
agreement with Poseidon Resources.
12
9. Sycuan Indian Reservation may be interested in
contributing to funding of the Project because they
are seeking a source of water independent of MWDSC
and SDCWA supplies.
10. If and when Bureau of Reclamation funding for up to
25% of the cost of the Project ($2.18 million in
initial cost savings, which is equivalent to a
$223/acre-foot savings) will be available.
11. If and when SDCWA ends litigation with MWDSC and
MWDSC’s $250/acre-foot local supply rebate will
become available again.
Several San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) member agencies
have invested in potential alternate water supply projects at
risk in an attempt to increase reliability and lessen the impact
of supply shortages and regulatory restrictions that have
limited Southern California’s imported water supplies (Colorado
River and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta). Alternative
water supply projects have also become attractive as
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and SDCWA
have raised and will continue to raise wholesale water rates.
Recently, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD)
budgeted $19 million for the San Elijo Valley Groundwater
Project through FY 2016/FY 2017. OMWD’s project, which is
anticipated to produce up to 10% of their yearly demand
(approximately 2,000 AFY), is still in the early planning stage,
with a pilot test well recently installed. The City of San
Diego has budgeted approximately $100 million for their
Groundwater Asset Development Program and has installed and/or
is working to install several brackish groundwater monitoring
wells and pilot-production wells throughout San Diego County
(County). The City of Oceanside and Sweetwater Authority are
both working to expand their existing local brackish groundwater
supplies and treatment plants (Richard A. Reynolds Groundwater
Purification Facility and Mission Basin Groundwater Purification
Facility, respectively) and construct additional production
wells. There are several Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) projects
including the Helix Water District’s El Monte Valley Project
which was suspended in 2011. Once staff has a better
understanding of the issues described above, continuing with the
construction phase will be re-evaluated and staff will bring it
back to the Board for consideration.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
13
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 16,
2013. The Committee supported Staff’s recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the
Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This
report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item,
or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed
from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board.
14
ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2434-001102
Informational Update for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater
Well Development Project
Date Updated: October 24, 2012
Budget 8,700,000 Prior to FY 2009 001101
Labor 119,257 119,257 - 119,257
Land 326,092 326,092 - 326,092
Permits 125 125 - 125 CITY OF CHULA VISTA-DEPT. OFMaterials1,348 1,348 - 1,348 VARIOUSRental159 159 - 159 PENHALL COMPANYConstruction Costs 26,154 26,154 - 26,154 CHILDTIME CHILDCARE, INC.Service Contracts 6 6 - 6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
134 134 - 134 COURIER EXPRESS, INC.
205 205 - 205 USA SIGN CO.
3,226 3,226 - 3,226 QUALITY ASSURANCE LABORATORY
7,108 7,108 - 7,108 MULTI WATER SYSTEMS
1,955 1,955 - 1,955 BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP
5,665 5,665 - 5,665 EARTH TECH
3,344 3,344 - 3,344 CITY OF CHULA VISTA16,714 16,714 - 16,714 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION112 112 - 112 MONTGOMERY WATSON LABORATORIES2,500 2,500 - 2,500 ANDREW A. SMITH COMPANY2,000 2,000 - 2,000 ENARTEC ENGINEERING PLANNING
35,200 35,200 - 35,200 ALCEM FENCE COMPANY INC.Total Prior to FY 2009 551,303 551,303 - 551,303
Planning (FY2009-current)001101
Labor 233,027 233,027 - 233,027
Professional Legal Fees 5,619 5,619 - 5,619 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP
Outreach Materials 1,876 1,876 - 1,876 MARSTON+MARSTON INC
Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Consultant Contracts 19,871 19,871 - 19,871 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
Consultant Contracts 13,825 13,825 - 13,825 MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
Consultant Contracts 1,100 1,100 - 1,100 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE
Consultant Contracts 3,065 3,065 - 3,065 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOILConsultant Contracts 14,993 14,993 - 14,993 SEPARATION PROCESSES INCConsultant Contracts 6,930 6,930 - 6,930 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTConsultant Contracts 1,718,505 1,718,505 - 1,718,505 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INCService Contracts 5,100 5,100 - 5,100 S R BRADLEY & ASSOCIATES INC
Service Contracts 257 257 - 257 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Service Contracts 245 245 - 245 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
Service Contracts 2,500 2,500 - 2,500 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
624 624 - 624 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
0 399 399 - 399 REPROHAUS CORP
0 440 440 - 440 URBINA'S MASTER SWEEPING INCTotal Planning (FY2009-current)2,028,426 2,028,426 - 2,028,426
Design (FY2009-current)001102 002102Labor390,736 390,736 40,000 430,736
Professional Legal Fees 5,118 5,118 - 5,118 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Consultant Contracts 646,457 404,445 242,012 646,457 TETRA TECH INC
Consultant Contracts 7,847 7,847 - 7,847 PBS&J
Consultant Contracts 11,940 11,940 - 11,940 ATKINS
Consultant Contracts 6,130 6,130 - 6,130 MTGL INC
Consultant Contracts 3,200 3,200 - 3,200 ALTA LAND SURVEYING INC
Consultant Contracts 8,154 8,154 - 8,154 V & A CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Consultant Contracts 4,500 4,500 - 4,500 ENGINEERING PARTNERS INC, THEConsultant Contracts 1,980 1,980 - 1,980 HERNDON SOLUTIONS GROUPConsultant Contracts 79,472 42,717 36,754 79,472 ARCADIS US INCService Contracts 294 294 - 294 REPROHAUS CORPService Contracts 130 130 - 130 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Service Contracts 343 343 - 343 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
20,000 20,000 Planset Reproduction/DistributionTotal Design (FY2009-current)1,166,300 887,534 338,766 1,226,300
Construction (FY2009-current)001103
Labor 14,715 14,715 200,000 214,715 101,785 101,785 101,785 TETRA TECH INC3,814,900 3,814,900 Treatment Plant Construction350,000 350,000 Construction Management407,300 407,300 Chula Vista Sewer Connection
Total Construction (FY2009-current)116,500 14,715 4,873,985 4,888,700
Grand Total 3,862,529 3,481,978 5,212,751 8,694,729
Otay Water District
Vendor/Comments
P2434 - Rancho Del Rey Well Development
Committed Expenditures Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
P:
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
C
I
P
P
2
4
3
4
-
R
D
R
W
e
l
l
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
OTAY WATER DISTRICTRANCHO DEL REY WELL PROJECTLOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A CIP P2434
F
0 75 150Feet
PROJECT SITE
TERR
A
NOV
A
D
R
RAN
C
H
O
CALLE L
A
G
A
S
C
A
DEL
REY
PKW
Y127
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTS
?ò
?ä
?Ë
;&s
!
DIV. 5
DIV. 2
DIV. 3
DIV. 1
DIV. 4
F
Rancho del Rey
Groundwater Well
Development Project
Informational Update for:
February 6, 2013
Exhibit B
Presentation Outline
1.Project Overview
2.Recent Efforts
3.Costs
4.Schedule
2
Project Overview
New Potable Water Source (600 AFY):
Production well (900’ deep, 450 gpm)
Nested Monitoring Well (5 sub-monitoring wells)
RO Treatment Facility (80-90% recovery)
Discharge Brine to Sewer
3
4
5
Old Well
New Well
6
Childtime
7
Architectural Elevations
8
Tetra Tech 100% Design
•90% reviewed by District staff, CDPH, and Value
engineering and constructability consultant (Arcadis)
Sewer
•City of Chula Vista
•County
•Metro
Recent Efforts
9
Sewer Connection
10
City of Chula Vista
•New Agreement
•$406K in initial costs (pipeline capacity, shared sewer system
improvement costs, CCTV) and $11k+/- quarterly for conveyance
•Possible additional costs (scale removal, manhole relining)
County
•Utilize existing agreement & existing pipeline capacity in the County’s
Spring Valley Outfall
Metro
•Utilize existing agreement & existing pipeline and treatment capacity in
Metro’s South Metro Interceptor and Point Loma Wastewater
Treatment Plant
•Industrial User Discharge Permit
Sewer Connection
11
Storm Drain connection and NPDES Permit
Hazardous Materials Storage/Handling
•County Hazardous Materials Business Plan
•Chula Vista Fire Department
Operation Options
•Private Company (Veolia, Cal Am, United Water, Degremont, IDE)
•In-House (District hire two T3 Operators)
•Sweetwater Authority
Recent Efforts (continued)
12
SDG&E Power Supply
•Agreement
•Possible Rate Increases
Funding
•United States Bureau of Reclamation grant request
Recent Efforts (continued)
13
Initial (CIP Budget) $8.7M
•Treatment Facility $3.8M
•Expenditures to Date $3.8M
•Other (e.g., Admin, Construction Mgt.) $1.0M
•City of CV Sewer Connection $0.4M
Annual $650K/year
Cost of Water (600 AFY) $2,000/AF
Current Cost Model
14
Preliminary Design Report Oct 2011 (complete)
90% Design May 2012 (complete)
90% Design Review Aug 2012 (complete)
Final Design Mar 2013
Project Schedule
15
Rosarito Desalination Project gaining momentum
SDG&E rate increases
MWDSC $250/AF local supply rebate availability
Chula Vista’s sewer connection negotiations
RWQCB Storm Drain Connection
Operations Options
Sewer customer impact
Drivers for Placing Project on Hold
(after completion of design)
16
SDCWA all-inclusive treated rate approaches the
projected Project unit cost
Sycuan Indian Reservation
Funding (Bureau of Rec, MWDSC Rebate)
Project’s Potential Realized
17
Questions?
18