HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-11 FA&C Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT
FINANCE,ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
COMMITTEE MEETING
and
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
BOARDROOM
WEDNESDAY
March 16,2011
11:30 A.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 ofthe 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 JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
DISCUSSION ITEMS
3.APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO CUMMINS CAL
PACIFIC,LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,125.38 FOR THE PURCHASE OF
ONE (1)REPLACEMENT EMERGENCY STANDBY GEN-SET FOR THE
RALPH W.CHAPMAN WATER RECYCLING FACILITY (ANDERSON)[5
minutes]
4.ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.529 AMENDING SECTION 36.03,
ENCROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS,OF THE DISTRICT'S CODE
OF ORDINANCES (ROMERO)[5 minutes]
5.2011 RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER OPINION AND AWARENESS SURVEY
REPORT (REA AND PARKER RESEARCH,INC.)[15 minutes]
6.APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM (BUELNA)[5
minutes]
7.ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.528 AMENDING SECTION 34,ISSUANCE AND
PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS,AND SECTION 53,FEES,RATES,CHARGES
AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE,OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
(MENDEZ-SCHOMER)[5 minutes]
1
8.ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4170 DESIGNATING SPECIFIC STAFF
POSITIONS TO BE AUTHORIZED AS AGENTS TO DEAL WITH THE STATE
OFCALIFORNIA,OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES,ON THE DISTRICTS
BEHALF IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO DISASTER ASSISTANCE
(BEACHEM)[5 minutes]
9.APPROVE A ONE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH BROWNSTEIN,HYATT,
FARBER AND SCHREK FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $160,000 FOR
COMPREHENSIVE STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
ADVOCACY (WATTON)[5 minutes]
10.FISCAL YEAR 2011 STRATEGIC PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
UPDATE REPORT (STEVENS)[10 minutes]
11.ADJOURNMENT
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING:
Gary Croucher,Chair
David Gonzalez
All items appearing on this agenda,whether or not expressly listed for action,may be
deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board.
The Agenda,and any attachments containing written information,are available at the
District's website at www.otaywater.gov.Written changes to any items to be considered
at the open meeting,or to any attachments,will be posted on the District's website.
Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secre-
tary by contacting her at (619)670-2280.
If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to
participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24
hours prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on March 11,2011 I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the
regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District,said time being at
least 24 hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code
Section §54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley,California on March 11,2011.
2
AGENDA ITEM 3
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
All
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:Frank Anderson,Utility ().
'IServicesManager~}
Pedro Porras,~
Chief,Water Operations
Manny Magana ;~~Hn'\t1NtfCvv~t:.-
Assistant General MYnager,Engineering &Operations
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.8M):
SUBJECT:Approval to Purchase One (1)Replacement Emergency Stand By
Gen-Set for the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling Facility
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorizes the General Manager to issue a
purchase order to Cummins Cal Pacific LLC.in the amount of
$63,125.38 for the purchase of one (1)replacement Emergency
Stand By Gen-Set for the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling
Facility (RWCWRF).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment "A".
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization to purchase
Emergency Stand By Gen-Set for the RWCWRF.
a replacement
ANALYSIS:
On December 6,2000 the Board authorized the General Manager to
initiate CIP P2366 that provided funding for the repair,
retrofi t or replacement of District Assets in order to comply
with APCD air standard requirements.One (1)existing District
Gen-Set is scheduled for replacement due to its age,
insufficient electrical output and diesel engine exhaust
displacement.
Based on system operation evaluations of work flow history by
Fleet supervision and management as well as RWCWRF supervision
and management,it is recommended that one (1)new Gen-Set be
purchased and the one (1)older Gen-Set unit being replaced be
declared surplus.This action would also reduce the District's
fuel,maintenance and repair costs.
It should be noted that the existing Gen-Set is 31 years old and
underpowered.This replacement activity will also noticeably
reduce the District's diesel emissions output as the new Gen-Set
is Tier 3 which complies with APCD diesel emissions standards
for new Gen-Sets.
In accordance with District policy,bids were solicited for the
new Gen-Set.Three (3)bids were received.Prices received
include all applicable fees and taxes and delivery.
Dealer Gen-Set Bid Bid Price
Cummins Cal Pacific LLC Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $63,125.28
Global Power Group,Inc.Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $73,308.38
Duthie Power Services Cummins Diesel Gen-Set $74,060.93
FISCAL IMPACT:
The purchase of this Gen-Set will cost $63,125.28 which will be
charged against the APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits CIP
2366.
The total FY11 project budget
Replacements and Retrofits is
and current encumbrances for
purchased under this request if
for the
$442,000.
the CIP,
approved,
CIP p2366 APCD Engine
Existing expenditures
including the Gen-Set
are $203,261.82.
Based on the Utility Service Manager's evaluation,the CIP 2366
budget is sufficient to complete the budgeted purchase.
The Finance Department has determined that 100%of the funds are
available in the replacement fund.
Expenditure Summary:
FYll APCD Engine Replacement CIP 2366 $442,000Budget:
FYll Expenditures and Encumbrances to Date:
APeD compliance replacement parts for $140,136.54'
existing fleet.
Proposed Emergency Stand By Gen-Set $63,125.28Purchase:
Total Expenditures and Encumbrances:$203,261.82
Projected Balance of APeD Engine $238,738.18ReplacementFYllCIP2366Budget:
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Implementation of the APCD engine compliance program per
schedule.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment "AU,Committee Action
ATTACHMENT A
Approval to Purchase One (1)Replacement Emergency Stand By
SUBJECTIPROJECT:Gen-Set for the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling Facility
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee reviewed this
item at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and supported staffs'
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.
Quality Assurance Approval Sheet
Subject:Approval to purchase Replacement Stand By Gen Set.Project No.:P2366
Document Description:Staffreport for the April 6th,2011 Board Meeting.
~-)b-)IAuthor:
Signature
fiie~~ANDd<S-W
Printed~e I
QA Reviewer:1J.~_---""""__._s{£n~ture ~_(J:ZU(C ~vtJ
Date:-------
'\~(U~t(Date:J.
Manager:
Printed Name
~~\---
Signature
~e-fu~~
Printed Name
Date:~~)0 ~I \
The above signatures attest that the attached document has been reviewed and to the best oftheir ability,the signers
verify that it meets the District quality standard by clearly and concisely conveying the intended information;being
grammatically correct and free offormatting and typographical errors;accurately presenting calculated values and
numerical references;and being internally consistent,legible and uniform in its presentation style.
AGENDA ITEM 4
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Daniel R.Shinoff,General
Counsel
Richard E.Romero,Esq.
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.
APPROVED BY:Mark Watton,General Manager
German Alvarez,Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT:Revision of Code of Ordinance Provision Regarding the Allowance
of Encroachments on District Easements or Rights-of-Way
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Board adopt Ordinance No.529 enacting the proposed amendment to Section
36.03 ofthe Code ofOrdinance.
COMMITTEE ACTION:------
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present to the Board amendments to a Code of Ordinance provision to clarify and
update the District's procedures for allowing encroachments on District easements or
rights-of-way.
ANALYSIS:
Under the existing provisions of the Code of Ordinance,Section 36.03,the General
Manager is authorized to allow encroachments on District easements or rights-of-way for
improvements that are removable and which do not exceed $2,500 in value.All other
encroachments must be approved by the Board ofDirectors.Pursuant to Section 2.01(D)
of the Code of Ordinance,however,the General Manager is authorized to execute
agreements,contracts,other documents,or commitments on behalf of the District where
the amount involved does not exceed $50,000 (excluding Public Works Contracts,which
are awarded in compliance with applicable laws).
The monetary threshold for the General Manager's authority to allow encroachments on
District easements or rights-of-way is outdated and is significantly lower than the General
Manager's general authority under Section 2.01(D).Because of this discrepancy,the
General Manager's authority to allow encroachments is extremely limited,requiring the
Board of Directors to review and consider any encroachments in excess of $2,500,which
could include relatively minor improvements.District staff and the General Counsel
believe it is inefficient for the Board ofDirectors to be required to consider encroachment
agreements for improvements with such nominal values.Thus,they believe it would be
appropriate to update the Code of Ordinance to increase the General Manger's authority
to allow encroachments consistent with the General Manager's general monetary
authority under Section 2.01.Increasing the General Manager's authority to allow
encroachments would further streamline the process for approving and entering into
encroachment agreements.As such,the District staff and the General Counsel believe
that it would be in the best interest of the District to revise the relevant language of
Section 36.03.
The Staff and the General Counsel recommend that the Board adopt revisions to Section
36.03,as set forth on the attachment to Ordinance No.529.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
Attachment A:Committee Action
Attachment B:Ordinance No.529,with the following attachments:
Exhibit 1-Section 36 ofthe Code ofOrdinance,Strike-thru
Attachment C:Proposed Section 36
2
ATTACHMENT A
Revision of Code of Ordinance Provision Regarding the
Allowance of Encroachments on District Easements or Rights-
SUBJECTIPROJECT:of-Way
COMMITTEE ACTION:
This attachment will be updated with the notes from the
Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
discussion following the committee's meeting scheduled on
March 16,2011.
3
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.529
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT
AMENDING SECTION 36,ENCROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS,
OF THE DISTRICT'S CODE OF ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of Otay Water
District that the language within Section 36.03,Encroachment in
District Easements,of the District's Code of Ordinances be
amended as per Exhibit 1 attached to this ordinance.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the amendments to
Section 36.03 of the Code of Ordinances shall become effective
immediately upon adoption.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 6th
day of April 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
President
Page 1 of 2
ATTEST:
District Secretary
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 1
SECTION 36 LOCATION OF WATER LINES AND EASEMENTS
36.01 LOCATION OF WATER LINES
A.In Public Right-of-Way or Easements.Water
lines constructed by or for this District shall be
constructed within public road or street right-of-ways,
except where the District has expressly authorized the
construction to be made within permanent right-of-way
easements.
B.Physical Location.
1.A water line constructed within a public road or
street right-of-way shall normally be located
within the easterly or southerly half of the
right-of-way.
36.02
2.A water line constructed within an easement
shall normally lie along the centerline of said
easement if the easement will not contain other
utility lines.If other utility lines are
allowed in the water pipeline easement,the
water pipeline shall be located within the
easterly or southerly half of the easement
right-of-way.
DISTRICT WATER LINE EASEMENTS
A.Width of Easements.District minimum require-
ments for width of an easement for a water line shall be
20 feet;provided,however,in exceptional cases,the
General Manager may accept a permanent easement less than
20 feet in width on condition that the landowner grants to
the District an adequate temporary easement for
construction purposes together with a right of access to
the permanent easement for purposes of maintenance and
repair of the water line to be installed.
B.Easements in Subdivisions.The centerline of an
easement for a water line within a subdivision or "lot-
split"shall be parallel to at least one of the sidelines
of the lot or parcel in which the easement is located.
The entire width of the easement,as measured at right
angles to the said parallel sideline,shall be located
within the said lot or parcel.
36-1
c.Easements in Unsubdivided Land.The centerline
of an easement for a water line in unsubdivided lands
shall,whenever practicable,be parallel to one of the
sidelines of the parcel of land in which the easement is
located.The entire width of the easement,as measured at
right angles to the said parallel sideline,shall like
within the said parcel.
36-2
36.03 ENCROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.Enforcement Against Encroachments.The General
Manager is authorized and directed to institute on behalf
of the District any legal action necessary to prevent or
remove encroachment by others in,over,or upon District
easements and right-of-ways.
B.Allowance of Encroachments.The General Manager
may allow encroachment in,over,or upon a District ease-
ment or right-of-way if he determines that the
encroachment will not interfere with operation of the
District's water or sewer systems and will not interfere
with the maintenance,repair and replacement of such
systems.However,such encroachment shall not be allowed
until the property owner requesting the encroachment
executes an encroachment agreement,approved by the
District.The agreement shall provide,among other
conditions,that (i)the cost of removing and replacing
the encroachment shall be borne solely by the owner,and
(ii)the District will not waive any rights as to its use
of said easement or right-of-way,including,but not
limited to,the right to enter upon said easement at any
time for the purpose of making repairs,modifications,or
replacement of any pipeline or road,and (iii)the
encroachment will be removed upon 30-days written notice
from the District to the owner.The General Manager may
grant an extension of such period;however,the extension
must be in writing and signed by the General Manager.
The Manager's authority to allow such encroachment
shall extend to improvements that are removable and which
do not exceed the Manager's monetary authority as set
forth in subsection (D)of Section 2.01~2,500 in value.
All other encroachments must be approved by the Board of
Directors.
36.04 CONCURRENT USE OF DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.By Governmental Agencies.The Manager is
authorized to enter into agreements for concurrent use of
District easements by other governmental agencies or
public utilities,provided such use does not interfere
with the District's utilization of the easement.
B.By Private Persons or Entities.Concurrent use
of District easements by persons or entities other than
36-3
governmental agencies or public utilities must be approved
by the Board of Directors.
36-4
Attachment C
SECTION 36 LOCATION OF WATER LINES AND EASEMENTS
36.01 LOCATION OF WATER LINES
A.In Public Right-of-Way or Easements.Water
lines constructed by or for this District shall be
constructed within public road or street right-of-ways,
except where the District has expressly authorized the
construction to be made within permanent right-of-way
easements.
B.Physical Location.
1.A water line constructed within a public road or
street right-of-way shall normally be located
within the easterly or southerly half of the
right-of-way.
36.02
2 .A water line constructed within an easement
shall normally lie along the centerline of said
easement if the easement will not contain other
utility lines.If other utility lines are
allowed in the water pipeline easement,the
water pipeline shall be located within the
easterly or southerly half of the easement
right-of-way.
DISTRICT WATER LINE EASEMENTS
A.Width of Easements.District minimum require-
ments for width of an easement for a water line shall be
20 feet;provided,however,in exceptional cases,the
General Manager may accept a permanent easement less than
20 feet in width on condition that the landowner grants to
the District an adequate temporary easement for
construction purposes together with a right of access to
the permanent easement for purposes of maintenance and
repair of the water line to be installed.
B.Easements in Subdivisions.The centerline of an
easement for a water line within a subdivision or "lot-
split"shall be parallel to at least one of the sidelines
of the lot or parcel in which the easement is located.
The entire width of the easement,as measured at right
angles to the said parallel sideline,shall be located
within the said lot or parcel.
36-1
c.Easements in Un subdivided Land.The centerline
of an easement for a water line in unsubdivided lands
shall,whenever practicable,be parallel to one of the
sidelines of the parcel of land in which the easement is
located.The entire width of the easement,as measured at
right angles to the said parallel sideline,shall like
within the said parcel.
36-2
36.03 ENCROACHMENT IN DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.Enforcement Against Encroachments.The General
Manager is authorized and directed to institute on behalf
of the District any legal action necessary to prevent or
remove encroachment by others in,over,or upon District
easements and right-of-ways.
B.Allowance of Encroachments.The General Manager
may allow encroachment in,over,or upon a District ease-
ment or right-of-way if he determines that the
encroachment will not interfere with operation of the
District's water or sewer systems and will not interfere
with the maintenance,repair and replacement of such
systems.However,such encroachment shall not be allowed
until the property owner requesting the encroachment
executes an encroachment agreement,approved by the
District.The agreement shall provide,among other
conditions,that (i)the cost of removing and replacing
the encroachment shall be borne solely by the owner,and
(ii)the District will not waive any rights as to its use
of said easement or right-of-way,including,but not
limited to,the right to enter upon said easement at any
time for the purpose of making repairs,modifications,or
replacement of any pipeline or road,and (iii)the
encroachment will be removed upon 30-days written notice
from the District to the owner.The General Manager may
grant an extension of such period;however,the extension
must be in writing and signed by the General Manager.
The Manager's authority to allow such encroachment
shall extend to improvements that are removable and which
do not exceed the Manager's monetary authority as set
forth in subsection (D)of Section 2.01.All other
encroachments must be approved by the Board of Directors.
36.04 CONCURRENT USE OF DISTRICT EASEMENTS
A.By Governmental Agencies.The Manager is
authorized to enter into agreements for concurrent use of
District easements by other governmental agencies or
public utilities,provided such use does not interfere
with the District's utilization of the easement.
B.By Private Persons or Entities.Concurrent use
of District easements by persons or entities other than
36-3
governmental agencies or public utilities must be approved
by the Board of Directors.
36-4
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Armando Buelna4!b
Communications Officer
APPROVED BY:
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors receive the findings of the 2011
Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report conducted by
Rea and Parker Research Inc.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present the Board of Directors with the findings of the 2011
Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report.
BACKGROUND:
The Otay Water District's Strategic Plan calls for conducting a
standardized potable and recycled water customer survey program.The
purpose of the survey is to obtain information from customers about
the District's programs,activities,and services with the ultimate
goal of improving customer service.
The 2011 survey contacted 300 customers selected at random from those
residing within the District's service area.Rea and Parker Research
Inc.conducted the survey in both English and Spanish from January 6
through 11,2011.The survey has a margin of error +/-5.6 percent
at a 95 percent confidence level.
The 2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report has
found high levels of overall satisfaction from customers with the
District as their water service provider.Ratings,which had fallen
in 2009 survey,have returned to the higher levels.
In this recent survey,63%of customers rate the District as either
excellent or very good."These ratings are substantially higher than
those expressed in the 2009 and 2010 surveys.For example,in 2009,
56%of customers rated the District as either excellent or very good,
and,in 2010,54%indicated either a very good or excellent rating."
Customers also expressed a great deal of confidence in the ability of
local water agencies to provide enough water (93%were very confident
or somewhat confident).Another 81%report a substantial amount of
trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean,safe water.
Customer perception of the upward trend in water rates continues to
be reflected in the customer surveys.For instance,33%perceived an
upward trend in water rates in 2005,compared with 71%in 2009 and
and 70%in 2011.Moreover,as customers perceive rates going up,they
are increasingly motivated to conserve water (71%in 2011 versus 61%
in 2008).
In other significant findings,one-half of the respondents to the
survey expressed a preference in receiving their water bill by email
instead of through the Postal Service.This preference has increased
steadily since 2008 (when 24%expressed interest in receiving their
bill by email)and 2009 (when 35%expressed preference for email).
As an equally significant finding,nearly three fifths of respondents
(58%)would prefer to receive their bill by email and then proceed to
make their payment by one of the various paperless methods other than
by check or cash.
Customers are also quite positive about the potential for the
District to use social media to better serve their needs (nearly one-
half of customers use a least one form of social media such as
Facebook or YouTube).Approximately two-fifths of customers (range of
38%to 42%)provided an affirmative response to five specific
potential uses of social media (such as asking questions or making
comments about customer service,distributing information,emergency
information,notifying customers about construction,or providing
industry news).
More complete information on the survey's findings is contained in
the Executive Summary and the full report (Attachment B).
In conclusion,the 2011 survey report states that amoung customers,
"there are strong indications of support for the work of the Otay
Water District",and customers continue to "demonstrate a high level
of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water
service"..
FISCAL 'IMPACT:
This is an informational item only.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
There is no fiscal impact.
This project is consistent with the following Strategic Plan Goals:
1.1.1.1 Implement a standardized Potable and Recycled Water Customer
Survey.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attached
Attachment A -Committee Action Report
Attachment B -2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report
Attachment C -2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survy PowerPoint
Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
2011 Otay Water District Customer Opinion and Awareness
SUBJECTIPROJECT:Survey
COMMITTEE ACTION:
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.
·.OTAYWATERDISTRICT
REA&
PARKER
RESEARCH
Survey/Market Research
Economic C01lSuitants
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
ATTACHMENT B
Otay \Vater District
2011 Residential
Customer OpiJlion and
Awareness S1I rvey
Report
Prepared for
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,CA 91978
Prepared by
Rea &Parker Research
P.O.Box 421079
San Diego,CA 92142
www.rea-parker.com
February,2011
Rea &Parker Research
FebruGly,2011
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary
Introduction and Methodology
Sample
Report Format
Survey Findings
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
iii
1
2
2
4
4
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability 4
Water Conservation
Water Rates and Conservation
Awareness and Interest in Conservation
Lawn/Landscaping
Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden
Bill Payment
Publications and Website
Publications
Website
Social Media
Alternative Water Supplies:Recycling and Desalination
Recycling
Desalination
Comparative Rating of Utilities
Conclusions
Appendix (Questionnaire,Frequencies,and Open-Ended Responses)
11
12
15
16
18
21
26
26
28
30
33
34
37
41
43
45
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and AwarenessSurvey
ii Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
Otay Water District 2011 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 ofthe survey is
twofold -first,to provide information concerning customer satisfaction and customer awareness
of water issues and secondly to compare the results of this 2011 study with the results of the
2005,2006,2008,and 2009 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Surveys as well as the
2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey where data are comparable for a limited number
of questions only.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of300 respondents,which equates to a
margin oferror of+/-5.6%at the 95%confidence level.
Respondents are predominantly White (56 percent)and Hispanic/Latino (26 percent)and earn an
annual median household income of $80,400 (32 percent earning $100,000 or more and 6 percent
earning under $25,000).They have a median age of 53 years and have been customers of the
Otay Water District for a median of 15 years.Among these respondents,58 percent possess a
Bachelor's degree or more,with 16 percent having a high school education or less.Survey
respondents are largely homeowners (97 percent)with a mean household size of2.83.
Survey Findings
This survey report has been divided into eight essential information components as follows:
•Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
•Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
•Water Conservation
•Bill Payment
•Publications and Website
•Social Media
•Alternative Water Supplies:Recycling and Desalination
•Comparative Rating ofUtilities
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
•Customers have a great deal of confidence in the ability of local water agencies to
provide enough water for their customers (93 percent either very confident or somewhat
confident).These ratings are somewhat higher than the level of confidence portrayed in
the 2008 and 2009 General Surveys where 86 percent and 85 percent of respondents
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
iii Rea &ParkerResearch
FebruaJy,2011
respectively expressed confidence in the ability oflocal water agencies to provide enough
water.
•Otay Water District customers also have a substantial amount oftrust in the ability ofthe
Otay Water District to provide clean,safe,water for its customers (81 percent either have
a great deal of trust or a good amount of trust).Customer trust in the safety and
cleanliness of water has grown over time from 2005 to 2011.
•Two-fifths of customers have either a great deal of trust (12 percent)or a good amount of
trust (28 percent)in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable
prices.This level of trust is consistent with the findings of the 2009 General Survey,but
is a little less than in the 2010 survey.
•Among the 17 percent of customers who have called the Otay Water District for service
in the past 6 months,77 percent indicated that their service was either excellent (26
percent),very good (28 percent),or good (23 percent)The level of satisfaction with
customer service calls found in the current survey is slightly lower than the satisfaction
levels recorded in the 2005,2006,and 2008,and 2009 surveys.
Water Conservation
•Customers (70 percent)perceive that there has been an upward trend in water rates.
Among those who think that water rates have increased 71 percent indicate that these
higher rates have motivated them to conserve water.This is indicative of an increase in
the percentage of those who are motivated to conserve water from the 2008 and 2009
surveys.
•Among the 50 percent ofcustomers who indicated that higher water rates have motivated
them to conserve water and have taken specific steps to conserve water,during the past 6
months,nearly one fifth (19 percent)spent less time watering outdoors and 14 percent
took shorter showers.
•Regarding the level of interest among customers in conserving water,almost three-
fourths (64)percent of households characterize their level of interest as high and 34
percent as moderate.This level of interest is consistent with the level portrayed in the
2008 and 2009 surveys and it is higher than the level of interest expressed in 2005 and
2006.
•When asked how their awareness of water conservation had changed during the past
year,over two-fifths (43 percent)of customers indicate that it had increased while 40
percent said that it had remained the same.
•Four-fifths of customers indicate that they have automatic sprinklers.Those who adjust
their automatic controller do so an average of4.7 times per year,which is higher than the
number of times respondents adjusted their sprinklers in 2009 (4.1 times per year)and
2008 (4.4 times per year).
•Nearly one-half of the respondents (49 percent)have seen or heard of the Water
Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College and 16 percent of all respondents have,in
fact,visited Garden.This represents a decline in visitation from the 2009 survey where
over one-fourth ofrespondents (28 percent)visited the Garden.
•Nearly one-half (48 percent)ofthose who visited the Water Conservation Garden made
changes to their landscaping that resulted from that visit.Among those who made
changes to their landscaping after their visit to the Garden,nearly two-fifths (39 percent)
changed their landscaping to include plants that are water-wise and drought tolerant.
Another 17 percent eliminated their landscaping and or/lawn entirely.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
IV Rea &Parker Research
Februaty,2011
Bill Payment
•Over one-half (53 percent)of customers pay their bill on line and over one-quarter (26
percent)pay by sending a check in the mail.It is noteworthy that 61 percent of
customers would prefer to pay on-line (8 percent more than actually do so)and 18
percent would prefer to use postal mail (8 percent less than actually do so).
•Among customers who do not pay their bill on-line,nearly two-fifths (37 percent)
indicate that they do not pay online because it is easier to maintain accounting and tax
records by using other methods of bill payment.
•Among customers who do not pay on-line and have a reason for not doing so,nearly two-
fifths (39 percent)do not know how the District can make paying their bill on-line more
appealing and nearly one-quarter (24 percent)feel that there is nothing the District can do
in this regard.A relatively small percentage (15 percent)ofthese respondents indicates
that discounts on their bill would make paying on-line somewhat more appealing.
•One-halfof the customers ofthe Otay Water District prefer to receive their bill bye-mail
instead of through the Postal Service.This preference has increased steadily since 2008
(24 percent expressed interest in receiving their bill bye-mail)and 2009 (35 percent
expressed preference for e-mail).
•Nearly three-fifths of customers (58 percent)would prefer to receive their bill from the
Districts bye-mail and then proceed to make their payment by one of various paperless
methods other than by check or cash.
•Among the 42 percent ofcustomers who indicated that they are unlikely to utilize such a
paperless system,over one-fifth (21 percent)voiced the concern that the paperless option
does not afford them an adequate paper record and 18 percent indicated that they do not
use computers very often.
Publications and Website
•Nearly one-quarter (24 percent)of customers always read the newsletter or bill inserts
that come in the mail with the monthly water bill,another 25 percent read these materials
most months,and 34 percent read them sometimes,leaving 17 percent who never read
the newsletter or bill inserts.This readership pattern is largely consistent with the 2009
survey.The results of the 2009 and 2011 surveys show a substantial increase in
readership patterns over 2008 levels.
•The annual Consumer Confidence Report is read by 44 percent of Otay Water District
customers.This readership represents a growing trend over previous survey periods.
•Nearly two-fifths (39 percent)of customers have visited the Otay Water District website.
This represents a steady increase in visitation since 2005.
•Visitors give the Otay Water District website above average ratings -66 percent
excellent or good,30 percent fair,and 2 percent poor.These ratings represent an increase
over the 2009 survey ratings where 56 percent rated the website as either excellent or
good.
Social Media
•Nearly one-half (46 percent)use at least one form of social media.Nearly one-third (30
percent)of respondents use Facebook as a form of social media.One-fifth use You
Tube.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
v Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
•Customers are quite positive about the potential for the Otay Water District to use social
media sites to better serve their needs.Approximately two-fifths ofcustomers (range of
38 percent to 42 percent)provide an affirmative response to 5 specific potential uses of
social media (ask questions/make comments about customer service;distribute
information;emergency information;notify about construction;and provide water
industry news.
•Over three-fifths (61 percent)feel that a social media presence is either very important
(28 percent)or somewhat important (33 percent).Based on a scale of 1 to 5,where 1 =
very important and 5 =very unimportant,customers rated the importance of the Otay
Water District having a presence using social media.The mean rating is 2.53 (above the
scale midpoint of3).
Alternative Water Supplies:Recycling and Desalination
•Customers continue to support the use of recycled water for watering landscape along
freeways,open space,parks,and golf courses.In the current survey,92 percent either
strongly favor (78 percent)or somewhat favor (14 percent)the use of recycled water for
landscape and golf courses.This finding is consistent with all previous surveys since
2005.
•Respondents also support the use ofrecycled water for watering residential front lawns -
86 percent either strongly favor (67 percent)or somewhat favor (19 percent)such use of
recycled water.The more recent surveys conducted in 2011,2009,and 2008 surveys are
much more supportive of using recycled water to water front lawns than are the
customers in the 2005 and 2006 surveys.
•The level ofsupport for the use of recycled water to replenish recreational lakes,although
not as high as in 2009 (62 percent strongly in favor),is still well above the 2005-2006
levels of support-47 percent strongly in favor versus 30 percent (2006)and 34 percent
(2005).
•There is,however, declining support among customers for the use of recycled water to
supplement the drinking water supply.In the current survey,29 percent either strongly
favor (16 percent)or somewhat favor (13 percent)supplementing the drinking water in
contrast to 40 percent (2008)and 34 percent (2006).
• A considerable proportion of District customers (79 percent)feel that ocean water
desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable supply of water in
San Diego County (60 percent -very important and 19 percent -somewhat important).
This relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water supply
was also exhibited by District customers in the 2009 General Survey (86 percent)and the
2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey (88 percent).
•Nearly one-half (46 percent)of District customers favor an international agreement to
purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico.This
percentage represents a decline of 8 percentage points from the results ofthe 2010 survey
where 54 percent favored such an agreement.
•Among the 34 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico,over two-
fifths (41 percent)indicate that they do not trust the quality of water in Mexico and/or
they do not trust the Mexican government and 30 percent want the facility constructed in
the United States.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
Vi Rea &Parker Research
1'ebruary.2011
Comparative Rating of Utilities
•Otay Water District Customers rate trash collection as the utility with the best value for
the money paid by customers followed by water and gas and electric.This represents a
reversal from the 2009 ratings where water was rated as the utility with the best value
followed by trash collection,but it also represents a return to the rankings of2008.
Conclusions
There are strong indications ofsupport for the work ofthe Otay Water District.The results ofthe
2011 survey continue to show this strength.For example,Otay Water District customers
demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water service.
Customers also have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the District to provide clean and
safe water for its customers.
Customers are very aware that water rates have increased,and this knowledge has prompted a
greater motivation to conserve water.Customers continue to support alternative sources ofwater
including the use of recycled water for watering golf courses,open space and along freeways.
They also support recycled water for use on lawns and public landscape and in replenishing
recreational lakes.Customers also strongly support ocean water desalination but not quite one-
half are in favor ofan international agreement with Mexico to promote or facilitate desalination.
Readership of the bill inserts,the monthly newsletter and the annual Consumer Confidence
Report shows an upward trend.Visitation of the District website is also rising and the rating of
the website has increased as well.Customers of the District support the potential use of social
media websites by the District to disseminate information and to otherwise communicate with
customers.
The results of this survey should be viewed as ratification by the public of the importance and
quality ofthe work done by the District and as an expression ofthe high value to the public ofthe
work in which the Otay Water District is engaged.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
vii Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
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 approximately 206,000
people within 125.5 squares miles in southern San Diego County by purchasing water from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through the San Diego County Water
Authority and Helix Water District.Sewer services are also provided to portions ofthe customer
base.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 its residential customers.The purpose ofthe survey
is twofold -first,to provide information concerning customer satisfaction and customer
awareness of water issues and secondly to compare the results of this 2011 study with the results
ofthe 2005,2006,2008,and 2009 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Surveys as well
as the 2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey where data are comparable for a limited
number ofquestions only.
Rea &Parker Research was selected to conduct the 2011 study,as it was for the 2005,2006,
2008,2009,and 2010 studies.The purpose ofthe research is to:
•Determine overall satisfaction with the services ofthe Otay Water District including the
level of trust in the District to provide enough water at reasonable rates;
•Determine opinions and perceptions ofvarious issues,including:
•Water rates
•Awareness and interest in water conservation
•Methods of and attitudes toward water conservation
•Attitudes toward recycling and desalination
•Formal district communication efforts including the official website
•Potential use ofsocial media websites to distribute information
•Customer service
•Relative value ofwater service in comparison to other utilities
•Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and
crosstabulations ofdata that can result in new,optimally targeted and tailored public
awareness programs.
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
Rea &Parker Research
l'ebruary,2011
•Compare the results ofthis survey with the results ofthe 2005, 2006,and 2008,2009,and
2010 surveys ofDistrict customers,where applicable.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of300 respondents in order to secure a
margin oferror not to exceed +/-5.6 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,51.0 percent of respondent households
do not recall having seen or heard messages about the Cuyamaca College Water Conservation
Garden.This means that there is a 95 percent chance that the true proportion of the total
population ofthe District's service area that has not seen or heard these messages is between 56.6
percent and 45.4 percent (51.0 percent +/-5.6 percent).
Survey respondents were screened to exclude those customers 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."
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish.Spanish language respondents
comprised 4 percent of the survey population.The distribution of respondents according to
gender was 50 percent male and 50 percent female.The survey was conducted from January 6,
2011 to January 11,2011.Table 1 shows that 77.8%of those who were actually contacted and
did not experience a language barrier participated in the survey.
Report Format
This survey report has been divided into eight essential information components as follows:
•Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
•Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
•Water Conservation
•Bill Payment
•Publications and Website
•Social Media
•Alternative Water Supplies:Recycling and Desalination
•Comparative Rating ofUtilities
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
2 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Unknown Eli
No Answer
Bus
Answerin Machine
Not Home-Call Back
Lan ua e Barrier
Refusal
Total Unknown
Ineli ible
Disconnect
FaxlWron Number
Totallneli ible
Eli ible
Com lete
Total Attem ts
Coo eration Rate (Com
240
16
628
225
10
88
1207
159
146
305
308
1,820
77.8%
Each section of the report begins with a very brief abstract or summary of highlights within the
ensuing section,in order to orient the reader to what is to follow.
Charts have been prepared for each ofthese 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 will be presented in succinct bulleted
format when statistical significance and relevance warrants such treatment.
Lists of all frequencies and open-ended responses to survey questions,as well as the survey
instrument,are contained in the Appendix.
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
3 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Survey Fiudings
Demographic StatisticslRespondent Characteristics
Table 2 presents selected demographic characteristics of the survey respondents.Respondents
are predominantly White (56 percent)and Hispanic/Latino (26 percent)and earn an annual
median household income of $80,400 (32 percent earning $100,000 or more and 6 percent
earning under $25,000).They have a median age of 53 years and have been customers of the
Otay Water District for a median of 15 years.Among these respondents,58 percent possess a
Bachelor's degree or more,with 16 percent having a high school education or less.Survey
respondents are largely homeowners (97 percent)with a mean household size of2.83.
Respondent characteristics for the general customer sample survey conducted in 2009 (as
opposed to the more specific desalination survey in 2010)differ from the 2011 respondent
characteristics in the following ways:
•The median income in 2011 ($80,400)is higher than the median income in 2009
($75,700).
•The percentage ofhouseholds earning an annual income over $100,000 is 32 percent in
2011 and was 26 percent in 2009.
•Nearly three-fifths (58 percent)ofrespondents in 2011 have a bachelor's degree or more
while in 2009,51 percent had a bachelor's degree or more.
•The average household size in 2011 (2.83)is lower than the average household size in
2009 (3.28)but is very much inthe range of2005 and 2006.
•The median number ofyears respondents were customers ofthe Otay Water District is 15
years in 2011 and was less (12 years)in 2009.
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
SUMMARY:Dtay Water District customers demonstrate a high level ofsatisfaction
with the District as their provider of water service with almost two-thirds (63 percent)
rating the District as excellent (25 percent)or very good (38 percent).These ratings are
substantially higher than those expressed in the 2009 and 2010 Surveys and represent a return
to the higher satisfaction ratings found in the 2006 and 2008 Surveys.
Customers have a great deal of confidence in the ability of local water agencies to
provide enough water for its customers (93 percent either very confident or somewhat
confident).These ratings are somewhat higher than the level ofconfidence portrayed in the
2008 and 2009 General Surveys where 86 percent and 85 percent ofrespondents respectively
expressed confidence in the ability oflocal water agencies to provide enough water.Dtay
Water District customers also have a substantial amount oftrust in the ability of the
Dtay Water District to provide clean,safe,water for its customers (81 percent either
have a great deal oftrust or a good amount oftrust).These ratings are consistent with the
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
4 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
level oftrust portrayed in the 2010 survey.Ofnote is that customer trust has grown over time
from 2005 to 2011.
White 56%44%55%52%55%54%
His anic/Latino 26%29%28%30%29%24%
Asian/Pacific Islander 14%15%8% 8%9%15%
Black/African-
American 2%8%6%6%6%5%
Native 2%4%3%4%1%2%
American/Other
Hi h School or Less
AtLeast One Year
College,Trade,24%30%32%28%24%33%
Vocational School
Bachelor's De ree 34%41%39%33%35%25%
AtLeast One Year of
Graduate Work 24%17%12%17%19%28%
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
5 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Two-fifths ofcustomers have either a great deal oftrust (12 percent)or a good amount
of trust (28 percent)in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at
reasonable prices.Nearly one fifth (19 percent)of customers lacks trust in the
District's ability to provide water at reasonable prices -notmuch trust (13 percent)and
no trust at all (6percent).This level oftrust is consistent with thefindings ofthe 2009
General Survey but a little less than {lemonstrated in the 2010 survey.
Among the 17percent ofcustomers who have called the Otay Water Districtfor service
or help in the past 6 months,more than three-fourths (77 percent)indicated that their
service was either excellent (26 percent),very good (28 percent),or good (23 percent)
The level of satisfaction found in the current survey is slightly lower than the
satisfaction levels recorded in the 2005,2006,and 2008,and 2009 surveys.
Chart 1 shows that customers ofthe 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 (25 percent)or very good (38 percent).These ratings are substantially
higher than those expressed in the 2009 and 2010 Surveys.For example,in 2009,56 percent of
customers rated the Otay Water District as either excellent or very good and,in 2010,54 percent
indicated either a very good or excellent rating.The high satisfaction rating in the current 2011
survey represents a retum to the ratings in 2006 (65 percent either very good or excellent)and
2008 (63 percent either very good or excellent).
Chart 1
Overall Satisfaction with Otay Water District
as Water Service Provider
(2.21 =mean on 1·6 scale where 1 =Excellent)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2010 2009 2008
•Excellent
•VeryGood
•Good
.Fair
•Poor
_VeryPoor
2006
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
6 Rea &Parker Research
FebruClly,2011
The high level of satisfaction accorded to the Otay Water District by its customers is further
affirmed by the mean satisfaction rating of 2.21.This mean rating is based on a scale of 1 to 6,
where 1=excellent,2 =very good,3 =good,4 =fair,5 =poor,and 6 =very poor.
Chart 2 indicates that there is a great deal of confidence in the ability of local water agencies to
provide enough water for their customers (93 percent very confident or somewhat confident and 7
percent expressing a lack of confidence).These ratings are somewhat higher than the level of
confidence portrayed in the 2008 and 2009 General Surveys where 86 percent and 85 percent of
respondents respectively expressed confidence in the ability of local water agencies to provide
enough water.The current 2011 survey again represents a return to the confidence level
expressed in the 2006 and 2008 General Surveys.For example,in the 2006 survey,94 percent
expressed confidence and only 6 percent indicated a lack of confidence in the ability of local
water agencies to provide enough water.
•Customers who prefer to communicate in English are more confident than those who
prefer Spanish in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough water (English -
velY confident or somewhat confident -79 percent versus Spanish -very confident or
somewhat confident-46 percent).
Chart 2
Confidence in Local Water Agencies to Provide Enough Water
(1.67 =mean confidence on 1-4 scale.where 1 =very confident)
•Not Very Confident •Not at All Confident
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50~o 60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
7 Rea &Parker Research
FebruClly,2011
Chart 3 shows that 81 percent have a substantial amount oftrust in the ability of the Otay Water
District to provide clean,safe,water for its customers (37 percent a great deal of trust and 41
percent a good amount of trust).Only 3 percent expressed a lack of trust (2 percent not much
trust and 1 percent no trust at all).These ratings are consistent with the level oftrust portrayed in
the 2010 survey.Customer trust is growing over time.Specifically,in the 2008 and 2009
surveys,customers were less trustful than those in the 2010 and 2011 surveys.
•Males tend to have more trust than do females in the ability of the Otay Water District to
provide clean,safe water for its customers (males -mean of 1.78 versus females -mean
of2.0l),on a scale of I to 4,where 1 =a great deal of trust,2 =a good amount oftrust,3
=some trust,and 4 =not much trust at all).
Chart 3
Trust Otay Water District to Provide Clean,Safe Water
(1.90"mean on 1-5 scalewhere1 ..GreatDeal ofTrust)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30~.
20%
10~.·
0%
2011 2010 2009
•Great Deal ofTrust
•Good Amount of Trust
.SomeTrust
Not Much Trust
•No Trust at All
2008
In 2006 and 2005,respondents were asked about their confidence in Otay Water District to prevent contamination ofwater supply.In 2006,
29%had "not much"or "no"confidence.In 2005,that percentagewas 22%.It should also be noted that there was only one clearly positive
option in those surveys,skipping from "great deal of confidence"to "some confidence."
Chart 4 shows that two-fifths ofcustomers have either a great deal of trust (12 percent)or a good
amount oftrust (28 percent)in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable
prices.Nearly one fifth (19 percent)of customers lacks trust in the District's ability to provide
water at reasonable prices -not much trust (13 percent)and no trust at all (6 percent).This level
oftrust is consistent with the findings ofthe 2009 General Survey where 39 percent of customers
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
8 Rea &Parker Research
Februwy,2011
either exhibited a great deal of trust or a good amount of trust in the ability of the Otay Water
District to obtain water at a reasonable price.In 20 I0,the there was an aberration in the trust
rating in that nearly one-halfof respondents (49 percent)expressed a great deal oftrust or a good
amount of trust.
It should be well noted that certain statistics and opinions that have emerged from the 2010 Ocean
Water Desalination Opinion Survey differ somewhat on occasion with the results ofthe Customer
Opinion and Awareness Surveys (General Surveys).The Desalination Survey had a specific
focus and questions were presented to respondents in a different sequence and within a
framework and context that was not duplicated in the General Surveys.This specific framework
may well have oriented respondents to respond differently than they did in the more general
surveys where the questions were varied over an assortment ofwater-related topics.
Chart 4
Trust Otay Water District to Obtain Water at a Reasonable Price
(2.73 =mean on 1·5 scale where 1'"Great Deal ofTrust)
•Great Deal of Trust
•Good Amount of Trust
.Some Trust
l!I Not Much Trust
•No Trust at All
2011
Otay Water District
20//Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
2010
9
2009
Rea &Parker Research
Februmy,20//
Chart 5 indicates that 17 percent ofcustomers have called the Otay Water District for service or
help in the past 6 months.This call rate is the same as the rate in the 2009 survey and is generally
consistent with prior surveys,with some deviation in 2008.Among the 17 percent who called for
service in 2011,77 percent indicated that their service was either excellent (26 percent),very
good (28 percent),or good (23 percent)(Chart 6).This percentage is slightly lower than the
satisfaction levels recorded in the 2005, 2006,and 2008,and 2009 surveys.For example,in both
the 2008 and 2009 surveys,82 percent of those who made calls for service rated their service as
either excellent,very good,or good.It should be noted,however,that in the 2009 survey,the
"very good"option was provided to respondents for the first time.
Chart 8
Called Otay Water District for Service in Past 6 Months
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
10 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
Chart 6
Satisfaction with Customer Service
(2.60 ..mean on 1·5 scale where 1•Excellent)
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Water Conservation
SUMMARY:Customers (70 percent)perceive that there has been an upward trend in
water rates.Customers in the 2009 survey perceived an upward trend in water rates
much to the same extent as customers do in the current 2011 survey.A substantially
smaller percentage of customers in the 2005, 2006,and 2008 surveys thought that
water rates increased than did the customers in the current survey and in the 2009
survey.
Among those who think that water rates have increased,71 percent indicate that these
higher rates have motivated them to conserve water.This is indicative of a steady
increase in the percentage ofthose who are motivated to conserve water from the 2008
aml 2009 surveys.Among the 50 percent ofcustomers who indicate that higher water
rates have motivated them to conserve water and have taken specific steps to conserve
water,during the past 6 months,nearly one fifth (19 percent)spend less time watering
outdoors and 14percent take shorter showers.
Regarding the level ofinterest among all customers in conserving water,almost two-
thirds (64)percent of households characterize their level of interest as high and 34
percent as moderate.This level ofinterest is consistent with the level portrayed in the
2008 and 2009 surveys and it is higher than the level ofinterest expressed in 2005 and
Otay Water District
20!!Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
11 Rea &Parker Research
February,20!I
2006.When asked how their awareness ofwater conservation had changed during the
pastyear,over two-flfths (43 percent)ofcustomers indicate that it had increased while
40 percent said that it had remained the same.The level ofawareness has declined
from the 2009 survey where 63 percent ofthe customers felt that their awareness of
water conservation had increased over the previous year.The spike in awareness in
2009 can be explained by the heightened publicity that accompanied water supply
issues in 2008 and 2009,in particular.
Four-flfths of customers indicate that they have automatic sprinklers.This is
consistent with the results ofprevious survey periods -ranging from 75 percent in
2006 to 84 percent in 2008.Those who adjust their automatic controller do so an
average of 4.7 times per year.This is a small increase in the number of times
respondents adjusted their sprinklers from 2008 (4.4 times per year)and 2009 (4.1
times peryear).
Nearly one-half of the respondents (49 percent)have seen or heard of the Water
Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College and 16 percent ofall respondents have,in
fact,visited Garden.This represents a decline in visitation from the 2009 survey where
over one-fourth of respondents (28 percent)visited the Garden.Nearly one-half (48
percent)of those who visited the Water Conservation Garden made changes to their
landscaping that resulted from that visit.This represents a decline from visitors who
made changes to their watering and landscaping practices in 2009 where over three-
fifths (61 percent)made such changes.Among those who made changes to their
landscaping after their visit to the Garden,nearly two-flfths (39 percent)changed their
landscaping to include plants that are water-wise and drought tolerant.Another 17
percenteliminated their landscaping and or/lawn entirely.
Water Rates and Conservation:Chart 7 indicates that 70 percent of respondents believe that
water rates have increased over the past year and 13 percent think that rates have stayed the same.
In the 2009 survey,about the same percentage (71 percent)believed that water rates had gone up
over the previous year.A substantially smaller percentage of customers in the 2005,2006,and
2008 surveys thought that water rates increased than did the customers in the current survey and
in the 2009 survey.For example,in 2005,33 percent thought water rates increased;in 2008,51
percent thought rates increased -19 percent less than the comparable percentage in the current
survey.
The following relationships,related to changes in water rates,are significant:
•Customers of all income levels other than the lowest (all income levels except under
$25,000 -73 percent)are more likely to believe that water rates have increased in the
past year than are lower income customers (under $25,000 -54 percent).
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
12 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Chart 7
Trend in Water Rates-Past Year
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0'/0 10%20%30%40%50%60'/0 70%80%90%100%
Among those,who think that water rates have increased,71 percent indicate that these higher
rates have motivated them to conserve water.This is indicative of a steady increase in the
percentage of those who are motivated to conserve water from the 2008 and 2009 surveys where
61 percent and 66 percent respectively were so motivated (Chart 8).
•All ethnic groups except Whites are motivated to conserve water as a result of higher
water rates (all ethnic groups excluding Whites -86 percent versus Whites -73 percent).
Chart 9 shows that among the 50 percent of customers who indicate that higher water rates have
motivated them to conserve water and have taken specific steps to conserve water,during the past
6 months,nearly one fifth (19 percent)spend less time watering outdoors and 14 percent take
shorter showers.A smaller percentage of customers washed only full loads ofdishes and clothes
(11 percent)and did not allow water to run (10 percent).In the 2009 survey (percentages
indicated in parentheses on Chart 9),customer indicated that they took similar steps in an effort to
conserve water.
Otay Water District
20 II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
13 Rea &Parker Research
Februwy,2011
20082009
Chart 8
Conservation Motivated by Higher Rates
amon 70 ercentwhothinkthatrates have increas~",d:.<.--.=.,,-_-,
.Yes
.No
eNolSure
80"1.
70%
80%
60%
400;"
300;"
20%
100;"
0%-
2011
Chart 9
Conservation Steps Undertaken in Past Year
(by 50 percent whothink thatrates have Increased and have taken conservation steps in response-
numbers in parentheses are 2009 responses)
Wash Only Full Loads of
Dishes and Clothes,11%
(10%)
ShorterShowers,14%(21%)
LessTime Watering
Outdoors,19%
(24%)
Let Landscape/Lawn Die-
-Eliminate,5%(7%)
Fix IndoorLeaks,5%(2%)
Fix Outdoor Leaks,5%(1%)
Purchase High-
Efficiency Clothes
L-r--Washer/Low-flow
Fixtures,4%(4%)
Use Broom Instead of
Hose,4%(0%)
Collect and Reuse,3%(2%)
Replaced Turfwith Low
Water Plants,2%(2%)
Upgrade Irrigation
System,2%(2%)
Other,3%(2'10)
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Sun'ey
14 Rea &ParkerResearch
FebrlllllY,2011
Awareness and Interest in Conservation:Respondents were asked about their level of interest
in conserving water with no indication about whether this question pertained to indoor or outdoor
usage -almost two-thirds (64)percent of households characterized their level of interest as high,
34 percent as moderate,4 percent as low,and I percent with no interest.This level ofinterest is
consistent with the level ofinterest portrayed in the 2008 and 2009 surveys.However,the current
survey as well as the 2008 and 2009 surveys represent a higher level of interest than was
expressed in the 2005 survey (40 percent expressed high interest)and in the 2006 survey (45
percent expressed high interest --Chart 10.
Chart 10
Household's Level ofInterest in Conserving Water
•High Interest
•Moderate Interest
•lowInlerest
•No Interest
2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
When asked how their awareness of water conservation had changed during the past year,over
two-fifths (43 percent)ofcustomers indicated that it had increased while 40 percent said that it
had remained the same (Chart 11).The level of awareness has decreased from the 2009 survey
where 63 percent of the customers felt that their awareness of water conservation had increased
over the previous year.Customers in 2009 were subjected to heightened media attention,during
the previous year,about water shortages and impending higher water rates and this information
may have caused the high increase in their level ofawareness about water conservation in 2009.
Otay Water District
20//Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
15 Rea &Parker Research
FebrualY,20 II
This explanation is further bolstered by the fact that the awareness level had already increased
from the 2005 and 2006 levels,indicating a high level of awareness but one that is not continuing
to increase at rates that were derived from a lower baseline of awareness in 2005 and 2006,in
particular,as indicated in Chart 10.
Chart 11
Household's Awareness of Water Conservation During Past Year
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Lawn/Landscaping:Chart 12 indicates that 75 percent of customers have some landscaping
area for which their household is responsible.This is largely consistent with the findings of past
surveys.
The following relationships,associated with responsibility for outdoor landscaping,are
significant:
•Homeowners (76 percent)are more likely to have outdoor landscaping for which
someone in the household is responsible than are renters (40 percent).
•Responsibility for outdoor landscaping increases with income (under $25,000 -39
percent;$25,000 and under $50,000 -67 percent;$50,000 and under $150,000 -77
percent;and $150,000 and over-95 percent).
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
16 Rea &Parker Research
Febl'llmy,2011
•Responsibility for outdoor landscaping increases with education (54 percent for
customers with a high school education or less versus 86 percent for customers with one
bachelor's degree or more).
•Whites (84 percent)and Asians (74 percent)versus African-Americans (67 percent)and
Latinos (58 percent).
•Customers who prefer to communicate in English (76 percent)versus those who prefer
Spanish (33 percent).
100%90%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
2009
Chart 12
Lawn/Landscaping Responsibility
2008
2011
2006
2005
In Chart 13,it is demonstrated that 6 percent of the respondents have a weather-based controller.
In the current survey,four-fifths of customers indicate that they have automatic sprinklers.This
is consistent with the results ofprevious survey periods -ranging from 75 percent in 2006 to 84
percent in 2008.Those who adjust their automatic controller do so an average of 4.7 times per
year.This represents an increase the number of times respondents adjusted their sprinklers in
2009 (4.1 times per year)and 2008 (4.4 times per year).
Otay Water District
20!!Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
17 Rea &Parker Research
February,20ff
Chart 13
Ad'ustments to S rinkler Settin s
.HaveWeather-8ased Controller IIAutomatic Controller-Adjusted 7or More TimeslYear
.AutomaticController-Adjusted 4-6 TimeslYear •Automatic Controller-Adjusted 1-3 TimeslYear
•Automatic Controller-NeverAdjusted •Automatic Controller-Unsure about Number of AdjustmentsoNoAutomaticController
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0%10~.20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden:A Water Conservation Garden is located at
Cuyamaca College in El Cajon.The Garden demonstrates various drought resistant and water
efficient plants in an attractive and educational environment.Respondents were asked ifthey had
ever seen or heard about the Garden and nearly one-half of the respondents (49 percent)
responded in a positive fashion;16 percent ofall respondents have,in fact,visited the Cuyamaca
College Water Conservation Garden.This represents a decline in visitation from the 2009 survey
where over one-fourth of respondents (28 percent)visited the Garden.The visitation pattern in
the cUlTent survey is also lower than the patterns found in the 2005, 2006,and 2008 surveys.
(Chart 14).
The following subgroups are more likely to have heard or seen something about the Cuyamaca
College Water Conservation Garden:
•Homeowners (50 percent)versus renters (10 percent).
•Smaller household sizes (1 person household -63 percent;2 person household -53
percent,3-4 person household -43 percent,and 5 or more person households -27
percent).
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
18 Rea &Parker Research
Februmy,20II
•Never Heard of orSeen
•Heard of and Visited
ConselVa~on Garden
IIHeard of but NotVisited
0%
•Having infOlmation about the Water Conservation Garden increases with education
(bachelor's degree or more -54 percent);high school education or less -31 percent).
•Hearing or seeing infOlmation about the Water Conservation Garden increases with
income up to $75,000 and then begins to decline (under $50,000 -30 percent, $50,000
and under $75,000 -69 percent,and $150,000 and above -40 percent).
r=:---;--,-,-,..--,-,,.,,...,,.'-'-""
60%
80%
10%
90%
100%
30%
70%
50%
2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
Chart 15 shows that nearly one-half (48 percent)of those who visited the Water Conservation
Garden made changes to their landscaping that resulted from that visit.This represents a decline
among visitors who made changes to their watering and landscaping practices from 2009 where
over three-fifths (61 percent)made such changes.The results of the current survey are more
consistent with households in 2005 (45 percent),2006 (50 percent),and 2008 (48 percent)in
terms ofthose who made changes to their landscaping as a result ofvisiting the Garden.
Chart 16 indicates the changes made by 48 percent of visitors to the Water Conservation Garden
who made changes to their landscaping.Nearly two-fifths (39 percent)changed their landscaping
to include plants that are water-wise and drought tolerant.Another 17 percent eliminated their
landscaping and or/lawn entirely.In the 2009 survey,customers became particularly oriented to
drought tolerant plants as a result ofvisiting the Garden (54 percent).The secondary change in
2009 was adjustment of sprinklers and reduction of outdoor water usage (17 percent).The
elimination oflandscaping and lawns was not a major factor in 2009.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
19 Rea &Parker Research
Febl'l/wy,2011
2005200620082009
Chart 15
Have Made Chages Due to Visit(s)to Water Conservation Garden
(among 19 percent who have visited)
100%
9O"A.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011
Chart 16
Most Significant Change Made Resulting from Visiting
Water Conservation Garden
(among 9 percent who have visited!!!!!made changes)I 112009 .2011 I
Changed Plants to 54%Waterwise/Drought Tolerant
Let Landscape/Lawn Ole-17%
Eliminate
Adjusted Sprl kersiReduced 3%
17%Outdoor Water Use
13%Collect and Reuse
Upgraded Irrigation System
Replaced Lawn with Low-
9WaterPlants
%Other
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
20 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Bill Payment
SUMMARY Over one-half(53 percent)ofcustomers pay their bill on line.Over one-
quarter (26 percent)pay by sending a check in the mail,nearly one-fifth (19 percent)
pay their bill through automatic bank deductions,and 2 percentpay by credit card over
the telephone.It is noteworthy that 61 percent ofcustomers would prefer to pay on-
line (8 percentmore than actually do so)and18percent wouldprefer to use postal mail
(8 percent less than actually do so).
Among customers who do not pay their bill on-line,nearly two-fifths (37 percent)
indicate that they do not pay online because it is easier to maintain accounting and tax
records by using other methods ofbillpayment.Among customers who do notpay on-
line and have a reason for not doing so,nearly two-fifths (39 percent)do not know how
the District can make paying their bill on-line more appealing and nearly one-quarter
(24 percent)feel that there is nothing the District can do in this regard.A relatively
small percentage (15 percent)ofthese respondents indicates that discounts on their bill
would make paying on-line more appealing.
One-halfof the customers ofthe Otay Water District prefer to receive their bill by e-
mail instead ofthrough the Postal Service.This preference has increased steadily since
2008 (24 percent expressed interest in receiving their bill bye-mail)and 2009 (35
percent expressedpreference for e-mail).Nearly three-fifths ofcustomers (58 percent)
would prefer to receive their billfrom the District bye-mail and then proceed to make
their payment by one of various paperless methods other than by check or cash.
Among the 42 percent ofcustomers who indicated that they are unlikely to utilize such
a paperless system,over one-fifth (21 percent)voiced the concern that the paperless
option does not afford a paper record and 18 percent indicated that they do not use
computers very often.
Chart 17 shows that over one-half (53 percent)ofcustomers pay their bill on line.Over
one-quarter (26 percent)pay by sending a check in the mail,nearly one-fifth (19 percent)
pay their bill through automatic bank deductions,and 2 percent pay by credit card over
the telephone.It is noteworthy that 61 percent of customers would prefer to pay on-line
(8 percent more than actually do so)and 18 percent would prefer to use postal mail (8
percent less than actually do so).
The results ofthe 2006 and 2008 Call Center surveys (separate opinion surveys about the
quality of customer service among those who had called the Otay Water District for
customer service)showed that fewer than 20 percent of customers paid their bill on-line.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
21 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
This compares to well over 50 percent in the current 2011 survey;however,this 2011
survey is among all customers ofthe District whereas the Call Center surveys were only
among those who had interacted with the Customer Service call center.As such,caution
is urged in making direct comparisons;however,for anecdotal purposes,in 2006,14
percent ofcall center customers indicated that they paid their bill on-line and in 2008,19
percent indicated that their method ofbill payment was through the Internet.
•Males are more likely than females to pay their bill by postal mail (23 percent
versus 8 percent);males are more likely to pay their bill through automatic bank
deduction (21 percent versus 14 percent);females are more likely to pay their bill
on-line (65 percent versus 52 percent).
Chart 17
Method of Pa in Water Bill:Actual and Preferred Methods
•Actual Method Preferred Method
Credit Card by
relephone
Automatic Bank
Deduction
Check by Mall
In 2006 and 2008,this question was
asked Ina IIparate survey of
CUlloma"wnO illd clned tlll7nm.--------1
Water District for customer service.
In 2006,these customers
___-----III~IIlIballi.jIl.llU.nt.uld...In'-~
check (4-4percent preferred that
methodland 22 percent paid online
(26 percent preferred.
In 2008,53 percent paid by check
(50 percent preferred)and 14
__-----llJllnlulllJlnllL.4-1(1;1..19p"".....rcJll.IltIl.-----j
70%
60%-
50%
40%-
30%
20%
10%
0%
Online
Among customers who do not pay their bill on-line,nearly two-fifths (37 percent)
indicate that they do not pay online because it is easier to maintain accounting and tax
records by using other methods ofbill payment.Some customers feel more in control by
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
22 Rea &Parker Research
FebrualY,2011
writing checks (14 percent)and others do not trust on-line security (12 percent)(Chart
18).
Chart 18
Reason for Not Paying Online
(asked of47%who do notpay online)
Do Not Use Internet,9%
Automatic Bank
Deduction,9%
Easler for
Accounting/Taxes,37%
Among customers who do not pay on-line and have a reason for not doing so,nearly two-
fifths (39 percent)do not know how the District can make paying their bill on-line more
appealing and nearly one-quarter (24 percent)feel that there is nothing the District can do
in this regard.A relatively small percentage (15 percent ofthe 47 percent who do not pay
online =7 percent of all customers)indicates that discounts on their bill would make
paying on-line more appealing,and 71 percent of these 7 percent say that it is very likely
that discounts would influence them to use the Internet to pay on-line and 29 percent say
that it is somewhat likely (Chart 19).
Chart 20 shows that one-half of the customers ofthe Otay Water District would prefer to
receive their bill bye-mail instead of through the Postal Service.This preference has
increased steadily since 2008 (24 percent expressed interest in receiving their bill by e-
mail)and 2009 (35 percent expressed preference for e-mail).Customers were asked if
they would prefer to receive their bill from the District bye-mail and then proceed to
make their payment by one of various paperless methods other than by check or cash.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
23 Rea &Parker Research
FebruaJy,20II
Nearly three-fifths of customers (58 percent)indicated a positive response -38 percent
very likely and 20 percent somewhat likely (Chart 21).Among the 42 percent of
customers who indicated that they are unlikely to utilize a paperless system,over one-
fifth (21 percent)voiced the concern that the paperless option does not afford a paper
record for bookkeeping and taxes and 18 percent indicated that they do not use computers
very often.Another 14 percent indicate only that they feel "more comfortable"paying by
check (Chart 22).
•All age groups except those who are 55 and over (25 percent)prefer to have a
record of their transactions (other than a paperless one)more so than those who
are 55 and under (10 percent).
•Older customers object to a paperless method of bill payment because they do not
use computer very much (55 and over -20 percent versus under 55 - 5 percent).
Chart 19
What Can the District Do to Make Paying Online
a More Appealing Option?
(asked of 14%who do notpayonline and had a reason for not paying In thatmanner)
I,.• .
Other,9%
~
I
Do Not Like Online
Banklng,13%
Dlscounts,1S%
Discount respondents:71%very
likely and 29%somewhat likely to
pay online ifdiscounts offered.Nothing,24"1.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
24 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
Chart 20
Receive Monthly Bill by E-mail?
2011
2009
2008
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Chart 21
Likelihood of Paperless Bill Paying Within Next 1-2 Years
Very Likely,38%
Somewhat Likely,20%
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
25 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Chart 22
Objection to Paperless Bill Paying
(asked of42%who indicated that they were unlikely to utilize a paperless system)
Do Not Use Computers
That Often,18%
Comfortable Paying by
Check,14%
Computer Failures,6%
Lack ofSecurity/Do Not
Keep personal Records
on Computer,11%
Will Forget to Check
Computerfor Bill,6%
Other,3%
No Reason/Do Not
Know,21%
Publications and Website
SUMMARY:Nearlyone-quarter (24 percent)ofcustomers always read the newsletter
or bill inserts that come in the mail with the monthly water bill,another 25 percent
read these materials most months,and 34 percent read them sometimes,leaving 17
percent who never read the newsletter or bill inserts.This readership pattern is largely
consistent with the 2009 survey.The results ofthe 2009 and 2011 surveys show a
substantial increase in readership patterns over 2008 levels.
The annual Consumer Confitlence Report is read by 44 percent ofOtay Water District
customers.This readership represents a growing trend overprevious survey periods.
Nearly two-fifths (39 percent)of customers have visited the Otay Water District
website.This represents a steady increase in visitation since 2005.Visitors give the
Otay Water District website above average ratings -66 percent excellent or good,30
percent fair,and 2 percent poor.These ratings represent an increase over the 2009
survey ratings where 56 percent rated the website as either excellent orgood.
Publications:Chart 23 shows that 24 percent of customers always read the newsletter or bill
inserts that come in the mail with the monthly water bill,25 percent read these materials most
months,and another 34 percent read them sometimes,leaving 17 percent who never read the
newsletter or bill inselis.This readership pattern is largely consistent with the 2009 survey.The
results of the 2009 and 2011 surveys show a substantial increase in readership patterns over 2008
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
26 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
levels.For example,those who read these materials every month and most months increased
from 31 percent in 2008 to 48 percent in 2009 and to 49 percent in the current 2011 survey.Also,
the percentage of customers who never read the newsletter or bill inserts decreased by 10 percent
over the 2008 survey (27 percent in 2008 to 17 percent in 2011).
•Readership of the newsletter and/or bill inserts is considerably less among those at the
highest income levels ($150,000 and over - 5 percent versus $50,000 -$150,000 -28
percent).
The annual Consumer Confidence Report is read by 44 percent ofOtay Water District customers
(Chart 24).This readership represents a growing trend over previous survey periods.While the
readership in the 2009 survey is similar to current levels,it has increased by 14 percent from the
levels found in the 2008 survey (30 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2011).Cun'ent readership
levels are notably higher than those portrayed in the 2005 and 2006 surveys where 38 percent of
customers indicated that they read the annual Consumer Confidence Report.
•Customers with a higher level of education are more likely to read the annual Consumer
Confidence Report (at least one year of graduate work -60 percent;high school or less-
30 percent).
Chart 23 •Every Time
•Most Times
Read Newsletter •Sometimes
•Never
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2005 2006 2008 2009 2011
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
27 Rea &Parker Research
February.2011
Chart 24
Read Consumer Confidence Report
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Website:Chart 25 shows that nearly two-fifths (39 percent)ofcustomers have visited the Otay
Water District website.This represents a steady increase in visitation since 2005.For example,
in 2005,19 percent visited the website,21 percent visited the website in 2006,27 percent visited
the website in 2008,and in 2009,the visitation rate was 32 percent.
The following subgroups are more likely to have visited the Otay Water District website:
•Younger customers who are 44 years of age and younger (54 percent)versus customers
who are 65 years ofage and older (29 percent).
•Customers with a greater level of education (at least one year of college,trade,or
vocational school or more -44 percent versus high school education or less -17
percent).
•Males (45 percent)versus females (33 percent).
Olay WaleI'District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
28 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Chart 25
Visits to Otay Water District Website
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Chart 26 indicates that website visitors give the Otay Water District website above average
ratings -66 percent excellent or good,30 percent fair,and 2 percent poor.These ratings
represent an increase over the 2009 survey ratings where 56 percent rated the website as either
excellent or good.The CUlTent 2011 ratings moved closer to the ratings in the 2006 and 2008
surveys where 75 percent of website visitors rated the website as excellent or good.
Customers rate the website with an overall mean of2.1 O.This mean is based upon a scale of 1 to
4,where 1 =excellent,2 =good,3 =fair,and 4 =poor.This reaffirms the high rating indicated
and explained above.
•Younger customers provide the website with higher ratings than do older customers (35-
54 -mean of 1.93 versus 55-64 -mean of2.46).
•Customers with higher incomes tend to rate the website more favorably than do
customers with lower incomes ($50,000 and over -mean of 2.01 versus $25,000 -
$50,000 -mean of 2.64).
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
29 Rea &Parker Research
Februaly,2011
Chart 26
Rating of Website
(2.1 •mean raUng on 1·5 scale,where 1..Excellent)
(by 39 percentwho have vlsUted website)
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0%10%20'"300/.40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Social Media
SUMMARY:Nearly one-half (46 percent)ofall respomlents use at least one form of
social media.Nearly one-third (30 percent)use Facebook as a form ofsocial media,
and one-fifth use You Tube.Customers are quite positive about the potential for the
Otay Water District to use social media sites to better serve their needs.Approximately
two-fifths of customers (range of 38 percent to 42 percent)provide an affirmative
response to 5 specific potential uses ofsocial media (ask questions/make comments;
distribute information;emergency information;notify about construction;andprovide
water industry news).Over three-fifths (61 percent)feel that a social media presence is
either very important (28 percent)or somewhat important (33 percent).Based on a
scale of1 to 5,where 1 =very important and 5 =very unimportant,customers rated the
importance ofthe Otay Water District having a presence using social media at 2.53
(above the scale midpoint of3).
Nearly one-half (46 percent)ofrespondents use at least one form ofsocial media.Chart
27 indicates that nearly one-third (30 percent)of respondents use Facebook as a form of
social media,and one-fifth use You Tube.Customers are quite positive about the
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
30 Rea &Parker Research
Februmy,20II
potential for the Otay Water District to use social media sites to better serve their needs.
Approximately two-fifths of customers (range of 38 percent to 42 percent)provide an
affirmative response to 5 specific potential uses of social media.For example,42 percent
feel that these websites could be useful for the District to ask questions and receive
comments about customer satisfaction with services,40 percent think that the sites could
be used to distribute information about the District,39 percent think that these sites could
be used for distributing emergency information,38 percent indicate that it would be
useful to receive notification about scheduled construction and repairs and to learn about
news in the water industry (Chart 28).
Chart 27
Use of Social Media/Networks
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Facebook You Tube Llnkedln Twitter MySpace AtLeastOne of
These Websltes
The following subgroups (non-whites,Spanish speaking customers,and larger
households)are particularly oriented to using social media sites for specific purposes.
•Ask questions/receives comments about service satisfaction
o Non-whites (57 percent)versus Whites (35 percent)
Otay Water District
20!!Clistomer Opinion andAwareness Slirvey
31 Rea &Parker Research
Februaty,20!!
•Distribute information about the District
o Non-whites (56 percent)versus Whites (33 percent).
o Customers who prefer to communicate in Spanish (75 percent)versus
those who prefer English (39 percent).
•Distribute emergency information
o Nonwhites (57 percent)versus Whites (34 percent).
o Larger household sizes (household sizes of 3 or more -51 percent versus
I and 2 person households -30 percent).
•Receive notification about scheduled construction and repair
o Non-whites (56 percent)versus Whites (27 percent).
o Customers who prefer to communicate in Spanish (75 percent)versus
those who prefer English (36 percent).
o Larger household sizes (household sizes of3 or more -51 percent versus
1 and 2 person households -28 percent).
•Water Industry News
o Larger household sizes (household sizes of 3 or more -49 percent versus
1 and 2 person households -30 percent).
Chart 28
Potential Uses for Social Media Websites
Construction/Repair
Notification
Questions/Comments about
Service Satisfaction
Emergency Information
Water IndUStry News
Information about Otay Water
District
0%100/.20%30%40%50%60% 70%80%90%100%
Chart 29 shows that over three-fifths (61 percent)feel that a social media presence is
either very important (28 percent)or somewhat important (33 percent).Based on a scale
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
32 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
of 1 to 5,where 1 =very important and 5 =very unimportant,customers rated the
importance of the Otay Water District having a presence using social media.The mean
rating is 2.53 (above the scale midpoint of3).
The following subgroups feel that it is important for the Otay Water District to have a
presence using social media.
•Latinos (1.91)and Asians (2.18)as opposed to Whites (2.80).
Chart 29
Importance of Otay Water District Having
Social Media Presence
(2.53 =mean on 1-5 scale where 1=Very Important)
Very Unimportant,16%
Somewhat Unimportant,
10%
Neither Important nor
Unimportant,13%
Somewhat Important,
33%
Alternative Water Supplies:Recycling and Desalination
SUMMARY:Customers continue to support the use ofrecycled water for watering
landscape along freeways,open space,parks,and golfcourses.In the current survey,
92 percent either stronglyfavor (78 percent)or somewhat favor (14 percent)the use of
recycled water for landscape and golf courses.This finding is consistent with all
previous surveys since 2005.
Respondents also support the use ofrecycled water for watering residentialfront lawns
-86 percent either stronglyfavor (67percent)or somewhatfavor (19 percent)such use
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
33 Rea &ParkerResearch
FebrllaJy,2011
ofrecycled water.The more recent surveys conducted in 2011,2009,and 2008 are
much more supportive of using recycled water to water front lawns than are the
customers in the 2005 and2006 surveys.
The level of support for the use of recycled water to replenish recreational lakes,
although not as high as in 2009 (62 percent strongly in favor),is still well above the
2005-2006 levels ofsupport-47percent strongly in favor versus 30 percent (2006)and
34percent (2005).
There is,however,declining support among customers for the use ofrecycled water to
supplement the drinking water supply.In the current survey,29 percent either
stronglyfavor (16percent)or somewhatfavor (13 percent)supplementing the drinking
water,which represents less support than in 2008 and2006.
Nearly three fourths (74 percent)of the customers are familiar with the term
"desalination."This percentage represents a substantial increase from the results of
the 2010 survey where three-fifths indicated that they were familiar with the term.A
considerable proportion of District customers (79 percent)feel that ocean water
desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable supply ofwater in
San Diego County (60 percent-very important and19percent-somewhat important).
This relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water
supply was also exhibited by District customers in the 2009 General Survey (86
percent)andthe 2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey (88 percent).
Nearly one-half(46 percent)ofDistrict customers favor an international agreement to
purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico.
Among the 34 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico,over two-
fifths (41 percent)indicate that they do not trust the quality ofwater in Mexico and/or
they do not trust the Mexican government and30percent think that the plant should be
built in the United States.
Recycling:Chart 30 indicates that respondents continue to support the use ofrecycled water for
watering landscape along freeways,open space,parks,and golf courses.In the current survey,92
percent either strongly favor (78 percent)or somewhat favor (14 percent)the use of recycled
water for landscape and golf courses.This finding is consistent with all previous surveys since
2005.For example,in 2009,95 percent either strongly favored (86 percent)or somewhat favored
(9 percent)the use ofrecycled water to water freeway landscape and open space and in 2008,100
percent favored such use ofrecycled water.
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
34 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Chart 30
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering
along Freeways,Open Space,Parks,Golf Courses
(mean =1.24 on 1-4 scale where 1 IIStrongly Favor)
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Respondents also support the use of recycled water for watering residential front lawns -86
percent either strongly favor (67 percent)or somewhat favor (19 percent)such use of recycled
water (Chart 31).While the current 2011 survey is supportive of using recycled water to water
residential front lawns,customers in the 2008 and 2009 surveys were somewhat more supportive.
For example,in 2008,96 percent ofcustomers expressed some level of favorability for such use
of recycled water.The 2011,2009,and 2008 surveys are much more supportive of using
recycled water to water front lawns than are the customers in the 2005 and 2006 surveys.
Chart 32 shows that the level of support for the use of recycled water to replenish
recreational lakes (47 percent strongly in favor),although not as high as in 2009 (62
percent strongly in favor),is still well above the 2005-2006 levels of support (30 percent
in 2006 and 34 percent in 2005).
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
35 Rea &Parker Research
Februwy,20II
Chart 31
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering Residential Front Y rds
(1.39 ..mean on 1-4scale where 1IIStrongly Favor)
2011
2006
2005
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2011
2008
2006
2005
Chart 32
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Replenish Recreational Lakes
(1.78"mean on 1-4 scale where 1 II Strongly Favor)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
36 Rea &Parker Research
Februmy,2011
Customers who favor using recycled water for replenishing recreational lakes are
characterized as follows (scale:I -4,where I =strongly favor,2 =somewhat favor,3 =
somewhat oppose,and 4 =strongly oppose).The overall mean is 1.78.
•Males (1.99)versus females (2.38).
•Customers with higher income levels (all income levels except those with
incomes under $50,000 --mean of 1.90 versus those with incomes under $50,000
-mean of2.72).
Chart 33 indicates that there is declining support among customers for the use of
recycled water to supplement the drinking water supply.In the current survey,29
percent either strongly favor (16 percent)or somewhat favor (13 percent)supplementing
the drinking water.Customers in 2006 recorded an overall favorability rating of 34
percent and among the customers in the 2008 survey,the overall favorability rating was
40 percent.
Customers who favor using recycled water to supplement the drinking water supply are
characterized as follows (scale:1-4,where 1 =strongly favor,2 =somewhat favor,3 =
somewhat oppose,and 4 =strongly oppose).The overall mean is 2.97.
•African-Americans (mean of2.33)versus all other ethnicities,especially Latinos
(mean of3.54).
•Customers who prefer to communicate in English (3.23)versus those who prefer
Spanish (4.00).
•Males (2.84)versus females (3.69).
Desalination:Chart 34 shows that nearly three fourths (74 percent)of the customers are
familiar with the term "desalination."This percentage represents an increase from the results of
the 2010 survey where three-fifths indicated that they were familiar with the term.Among those
who said they were familiar with the term in 2011,95 percent correctly indicated that that it
pertained to removing salts and other impurities from water to make it useable for households.In
2010,this percentage was virtually identical (98 percent of those familiar with the term
"desalination'correctly defined it).
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
37 Rea &Parker Research
February,20//
Chart 33
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Supplement Drinking Water Supply
(2.97 =mean on 1-4 scale where 1•Strongly Favor)
2011
2008
2006
0%10'10 20'10 30%40%50%60%70% 80%90%100%
Chart 34
Familiar with Term "Desalination"
"Desalination"wascorrectly defined by 98 percent of those who indicated familiarity in 2010and 95 percent in 2011
2011
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
38
2010
Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
The following subgroups are particularly familiar with the telm "desalination".
•Customers with a higher level of education (at least one year of graduate work -83
percent and bachelor's degree -78 percent versus high school or less -58 percent).
•Whites (83 percent)versus Asians (69 percent),African-Americans (67 percent),and
Latinos (54 percent).
•Males (87 percent)versus females (60 percent).
•Familiarity with the term "desalination"increases with age (18-24 -25 percent;25 -34-
52 percent;35 -44 -64 percent;and 45 and over -79 percent).
Chart 35 indicates that a considerable proportion of District customers (79 percent)feel that
ocean water desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable supply ofwater
in San Diego County (60 percent -very important and 19 percent -somewhat important).This
relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water supply was also
exhibited by District customers in the 2009 General Survey (86 percent)and the 2010 Ocean
Water Desalination Opinion Survey (88 percent).
•Males feel that desalination is important to maintaining a reliable water supply in San
Diego County more so than do females (Males:very important or somewhat important--
86 percent;Females:very important or somewhat important ---71 percent).
•Females are more uncertain than are males regarding the importance of desalination
(Females:don't know or refused to answer -23 percent;males:don't know or refused to
answer -10 percent).
•Very Important
•Somewhat Important
.Not Very Important
•Not atAll Important
•Don't Know
100%
90%
80%
10%
60%
50%-
40%
30%
20%
10%-
0%
Chart 35
Importance of Ocean Water Desalination to Water Supply
(1,31 =mean on 1-4 scale where 1"Very Important)
2011
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
2010
39
2009
Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Chart 36 shows that nearly one-half (46 percent)of District customers favor an international
agreement to purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico.
This percentage represents a decline of 8 percentage points from the results of the 2010 survey
where 54 percent favored such an agreement.This difference is reflected in the percentage of
customers who indicate that they "do not know"whether they favor such an agreement or not.In
2010,12 percent indicated that they "do not know"while in the cun'ent 2011 survey,this
percentage rose to 20 percent.It is important to recall that the 2010 survey was conducted
specifically about desalination and a great deal of information was included in that survey in
contrast to the few questions and limited information about desalination in the 2011 general
customer survey.Among customers in the 2006 survey,45 percent favored an international
agreement but 42 percent did not favor the agreement (only 34 percent did not favor the
agreement in 2011 and 2010).
•Males (56 percent)tend to favor an international agreement with Mexico more so than do
females (36 percent).
2006
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
40 Rea &Parker Research
FebruClly,20II
Among the 34 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico,over two-fifths (41
percent)indicate that they do not trust the quality ofwater in Mexico and/or they do not trust the
Mexican government.Another 30 percent feel that the plant should be located in the United
States in order to create jobs domestically.In the 2009 and 2010 surveys,customers expressed
the same reasons for opposing the international agreement with Mexico as they did in the cun'ent
2011 survey (Chart 37).
•Customers who have lived in the Otay Water District for a shorter period of time
tend to prefer that the desalination plant be built in the United States more so than
do customers who have lived in the District for a long period of time (1-10 years -
32 percent versus 26 years or more -16 percent).
••••••68V.
In2010,pondeots wh preferred lh
plant in I.e U.S.(64 pe cent)indicat
their rea ns to be53~economya jobs
and 34%ttrusting M xico and the er
qualityth efrom.
1_7%Lack ofControl
Cost.···~
Need More Information
00Not Like Idea··Generally
Put Plant In U.SJCreate U.S.
Jobs
00 NotTrust Mexican Water
Quality/Mexican GovtlMexlco
00 Not Want to DrinkSeawater
Chart 37
Why Not in Favor of Desalinated Water from Mexico
(asked of 34 percentwho Indicated opposition)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Comparative Rating of Utilities
SUMMARY:Otay Water District Customers rate trash collection as the utility with the
best valuefor the money paid by customers followed by water andgas andelectric.This
represents a reversal from the 2009 ratings where water was rated as the utility with the
best value followed by trash collection,but it also represents a return to 2008 ratings.
O/ay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
41 Rea &Parker Research
FebruClly,20II
Using a composite ranking that takes first,second,and third rankings for each utility
into account,trash collection remains the utility with the best value followed by water
andgas and electric service.
Chart 38 indicates that 36 percent of Otay Water District customers rate trash collection as the
utility with the best value for the money paid.Water (22 percent)and gas and electric (19
percent)follow trash collection in perceived value.This represents a reversal from the 2009
ratings where water was rated as the utility with the best value followed by trash collection.The
20II survey ratings represent a return to 2008 ratings,again showing the power of the water
messages that were so prominent in 2009.
•Customers who rate trash collection as the best value prefer to communicate in English
(English:37 percent versus Spanish:17 percent).
•Customers who rate water as the best value prefer to communicate in Spanish (Spanish:
58 percent versus English:20 percent).
Chart 38
Best Value Among Utilities
2011
2009
2008
0%10%20%300/.40%50%60%70% 80%90%100%
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
42 Rea &Parker Research
Februmy,2011
Chart 39 further analyzes the customers'ratings regarding the utility with the best value by
accounting for second and third rankings.Using a composite ranking that takes first,second,and
third rankings for each utility into account,trash collection remains the utility with the best value
followed by water and gas and electric.Other utilities are far behind by comparison.
Chart 39
Best Value Among Utilities··Weighted
(UWill!s ranked 1·2·3 and tallied 3 ints for first,2points for second,and 1 point for.third
100%
90%
80%
70%-
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%-
0%
2011 2009
Conclusions
2008
•Trash Collection
----'i.1 .Water
1 IiJGas &Electric
~--jl OTelephone
J'OCableTV
. •Internet Access
(
I •Sewer
There are strong indications of support for the work ofthe Otay Water District.The results ofthe
2011 survey continue to show this strength. For example,Otay Water District customers
demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water service.
Customers also have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the District to provide clean and
safe water for its customers.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
43 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Water is rated as the second best value for the money paid by customers while trash collection is
given the highest value.In 2008,water was also a close second to trash collection as the utility
with the highest customer value.In 2009,water was rated as the best value.
Customers are very aware that water rates have increased,and this knowledge has prompted a
greater motivation to conserve water.Customers continue to support alternative sources ofwater
including the use of recycled water for watering golf courses,open space and along freeways.
They also support recycled water for use on lawns and public landscape and in replenishing
recreational lakes.Customers also strongly support ocean water desalination but not quite one-
half are in favor ofan international agreement with Mexico to promote or facilitate desalination.
Readership of the bill inserts,the monthly newsletter and the annual Consumer Confidence
Report show an upward trend.Visitation of the District website is also rising and the rating ofthe
website has increased as well.Customers ofthe District support the potential use ofsocial media
websites by the District to disseminate information and to otherwise communicate with
customers.
The results of this survey should be viewed as ratification by the public of the importance and
quality ofthe work done by the District and as an expression of the high value to the public ofthe
work in which the Otay Water District is engaged.
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
44 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
APPENDIX
45 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,20ll
Otay Water District
General Survey 2011
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 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 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 NQR·RES]
____yEARS
0···········>"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
20II Customer Opinion and AwarenessSurvey
46 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
01.How would you describe your household's level of interest in conserving water at
home?Would you say...*[REVERSE]
1 - a high level of interest,
2 - a moderate level,
3 - a low level,or
4 -no interest at all?
9 -DK/REF
02.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 DK/REF]
03.These next questions are related to the water supply in San Diego County.How
confident are you in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough water to
you?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 DK/REF]
04.How much trust do you have in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide
clean,safe water to the district?Would you say...*[REVERSE]
1 - a great deal of trust,
2 - a good amount of trust,
3 -some trust,
4 --not much trust,
5 -no trust at all?
9 --not sure [INCLUDES DK/REF]
04a.How much trust do you have in the Otay Water District to obtain this water
for you at a reasonable price?Would you say...[REVERSE]
1 - a great deal of trust,
2 - a good amount of trust,
3 -some trust,
4 --not much trust,
5 -no trust at all?
9 --not sure [INCLUDES DK/REF]
WATER SHORTAGE------------WATER RATES
Q5a-c.I am going to mention six utilities that serve the needs of residents and
businesses in the region.Considering only those utilities that you pay for,
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
47 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
which would you say is the best value for the amount of money that you
pay.Which ones are second and third?[ROTATE LIST]
MOST (Sa)SECOND (5b)THIRD (5c)
a.Trash collection 1 1 1
b.Water 2 2 2
c.Sewer 3 3 3
d.Telephone 4 4 4
e.Cable or Satellite TV 5 5 5
f.Internet access 6 6 6
g.Gas &Electric 7 7 7
Q6.In the past year,do you believe that your water rates have...
1 -gone up,
2 -gone down,•••••••••••>GO TO Q7
3 -stayed about the same,•••••••••••>GO TO Q7
4 -or are you not sure?•••••••••••>GO TO Q7
9 -REF···········>GO TO Q7
Q6a.[IF Q6=1]Have higher water rates motivated you to conserve more
water?
1-YES
2 -NO···········>GO TO Q7
9 -DK/REF···········>GO TO Q7
Q6b.[IF Q6a=1]What specific major step has your household taken in the
past six months to reduce your water usage?
________________99-DK/REF
[DO NOT REAO·············COOE USING FOLLOWING
SCHEMA:]
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
48 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
I-OUTDOOR WATERLESS TIME
2 -USE THE WATERING CALCULATOR FOUND ON THE
DISTRICT'S WEBSITE OR AT
WWW.BEWATERWISE.COMTOSET A WATER-WISE
IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
3 -IRRIGATE EARLIER IN THE MORNING OR LATER AT
NIGHT
4-LET MY LANDSCAPE/LAWN DIE
5 -OUTDOOR WATERING FEWER DAYS DAY PER WEEK
6 -CHECK THE SOIL'S MOISTURE LEVEL BEFORE
WATERING
7 -REPLACE UNUSED TURF WITH LOW-WATER PLANTS
8 -UPGRADE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INCLUDE NEW,
HIGH-EFFICIENCY EQUIPMENT
9 -PURCHASE A HIGH EFFFICENCY CLOTHES WASHER
10-WASH ONLY FULL LOADS OF CLOTHES OR DISHES
II-TAKE SHORTER SHOWERS
12 -USE A BROOM INSTEAD OF A HOSE ON PAVED
AREAS
13 -FIX INDOOR LEAKS (TOILET,FAUCET,ETC.)
14 -FIX OUTDOOR LEAKS (SPRINKLERS,SPAS,ETC.)
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
49 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
15-·DO NOT LET WATER RUN
16 -COLLECT AND REUSE
17 -REPLACE GRASS WITH ARTIFICIAL/SYNTHETIC TURF
20 -OTHER,SPECIFY_
99-DK/REF
OUTDOOR WATERING---ASK EVERYONE
Q7.These next few questions deal with saving water outdoors.Does your residence
have any outdoor landscaping that someone in your household is directly
responsible for maintaining?
1 -YES
2 -NO/APT/CONDO/NO YARD RESPONSIBILITIES ••••••••••••>GO TO Q8
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q8
Q7a.Does your landscaping include a lawn?
1 -YES
2-NO
9 -OK/REF
Q7b.Do you have an automatically-controlled sprinkler system for your
landscaping?
1 -YES
2 -NO ••••••••••••>GO TO Q8
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q8
Q7c.[IF Q7b =1]During 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
9 -OK/REF
DESALINATION
Q8.These next questions are about desalination.Are you familiar with the term
"desalination."
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
50 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
1.YES
2.NO (include OK/REF)[GO TO Q9]
08a.[IF 08 =1].How would you describe what desalination is?
[NOTE:Code all responses that refer to making drinking water from
ocean or other salty water as 1.List the rest verbatim.]
09.[IF Q8a =1,then start with "As you indicated,"]Desalination is the process of
making drinking water and water for other household and business uses from
ocean water.Desalination is a process that forces water through a very fine
filter that is designed to remove ocean salts and other impurities from the
ocean water.
Do you believe that desalination is important to maintaining a reliable supply of
water in San Diego County?
1-Yes,very important
2-Yes,somewhat important
3-No,not very important
4-No,not at all important
5-DK/REF---[DO NOT READ-ONLY IF VOLUNTEERED]
QI0.AN OCEAN WATER DESALINATION PLANT IS TENTATIVELY
PLANNED FOR THE CITY OF ROSARITO BEACH IN MEXICO AND THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE
SOME OF THAT WATER STARTING IN 2014 OR 2015.THIS PROJECT
WOULD BE FINANCED AND OPERATED BY INTERNATIONAL
COMPANIES WITH CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN OCEAN WATER
DESALINATION,WITH TIJUANA,ROSARITO BEACH,AND THE OTAY
WATER DISTRICT BEING THE PLANT'S CUSTOMERS.
Would you be in favor ofpursuing such an agreement with these international
companies to develop additional supplies ofwater from seawater desalination?
1.Yes-GO TO Qll
2.No
3.DKIREF-GOTO Qll
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
51 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
QlOb.[IF QI0 =2]Why are you not in favor of this desalination
agreement?
WATER RECYCLING
011 a-d.The use of recycled water is another way to increase the 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
OKI
Do you favor or oppose using recycled water...
REF
a)for watering landscaping along freeways
open space,parks and golfcourses?
b)for watering residential front yards?
9
c)for replenishing recreational lakes?
9
d)as an addition to the supply of
drinking water
9
CONSERVATION GARDEN
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
9
4
4
4
012.Have you ever seen or heard anything about the Water Conservation
Garden at Cuyamaca College?
1 -YES
2 -NO············>GO TO Q13
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••••>GO TO Q13
012a.[IF YES:]Have you or any member of your family ever visited the
garden?
1 -YES
2 -NO ••••••••••••>GO TO Q13
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and AwarenessSurvey
52 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
9 -OK/REF ••••••••••-->GO TO Q13
Q12b.Haveyou made any changes to your watering or landscaping practices as a result ofvisiting the
Garden?
1-YES
2 -NO-GO TO Q13
9 --OK/REF-GO TO Q13
Q12c.[IF Q 12b =1]What is the most significant change you have
made as a result of visiting the garden?
[DO NOT READ---------···-CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA]
1.Adjusted sprinklers/reduced water usage
2.Changed plants to be more drought.
tolerantlwaterwise
3.Eliminated plants/let plants die
4.Eliminated lawn/let lawn die-replaced with
waterwise ground cover
5.Replaced unused turf with low-water plants
6.Check the soil's moisture level before watering
7.Upgraded irrigation system to include new,
higher-efficiency equipment
9.Other,specify
PUBLICATIONS
Q13.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?
5 -OK/REF
Q14 The Otay Water Oistrict 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
3 -OK/REF
SOCIAL MEDIA
Q15a-e.Which,if any,of the following social media websites do you use?
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
53 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
OK)
a.Facebook
b.Twitter
c.Linkedln
d.My Space
e.You Tube
YES NO (inc!.
Q16a-f.Do you think that the Otay Water District can use these sites for your benefit to
a.notify you about scheduled construction
or system repairs
b.ask questions and receive comments
about your satisfaction with services
c.distribute emergency information
d.discuss water industry news and
new developments
e.communicate information about the District
YES NO OK
Q17.On a scale of 1-5,with 1 being very important and 5 being very unimportant,how
important is it to you that the Otay Water District have a presence using social media?
1.Very important
2.Somewhat important
3 Neither Important nor important
4 Somewhat unimportant
5.Very Unimportant
WEBSITE
Q18.Have you ever visited the Otay Water District website?
1 -YES
2 -HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET,BUT HAVE NOT VISITED WEBSITE
•••••••••••••••••••••••>GO TO Q22
3-00 NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET··········~GO TO Q23
9 -OK/REF •••••••••••••••••>GO TO Q23
Q18a.(IF Q18 =I)How would you rate the website?Would you say...
1 -excellent,
2 -good,
3 -fair,or
4 -poor?
9 -OK/REF
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
54 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
BILL PAYMENT
019.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)[GO TO Q20]
019a.[IF 019 not =6].Why do you not pay on-line using the District's website?
DO NOT VOLUNTEER
1.I do not trust that my banking data is secure
2.I do not use the Internet
3.I feel more in control of my money when I write the checks
4.Easier for my own accounting/taxes
5.Other,=-==-=--=-:-::-:::-::-:-::-::-:c===----------6.OK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
019b.[IF 019 not =6]What can the District do to make paying on-line through
the District's Website a more appealing option for you?
OK/REF =99
[IF Q19b =99,GO TO Q20]
019c.[IF any answer given to 019b]If the District were to do that,how much
more likely would you be to pay on-line?Would you say..
1.Very likely
2.Somewhat likely
3.Somewhat unlikely
4.Very unlikely
5.OK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
020.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
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)
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
55 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Q21 Would you be interested in receiving your monthly bill from the Otay Water
District bye-mail instead of through the Postal Service?
1 -YES
2-NO
9 -DK/REF
Q22.How likely are you to choose to go paperless in your bill paying to the District and
other regular monthly accounts within the next year or two?That is,you would receive
your bill bye-mail and would make your payments in one of several ways (phone,online,
automatic deduction)but not by check or cash.
1.Very likely
2.Somewhat likely
3.Somewhat unlikely
4.Very unlikely
5.DK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
Q22a.[IF Q22 =3 or 4]What is your major objection to the District going
paperless?
SATISFACTION
Q23: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
Q24:Have you called the Otay Water District for service or other help during
the past
6 months?
1 -YES
2 -NO -[GO TO PPH]
9 -DK/REF -[GO TO PPH]
Q24a--How would you rate your overall level of satisfaction with the service you
received when you called for service or help?
1---Excellent
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
56 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
2---Very Good
3-Good
4---Fair
5-Poor
6---Very Poor
9-0K/REF
ASK ALL:
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
EDU.What is the highest grade or year ofschool 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
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and AwarenessSurvey
57 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
INC.Now,we don't want to know your exact income,but just roughly,could
you tell me ifyour annual household income before taxes is ...
1 -under $25,000,
2 -$25,000 up to but not including $50,000,
3 -$50,000 up to (but not including)$75,000,
4 -$75,000 up to (but not including)$100,000,or
5 -$100,000 up to but not including $150,OOO?
9 -OK/REF
LAN.[LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW:]
Otay Water District
2011 CustomerOpinion and Awareness Survey
1 -ENGLISH
58
2 -SPANISH
Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Frequency Table
I q1 How would you describe your household's level of interest in conserving water at
home?Would you say...
~-----------'------------r=------------------r-------------'---~IIFrequencyIPercentIValidPercentICumulativePercent
~IA high level ofinterest 1751 56.81 56.81 56.8
IA moderate level '--'--'--'--98--'31.81 31.81 88.6
IA':--:-Io'--W-:-Ie-ve'--I'--"--''--''--''--''--'-10.1 3.21 3.21 91.9
INo interest at all 21 .61 .61 92.5
lo'""""":K/-cR--e--='fu'--se-d'--"--'-'--"--'-i-'-'--"--''--''--''--2--31 7.51 7s1 100.0
ITotal 3081 100.01 100.01
jq2 During the past year,would you say your household's awareness ofwater conservation has
been...
I 1 Frequency I Percent 1Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
rl,o",ea"og I 1311 42.51 48.01 48.0
.lsmY1og 'boulthe "me I 1231 39.91 45.11 93.0
JOecreasing I 191 6.21 7.0 I 100.0
ITotal I 273 1 88.61 100,01
IMissing INot sure (includes Ok/RefUSed)!35
1 11.41 I
ITotal I 308
1 100.01 I
q3 These next questions are related to the water supply in San Diego County.How confident
are you in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough water to you?Would you say..
I I Frequency I Percent IValid Percent1Cumulative Percent
Valid IVery confident I 1031 33.41 41.51 41.5
ISomewhat confident I 1271 41.2il 51.2/92.7
INot Very Confident I 161 5.21 6.51 99.2
INot at all confident 21 .61 .81 100.0
ITotal 248 1 80.51 100.01
!Missing .totsure (includes 6°~1 IOk/refused)
ITotal 308 1 100.01 I
q4 How much trust do you have in the ability ofthe Otay Water District to provide clean,safe
water to the district?Would you say..
-----------------------------------------------------1 Frequency I Percent I-v--a--lid-p--e-r--ce-n-t1Cumulative Percent
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
59 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Valid IA great deal oftrust 961 31.21 36.81 36.8
IA goodamount of trust 1071 34.71------------------4:'-:-1:'-:-.o'i-'------------------------'----77---.8:-1
Isome trust =--=--=--5-'-,01 16.21 19.21 96.9
Ir-N:'-:-ot:'-:-m:'-:-u:'-:-ch:'-:-t:'-:-ru-'st=--=--=--------5,1 1.6'-----------------'1.-'91-------------------------98-'.9---1
INotrust at all 3'1 1.01 1.11-'----------------1-'00:'-:-.0....,'
ITotal =--=--=--26--'11 84.71 100.01
IMissing Jr~:'-:-~-r:-~u-r~:'-:-e~-'-i):'-:-cl-'-ud:'-:-e-s-------=--47~IF----------I--------------1
ITotal3081 100.0'1 I
Valid
q4a How much trust do you have in the Otay Water Districtto obtain this water for you at a
reasonable price?Would you say...
;--=......---------......---......---------------------------------------~I Frequency,1 percentl......v:'-:-al-'id:'-:-p-'er:'-:-ce-'n=t\Cumulative Percent'
IA great deal of trust 1 301 9.71 11.81 11.8
I:'-:-A:'-:-9:'-:-oo-d-'-a-m-'-o:'-:-un-t:'-:-o-=-ft-ru-'-st-------'7tl 23.41 28.21 40.0
ISome trust I 1051 34.11 41.21 81.2
IC:-N-'ot:'-:-m:'-:-u......ch......t-ru:'-:-st=--=--=--=--I 33:1 10.7.1 12.91 94.1
INo trust at all I 151 4.91 5.91 100.0
Ii----To=ta=,====="'--'12551 82.81 100.01
IMiSSingl~~r:~~~e~)Cludesl 53cml /----------------------------1
Ic-To-ta~1=====-==';-1==3---081100.01 I
q5_1 Best utility value
IFrequency Ipercentl=v:'-:-a-lid-'-p-e-rc-'-e-'-n-'tl Cumulative Percent
r--,:-:-:-'------,r=----------------------------------=-Valid ITrash collection 821 26.61 36.31 36.3
IWater 491 15.91 21.71............................................................5-8.-'-0'
Ii--se......w-e-r=------;-.---=--=--6·;--,----'1--.91----=---......2.......71 60.6
ITelephone 271 8.81 11.91........................-=--=--7......2.-'-61
I-,-C-'-ab-le-o:'-:-r-S-a-te-lli-te-T-V-.----12-"------------3-.91 5.31 77.9
Iinternet access 71 2.31 3.11----------------81-'.0-'-1
'-G-as......&-......EI-ec-tr-ic--------O";'r-----------4-3 1r -----1-4~.0'19.0 1 100.0
ITotal 2261 73.41 100.01r--~~~~............,
r;,,;ogIIIT~o:tnat':,:"w ;'-------=---'-:=::1 '::::1---=-----=----=----=---1
:--O";'--O";'-8~21 26.61 I
jc-To-ta--I---=-----=-----=----=--308 1 100.0),---=----=----=----=----=--'-1
I q5_2 Second best utility value==-------==-I IFrequency IPercent IValid Percent I Cumulative Percent
IvalidllTwraatSehrColiection 1 301 9.71 20.71 20.7
.1 411 13.31 28.31 49.0
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
60 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
Isewer 91 2.91 6.21 55.2
/Telephone -'---'--'---'---'-1:"..;11 3.61 7.61 62.8
Ir-C--ab--le--o--r-S-at--el--Iit-e--TV--'--"101 3.21 6.9,1....----------------69-.7--1
Iinternet access 181 5.81 12.41 82.1
Ir-G--as--&---E--Ie--ct--ric-..----~;---------2-61 8.4117.91....---------------1--00--.0-1
ITotal'1451 47.11 100.01
rIM:C--is-Si--ng-/system --------1-6--3'1 52.91 /-------------------1
I=-To-ta-I--'---'--'---'--'---'---'---'---'---'---'---'-....,i---'---'---'---'-30----81 100.0 1;---..-----------'
q5_3 Third best utility value
---------------------------~I Frequency IPercent '--V--a--Iid--p--e--rc--e--n""""'tI Cumulative Percent
I q6 In the past year,do you believe that your water rates have..
I IFrequency IPercent 1Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
Valid IGone up I 2051 66.61 70.21 70.2
IGone down 1 71 2.31 2.41 72.6
IStayed about the same 1 381 12.31 13.01 85.6
INot sure I 42 1 13.61 14.41 100.0
ITotal I 292 1 94.81 100.01
IMissing !Refused I 16 1 5.21 I
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 I
I q6a Have higherwater rates motivated you to conserve more water?
I I Frequency I Percent 1 Valid Percent 1 Cumulative Percentrive,I 1451 47.11 75.91 75.9
INa 1 461 14.91 24.11 100.0
ITotal I 191 I 62.01 100.01
r;"i"9ID~R~"d I 121 3.91 I
Isystem I 105 1 34.11 I
ITotal I 1171 38.01 I
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
61 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
ITotal 308l 100.oil I
q6b_1 What specific majorstep has your household taken in the pastsixmonths to reduce
water usage?......
iIFreqUency'PI""'."'"'"p"'"'".~"'"'"~c-::-I~"'"'"n"'"'"t-!I""'"'"'"c~~m"'"'"er"'"'"~"'"'":~"'"'"i~"'"'"e=-:I
r--V-al-id=""'lo....u....td....oo....r ....w....a....te....r ....le....ss....t....im....e=====----':;.1..............=4---",0.1 13.01 29.21 29.2
~~~~~te earlier in the morning or later at .onl.....8.8:!38.0
ILetmylandscape/lawn die I 111 3.61 8.01 46.0
IOutdoorwatering fewer days per week I 111 3.61 8.01 54.0
IReplace unused turf with low-water plants I 31 1.01==-2.....2-ilr----===56.....2-'~~~~:~~ii~~~~t~~nu~~~~~s to newel...1.01 2.21 58.4
~~r~~~ff~:f~fu~e~fficienCy clothes washer in[U1 3.61r-~~~-6"'"'"2"'"'".0-·1
IWash only full loads of clothes or dishes I .91 2.91 6.61 68.6
ITake shorter showers I 151 4.91 10.91'---'---===79.....6-::-1
~r~~:broom instead of a hose on paved ~nl .71 80.3
IFix indoor leaks (toilet,faucet etc.)I 41 1.31 2.91===-8-3-.2-1
IFix outdoorleaks (sprinklers,spas etc.)1 21 .61 1.51 84.7
IDo not let water run I 101 3.21 7.31---==....9....2.....0-1
IColiect and reuse I 31 1.01 2.2,1 94.2
IOther 1 61 1.91 4.4 1----'---',----'---',-'-'--:-9-=-8.5,=",1
INothing I 21 .61 1.51 100.0
ITotal I 1371 44.51 100.01----'---',~----'-=1
nl;2FWI",",ed !::~;i ::::11-----'---',----'-=1
!Total I 308 1 100.01 I
q6b_2 What specific majorstep has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
38.0
Valid
IFrequency PI p~~~ntJ C~~r~:~~e
I-=-O~ut--:-do""o""r-w....at....er-:"'e....s....s....ti....m....e=====---",i--I'---'---=....1'="'21 3.91 15.21 15.2
~~~~~te earlier in the morning or later at ~nl----~2-.5-rl----~1-7-.7-'
i-/Le....t-m-y-'a....n....ds....c-a....pe..../l....aw.....n....d....ie=-==~I 31 1.01 3.81 21.5
IOutdoorwatering fewer days per week I 71 2.31 8.91 30.4
~i~~~:~~i;~~~t~qnU~~~~~s to new ~nl .....---2-.5-,Ir-~~~3"'"'"2-.9-1
i-~"'"'"ru"'"'"~-~"'"'"~f-f~"'"'"w-af-~"'"'"i~"'"'"~e"'"'"~-ff-ic-ie-n"'"'"Cy~CI-ot"'"'"h-es-w-a-sh"'"'"e~r ~[u1 5.tl
IWash only full loads ofclothes or dishes 1 111 3.61 13.91===-5-1.....9-1
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
62 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Cumulative
Percent
ITake shorter showers I 201 6.51 25.31 77.2II--:~-r~""".~""":"""b"""ro"""o"""m-'--in"""s"""te"""a"""d"""o"""fa............ho......s......e......o......n......p......a......v......ed"----'nnl....................................1.......3~!lr................................................7......8-.5-1
IFixindoorleaks (toilet,faucet etc.)I 2'1 .6;1 2:51------------81,--.0......1
'......Fi......x......o......ut......do......o......r--Ie-ak--s--(--sp-ri-n--kle......r......s,--s-p......as-e--tc--.-)---I 51 1.6,1---------6--.3-.1 87.3
IDo not let water run 1 61 1.91 7.61---......;---......;---......;-94""""'.--91
l-=-co~lI:-ec""""'t.......an.......d""""'r.......eu.......s .......e ---......;--"----"----"------......;-1 21 :6.1 2.5;1 97.5
IReplace grass with artificial/synthetic turf I 11 .31 1.31................................................9......8.......7-1
I-=-Ot":-he........r ~~~~~-~~...............'i-I~~..,..,1jlr-~-:-:.31 1.31 100.0
ITotal I 79 1 25.6.1 100.01.............................................-1
i-IMiss--in---,g·Isy-stem ;..,-'---229--'1jr-74..--.41 1
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 1
Valid
I q6b_4 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
,water usage?
I '"""..IFreqUencylPercentl p~~~nt :1r'""~;;:~:~;~~;d:::::o:::t::he,l·...:iI .:11--........................1......~:-:...,I'r......-......-......-............-'--......-......_......-1......:~::~:
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
63 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
IWash only full loads ofclothes or dishes 21 .61 11.11 27.8
Ir-T-ak---e---s---ho---rt-e---rs---h---ow-e-r-s-------------------------------,"'-1-------',21 .61-------------11-.1--''1r-----------------------38---.9-1
!I~~~:broom instead ofa hose on paved nl 1.0rl 16]1...---.....---.....---.....---..5=-5-.6":""1
IFix indoorleaks(toilet,faucet etc.)I 4:1r-------1---.3"'"'1i-------------2---2.---2 I 77.8
I-'-F-ix-'-o-'-ut-'-d-'-oo-'-r-Ie-'-a-'-k-'-s-(s-'-p-'-rin-'-k-'-Ie-'-r--s,--s--p--as--e--t--c.--)'--,I 21.61 11 .11------------------------88.......9,;:"1
100 not let water run 121 .61 11.1,1 100.0
I----To-ta----I-'--'--'--'--'--'--'-------,181 5.81 100.Or1-'------------------1
I'-Mi-ss'-in---g!System I 2901[94.2)1 I
ITotal I 308'1 100.01 1--------------------1
13.3
CumUlative
Percent1"~requencyIPercentl p~~~ntl
Valid ~i~~~te earlier in the morning or later atnn'...---.....---.....---..--6-.7-"...---.....---.....---.....---.....---..6---.7-'-1
~:~eCr~n~Oil'S moisture level before nOI 6.71
::~:sonly full loads of clothes or n~I...---.....---.....---..20---.-01...---.....---.....---.....---..---3---3---.3---1
ITake shorter showers I 11 .31----------6.-7"'...------------40-.0-1
~::e~~~~~~instead of a hose on nOI 6.71 46.7
IFix indoor leaks (toilet,faucet etc.)I 21 .6 1--------1-3.""'-'31r-----------------60=-.0"",
IFixoutdoor leaks (sprinklers,spas etc.)I 41 1.31 26.71,..-----------------86-.7-1
100 not let water run I 11 .31 6.71 93.3
IColiect and reuse 1 11 .31-------6.'-TIr-------------1......00-.0-1
ITotal I 15 1 4.91 100.01r-------------1
j--M-is-si-n-glsystem I 293 1 95.11 I
ITotal I 3081100.01----...---..----...---..-1--------1
I q6b_5 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
.water usage?
q6b_6 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
I .,Frequency IPercentI Valid I Cumulative
Percent ..Percent
Valid I:r,rigate earlier in the morning orlateratnnl 10.01 10.0
night
ITake shorter showers 1 11 .31 10.01 20.0
~use a broom instead ofa hose on nnl 20.01 40.0
paved areas
100 not let water run I 51 1.61 50.01 90.0
IColiect and reuse I 1/.3/10.01 100.0
ITotal I 10 1 3.21 100.01
IMissinglSystem I 298 1 96.81 I
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
64 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
ITotal I 308'1 100.01
I q7a Does your landscaping include a lawn?
---'--'---'--'---'--'---'--'---'--'---'-',---'--'---'--'---'--'---'--'------'--'---......1
1 1Frequency I Percent I,Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
IV",id ,1!TYNoeO'tSal 1 1901 61.71 88.01 88.0•I 26 1 8.4112.01 100.0
;----..---1 216 1 70.11 100.01
IMissing Isystem I 92 1 29.9iI 1-----------------------------.......1
ITotal I 308!100.01 I
I q7b Do you have an automatically-controlled sprinkler system for your
landscaping?Ii--------........................------'-',......F......r......eq......u-e......nc......y--I Percent I-V......a......li-d......p-e......rc-e......nt--I Cumulative Percent
IV'lid '.·,'!TYN·oeOtSa·1 1721 55.81 79.61 79.6•.441 14.31 20.41 100.0
2161 70.11 100.01
IMissinglSystem 92129.91 I
ITotal 3081 100.01 I
q7c During the past 12 months,how often has anyone made adjustments to the automatic
controller for your sprinkler system?
!1 FreqUency!Percent IValid percent!Cumulative Percent
Valid INot at all 1 161 5.21 9.31 9.3
11 to 3 times 1 401 13.01 23.31 32.6
14 to 6 times 1 441 14.31 25.61 58.1
[7 or more times I 51'16.61 29.71 87.8
Iluse weather-based I 13[421 7.61 95.3
controller
10K/Refused 1 81 2.61 4.71 100.0
ITotal 1 172 1 55.81 100.01
IMissing ISystem I 136 1 44.21 I
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 1
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
65 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
94.7
Iq8 These next questions are about desalination?Are you familiarwith the term "desalination."
I IFrequency IPercent IValid PercentI Cumulative Percent
Ivalld ,IYes .....'I 226,1 73.4:1 73.6:1 73.6
..1~~t~i?c1UdeSD~refUSed)i 36~:i ~::i)1 1~6:61 100.0
IMisSing ,ISysteml 11 .3rl .1
ITotal I 3081 100.0'Ir-:----------------'-i--'I-----------------------------'-1
q8a How would you describe what desalination is?
IIFrequencylPercent I""'..-'-p-~-'-~c-'-I~-'-n-t-'-l'.r.---C-'-~-'-~-'-~-I:-'-~-~e----I
rV-a-'-lid----Jr.-'-:~c-'-n~-'-a-'-r~-'-f~-'-:O-'-sa-'-~-'-~-'-~-'-na-'-~e-'-dr-rin-'-k-'-in-'-g-'-W-'-a-'-t-'-e-'-rf-'-ro-'-m-'-.....:......:..'Lm-~I 94.71
IOther';1 21 .6'1---------'-.9"""',r------------9-'-5.6-'-1
IOon't know/No answer 1101 3.21 4.4:1 100.0
ITotal I 227/73.7/-----'-1-'-00-'-.0"""'/r-------------'--'-I
I-M-is-s-'-in-gl-s-'-ys-t-'-em-.--------...:.....:..-...:.....:.....:.....:.....:.....:.....:.....:..-----,811 26.31 I
ITotaI I 308 1 100.0 ,---------------'-,.....------------------------,1
q9 Do you believe that desalination is important to maintaining a reliable supply of water in
San Diego County?
I 1 Frequency IPercent IValid Percent ICumulative Percent
Valid /Ves,very important I 1841 59.71 59.71 59.7
IVes,somewhat important I 581 18.81 18.81 78.6
INa,not very important I 91 2.91 2.91 81.5
INo,not at all important I 61 1.91 1.91 83.4
10K/Refused I 511 16.61 16.6;1 100.0
ITotal I 308
1
100.01 100.01
Iq10 Would you be in favor of pursu.ing ag.reement with international companies
to develop additional supplies ofwater from seawater desalination
I I Frequency IPercent I p~~~nt .1 c~~~:~~e
r"di~~Ref",ed i ;~:[::;!:.:i-----------------1-~--~.~""',
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
66 Rea &Parker Research
February,20ll
ITotal 3081 100.0 I .
q10a Why are you not in favor of this desalination agreement?
IFreqUencylPercentlvalid percentl"""c"""um"""u-Ia"""t-iv"""e"""p"""er"""ce"""n"""t
l
Valid I"""Q"""ue-s"""tio"""n"""a"""bl-e"""w"""a"""te"""r"""qu"""a"""lit"""y---'-----"1 121 3.91 11.51 11.5
lit should be done in U.S.I..........................2.....71 8.81 26.01.............................................37......5'-'-1
IDo not trust/want to deal with Mexico I 261 8.41r---'---'--'-'-2-'-'-5.'-'-01 62.5
IHigh cost I 9'1 2.91 8.71----"----"----"----"7----1.2'-'-1
IDo not know enough yet I 41 1.31 3.81 75.0
IDonot want to drink sea water I 51 1.61r---"--'---'-"""4.'-'-81--'---'---'---'--=79:-.~81
ILack of control I 61 1.91 5.81........................................-85--.6'-'-1
IJust do not like the idea I 31 1.01 2.91 88.5
INo ReasonlDon't know I 1213.91--'---'---'-1"""1.-5:r-1--'---'---'---'-1-0-0......0'
ITotal I 104 1 33.81 100.01
IMissing/Systeml 2041 66.21..........--~r-1........................................----"1
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 I
I q11_1 Do you favor or oppose using recycled water forwatering landscapes along
freeways open space,parks and golfcourses?
I I Frequency 1 Percent IValid Percent I-c-u-m-u....la-tiv-e....p-e-rc-e-n-tI
~IStronglyfavor I 2391 77.61 77.61 77.6
ISomewhat favor I 431 14.01 14.01 91.6
ISomewhat oppose I 61 1.91 1.91 93.5
IStronglyoppose I 51 1.61 1.61 95.1
IDKJRefused I 151 4.91 4.91 100.0
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 100.01
q11_2 Do you favor or oppose using recycled water for watering residential front
yard?L,--'---'---'-__--'-.....I-F-re....q-u-e-nc-y-'Percent I Valid Percent 1 Cumulative Percent
ValidlStrongly favor I 2081 67.51 67.51 67.5
ISomewhat favor I 581 18.81 18.81--'---'---'----=-86::""'".4-:-1
ISomewhat oppose I 151 4.91 4.91 91.2
IStronglyoppose 1 81 2.61 2.61........................................-9.....3.":"'8'
IDKJRefused I 191 6:21 6.21 100.0
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 100.01
I q11_3 Do you favor or oppose using ~:~:~~edwater for replenishing recreational
1 I Frequency I Percent I Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
r'"'.l:::::;~:o,.I ':1 ~~:l ~~:l :::
ISomewhat oppose 1 271 8.81 8.81 77.6
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
67 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
IStronglyoppose 30 t 9.71 9.71 87.3
10K/Refused ---3-9/"----1-2-.7·'.----1-2.-71-----1-00-.0-1
I-==To-t-a'-----3081 100.0 I 100.01-------1
q11_4 Do you favor or oppose using recycled water as an addition to the supply of
drinking water?
L,IFrequency IPercent Valid Percent ICumulative Percent
Valid IStrongly favor I 481 15.6 15.61 15.6
ISomewhat favor I 41 I 13.31
,
13.3 28.9
ISomewhat oppose I 451 14.6 14.61 43.5
IStronglyoppose I 129'1 41.9 41.91 85.4
10K/Refused 1 451 14.6 14.61 100.0
ITotal I 308 1 100.0 100.0 I
q12 Have you ever seen or heard anything about the Water Conservation Garden
at Cuyamaca College?
I I
Frequency IPercent IValid Percent ICumulative Percent
Valid IYes I 1471 47.71 48.71 48.7
INa I 1551 50.31 51.31 100.0
ITotal I 302 1 98.11 100.0 I
Missin OK/Refused 6 1.9
i'--To-ta-I9-
1------30-,1,--1-00---,01----.-------
I q12a Have you orany member of the family ever visited the garden?
I I Frequency IPercent I Valid Percent 1Cumulative PercentIlYe,I 491 15.91 33.31 33.3
INo I 981 31.81 66.71 100.0
ITotal I 147/47.71 100.0 I
IMissin9 ISystem 1
161 1 52.31 I
ITotal I 308"100.0 ,IIq12bHaveyoumadeanychangestoyourwateringlandscaping as a result of
visiting the Garden?
I Frequency IPercent IValid Percent ICumulative Percent
IIY~241 7.81 48.0 I 48.0
INa 261 8.41 52.0 I 100.0
ITotal 501 16.21 100.0 Ir,,,,ng IDKlRefu'ed 1I .31 I
ISystem 257
1 83.41 I
ITotal 258 1 83.81 I
ITotal 308 1 100.0 I I
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
68 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
Valid
q12c What is the most significant change you have made as a result of visiting the garden?
I ·r-·I Valid I CumulativeIFrequencylpercentPercent•...Percent
IA-'-d""'j-'-Us-'-t-'-ed-'-.-sp-r-in-,-k-,-Ie-,-rs-/r-,-e-du-c-e-,-d-,-w-a--'te--'r-,-u-,-s-,-ag--'e-,-..-';"1""-""-""-""-=31 1.01 13.0:/13.0
I~~:r~~~~~~:~_~i~oebe more drought-nnl 39.1:1 52.2
IrE--'lim-,---'in-,-at-,-e-,-d-p-,-la-,-nt--'s/-,-le-,-t-p-,-la--'nt-s-d-,-ie..,.-..,.----.---.--'--,I 11 .31 4.31 56.5
I;~~~i~~I;;:~~t lawn die-replaced with CCWI .13.0·'..,.-..,.----.----..,.-..,.-6-9-,-.6....'
IReplacedunused turf with low-water plants I 11 .31 4.31 73.9
l~gi;~~~i~~9:~~~~~~~emtonew,higher nOI.8.r 1"""""'------------8-2-.6"'"
/Collectand reuse 1 ...31 1.01 13.0/95.7
IOther (specify)1 11 .31--'--,--'--,.......4.--'3......1 --'--,--'--,.......1.......0.......0.-01
ITotal [231 7.51 100.01
ri~:~mi ~:!:~:i"""""----"""""----"""'ii;-""---""-"""""""'--""---,-"""""""
ITotal 1 308 1 100.01 I
I q12c_01
I I Frequencyl-p-e-'-rc-'-e-'-n-tl ValidPercent 1 Cumulative Percent
IValid I"""us--'in--'g--'c--'o--'m-po--'s-t-int-o-th--'e-d-'irt-...,.-..,.-li--"".--------=11 100.0 I 100.0 1 100.0
q13 Do you read the newsletter or bill inserts that come in the mail with your
monthlywater bill?
1 I Frequency 1Percent IValid Percent 1Cumulative Percent
Valid IEvery time I 731 23.71 24.21 24.2
IMost times I 75/24.41 24.81 49.0
ISometimes I 102/33.11 33.8/82.8
INever I 521 16.91 17.21 100.0
ITotal I 302 1 98.11 100.01
IMissing IDK/Refused 1 61 1.91 I
ITotal 1 308/100.01 I
q14 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?
I I Frequency I Percent I Valid I Cumulative
Percent Percentrive,1 120 I 39.01 43.81 43.8
INa I 1541 50.01 56.21 100.0
ITotal I 274 1 89.01 100.01
IMissing IDK/Refused I 34 1 11.01 I
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
69 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
ITotal 100.01
Valid
Valid
q15_1 Which,ifany,ofthe following social media websites do you use?
IFrequency 1Percent IValid Percent'I·Cumulative Percent
IFacebook 1 75,1 24.41 62.5/62.5
ITwitter I 21 .61 1.71 64.2
/Linkedln I 51 1.6'1 4.21 68.3
IMySpace 1 21 .61 1.71 70.0
IYouTube I 36111.71 30.01 100.0
ITotal I 1201 39.01 100:0:1
'--M-iS--Si--ng---"I'r-'s-yS--te--m-------'1881 61 .0 11----------------------------1
ITotal 13081 100.01 I
q15_2 Which,if any,ofthe following social media websites do you use?
IFrequency IPercent I Valid Percent 'I Cumulative ~ercent
J-Fa-ce---b---oo---k-I 41 1.31 12.91 12.9
JTwitter 1 41 1.31 12.91 25.8
JLinkedln 1 41 1.31 12.91 38.7
IMySpace I 41 1.31 12.91 51.6
Iyou Tube I 151 4.91 48.41 100.0
ITotal I 31 1 10.11 100.01
'-M-iSS---in-g-lsystem I 2771 89.91 1----------------------1
'-To--tal----------I 3081 100.01 I
q15_3 Which,if any,of the following social media websites do you use?
IFrequency IPercent IValid Percent ICumulative Percent
......V-al---id------rIF-a---ce---b---oo-k---1 11 .3,1 11.11 11.1
ITwitter I 11 .31 11.11 22.2
ILinkedln 1 31 1.01 33.31 55.6
IMySpace I 11 .31 11.11 66.7
Iyou Tube I 31 1.01 33.31 100.0
ITotal I.9 1 2.91 100.01
Ir-M-iss-in-g-I-s-ys-te-m--I 299 1 97.11--------------------'1----------------------1
!Total I 308 1 100.011
I q15_4 Which,ifany,of the following social media websites do you use?
I IFrequency IPercent IValid Percent I Cumulative Percentralid
.•.•tin:eedr.ln.I :l~l ~661 :6
IMyspacel 1 I .31 20.01 60.0
IYou Tube I 21 .6.1 40.01 100.0
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and AwarenessSurvey
70 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
I ITotal I sl 1.61 100.0'1
IMiSSing /system I 303
1 98.41 1
ITotal I 308 1 100.0'1 1
q15_5 Which,if any,ofthe following social media websites do you use?
IFrequency IPercent 1Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
I 21 .61 66.71 66.7I11.31 33.31"----"----"----"-----'-10-'-0.-0I
I 3 1 1.01 100.0,1
'I 30s1 99.01 1=-'--=-'--=-'--=-'---1
1 308 1 100.011
1
Iralldir:~~::
IC:-M'-iS'-S'-in-g'-lsystem
ITotal
Iq16_1 Do yo.u.thin.k t.h.e 0.ta.y..W.ater D.is..tr.i.ct.C.an US.e t.h.e.s.e si..tes for y..our bene.fitItonotifyyouaboutscheduledconstructionorsystemrepairs?
1 I Frequency I Percent IValid percentlCumulative Percentralid
.,.IY..e.s .'·.1 11.6..•.••.•...1 3.'7.7..•'."•.••.,1 3.7.'7'.,'37.7INaI144146.81 46.81 84.4
IDon'tknowl 481 1s.61 1s.61 100.0
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 100.01
I q16_2 Toask questions and rece~:e~~~s~ents aboutyour satisfaction with
1 1 Frequency IPercent IValid Percent I Cumulative Percent
r!~~:~ow !:~!,~Ii ,!gj ,~~~
I q16_3 To distribute emergency information?
I IFrequencylPercentl Valid Percent I Cumulative PercentIvalldIve,I 1211 39.31 39.3.1 39.3
INa 1 1341 43.sl 43.sl 82.8
.1'-TDoO-tna-'t,-kn'-o-w--rl"---"--S-31 17.21 17.21 100.0
••I 308 1 100.01 100.01
I q16_4 Discuss water industry news and new developments?
1 1Frequency Ipercent.'Valid Percent I Cumulative PercentIva"d Ives 1 1181 38.3'1 38.31 38.3
'No I 1341 43.sl 43.sl 81.8IITD'-o0'-tna-'tl-~-o'-w-'-'s61 18.21 18.21 100.0
,1 308 1 100.01 100.01
q16_5 communicate information about the District?
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwarenessSurvey
71 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
I ..
r"ldIY",INo
IDon'lknow
ITotal
IFrequency 'I Percencl Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
I 1231 39.91 39.9H 39.9I133143.21 43.21-'-----'-----'-------8--3.----;1'
I 52.1 16.91 16.91 100.0
I 308 1 100.0,1 100.0,[-----'------'------'------'--'----1
Valid
q17 On a scale of 1-5,with 1 being very important and 5 being very unimportant,how important
is it to you that the mayWater Districthave a presence using social media?
I Frequency'1 Percent IValid Percent I-'-c-'-um-'-.-'-ul-at-'-iv-'-e-'-p-'-e-'-rc-'-e-'-nt"""",1
I:-'-Ve=ry~i=m=po=rt=an=t--'----'----'---'-rl--'----'----'--7=--2'1 23.41 28.11 .28.1
ISomewhat important 1 84.1 27.31 32:81 60.9
[-I~...c'::-'-~t-'-~rt-'-e~-'-~...c'~-'-po-'-rt-'-a-'-n...c't...c'no-r-'--'--'--'-~'1-'--'------'--'--'--'-33"':~I 12.9 1 73.8
ISomewhat unimportant I .271 8.8110.51 84.4
Ir--V=ery----'un---'im---'p-o---'rt---'an---'t--'-----'---'---'---'·r-I---'---'---'---'---'---'4---'-01 13.0I 15.61 100.0
ITotal 1 256 1 83.11 100.01
1-1M":":"is-'-s-'-in-'-g----I'::'IO-'-Kl'-:'U-:-.n-'-s-'-u""'"re-'--'---------------I 52 1 16.9 1-----'--'--'--'-----.....,""1-----------------'--'---'--I
/Total I 308 1 100.01 I
I q18 Have you evervisited the Otay Water Districtwebsite?
I IFreqUencylPercentl Valid il Cumulative
Percent ..Percent
Valid Ives I 1131 36.71 39.2'/39.2
!Have access to internet,but have not ~I 45.5\48.6\87.8
visited the website
100 not have access to the internet 1 351 11.41 12.21 100.0
ITotal
1
288
1 93.51 100.01
IMiSSingloKiRefused 1 20
1 6.51 I
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 I
q18a How would you rate the website?Would you say..
r'----'-------------------------'-I Frequency IPercent I Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
72 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,2011
11.6
Cumulative
Percent
q19 How do you pay yourwater bill most months?"'---"'-----"'---"'----"'----"'---"'---"'----'-'-.1 FreqUency'Percent IValid Percent ICumulative Percent
Valid ISend check by mail I 291 9.41 25.9/25.9
IAutomatic bank deduction I 211 6.8l 18.81 44.6
'......c ......re......di-tc......a......rd-o-v......er......t......he......t......el......ep-h......o......ne='31 1.0:1 2.1.1 47.3
IOn-line (internet)I 591 19.21 52.71 100.0
IT-'-o-'-ta-'-I-'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--"""""",1'-'--'--'--'-1---'12 1 36.41 100.0 I
IM,,,,og,,.I'.TsD.oyKl.~.~Uel.nmS.U'.I 1.1
3
1 1-'-'-----'-----'-----'---,1•.I 195 1 63.31 I
I 196 1 63.6 1 [--'-----'-----'----'----'1
I-'-To-'-ta-'-I---'-'---'-'---'-'---'-'-'--'----'-'-'--'--,308'1 100.0 I I
q19a Why do you not pay on-line using the District's website?
IFrequency IPercentI..........p-~--~c-I~--nt-.-11r--c--u-p~--ru-~:-~-i~--e"--1
r-V-a-lid-"rl~-~-~--u~-~-tt-ru--s--t-th--a--tm-y---ba--n-k-in--g-d-at-a-is-"'---'--'"CS-[UI 11 .61
lido notuse the Internet 1 41 1.31 9.31------------------20-.9-'
I~~t~~~r~hi;c~~ntrol of myrnoney when I CS-[UI 14.01 34.9
IEasier for my ownaccounting/taxes ,I 16,1 5.21 37.21-------............--:c72::-.1"r
IUse auto deduction 1 4,1 1.31 9.31 81.4
lother 1 81 2.61 18.61-'--'--'--'--'--'-10-'-0.0-"
ITotal I 43 1 14.01 100.01
IMi".,ogIIT:o~t:a~:,:00.wiNo A"we,I 2:~1 ,::I----'--'--'-'--'Ir--'--'-'--'-'--'=/
.I 265 1 86.0'I
Ir-To-ta-'-I-'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'---'--'--'--'--'----'1 3081 100.0 1---'-'---'-'-'r--'--'-----'-'-I
I q19a_o1
/o-"'----"'---"'----"'---------"'---"'---"'-----"'----r-'-1F--r-eq-u-e--n-cyIPercentl p~~~~nt I
'-V-al-id·1.....-'--'--'-'--'-'--'--'---'-'--'-'--,11-1---2---.5'1--1-'-'--'--'-12-,5-'r--'--'-'-'--'-'-1---2.-'-51
II have not registered I 11 12.51==-1--2--.5\-===--2--5.":"701
II use the other line I 1112.51 12.51=-==......3-7.-51
1i-;~--~e-/-d-,-o-n--o--t--gi--Ve---m--e-a-d,.,-iS--G-OU--n-t-fo-r-nI .12.51 1251 50.0
IA matter of habit 1 11i--'--.,.,-,12-.5-rl==--:1--2.--5/==----=--62="'.-='51
'-Ij-us......t......ha......v......e......n't......s-e-ti......t u-p--------------\11 12.51 12.51-------------......75.......-0'
1~:~Uld charge it but they do not use nl 12.51 12.51 87.5
\rl'm--ol-d---sc"""ho---o"""l-=---"""'-=-1 11i--'---12-.5",rl==---1--2.--51====1-00-.--0'
ITotal I 81 100.01 100.01----------------------------1
Otay WaterDistrict
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
73 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Valid
q19b What can the Districtdo to make paying on-line through the District's website a more
appealing option for you?
I Frequency 1 percent/--'v--'a--'Iid--'p--'e--'rc--'e--'n""'tl Cumulative Percent
1-=-01---'·sc---'o---'un---'ts--'----'----'----'----'--+I--'----'----'--'---:81--1--'-----'2--'---'.61 14.81 14.8
/00 not like online banking/7:/2.3/13.01 27.8
INothing 1 131 4.21 24.11 51.9
/-=--Ot---'-he---'-r---'----'----'----'----'----'----'----'-""""'--',51 1.619.31 61.1
INo Reason/Don't know''I 21;1 6.81 38.91 100.0
ITotal I 54 1 17.51 .100.01I.....M-is--'si-ng---'I~sy--'s-te--m-----------------------I 2541 82.51 I
ITotal 1 308/100.0//
I What can the District do to make paying on-line through the District's website a more
appealing option for you?
IIFreqUency~1p~~~ntl c~~~:~~e
ValidlA simple way without worrying about bills.1 11 20.01 20.01 20.0
IBy this phone call and future newsletters 1 11 20.01 20.01-----------4--'0--.0-'1
lit is unimportant to me .I 11 20.01 20.01 60.0
ILater entry records 1 11 20.01 20.01----'------'80---'.0-1
I~~iii~~~r;~tio~:~;~~h~~~gohn~i~~1 and use r-1'~c20.0]100.0
/Total I 5,1 .100.01------'-'-'1o-'-'o.-ol'i-·------'------'-'-'-'-'I
Iq19c Ifthe Districtwere to do that,~~~~~hu~~;~likely would you be to pay on-line?
I I Frequency J Percent IValid Percent ICumulative Percent
Valid IVery likely I 111 3.6/36.71 36.7
ISomewhat likely 1 101 3.21 33.31 70.0
lSomewhat unlikely I 21 .61 6.71 76.7
IVery unlikely 1 1.1 2.31 23.31 100.0
'Total I 301 9.71 100.01
IMiSSing .ID~Ref",a.1 'I '°1 1
Isystem 1 275 1 89.3/1
ITotal 1 278 1 90.31 I
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 I
I q20 No matter how you presently pay YOU~h~l:i~~~would you prefer to pay your bill most of
I IFrequency I--'p--'e--rc--en=t-'-'I--'v--'a--Iid--p--e--rc--e-n--'tICumulative Percent
Iva".'Is.o.chack by mall I Wi 6.2,1 16.8:1 16.8
IAutomatic bank deduction .1 211 6.8,1 18.61 35.4
.'.ICredit card over the telephone I 21 .61 1.8/37.2
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
74 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
IOn-line (internet):1 65:1 21.11 57.5H 94.7
100.010KlNA'I 6:1 1.91 5.31
IT='""o--'ta-:-'-1--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'----"'1i-'-----'--'--'--'11-'-3'I 36.7,1--'--'--'--',--'10-'-0--'.01--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'-'-1
Ir.M'::'"is-s..:'-in-g..:'-1i':S:-y-st-e..:'-m---'---'---'---'---'---'---',""",1e-------'---'1..:'-9"""'i511 63.3'I I---'---'---'---'---'..:'-..:'-~I
ITotal '1308,1 100.01 1
q22 How likely are you to choose to go paperless in your bill paying to the District in the
next year or two?You would receive your bill bye-mail and you would make payment
either (phone,online,automatic deduction)but not by check or cash?
I 1 Frequency I Percent Ivalid,percentlCumulative Percent
Valid IVerylikely I 851 27.61 38.31 38.3
ISomewhat likely 1 431 14.01 19.41 57.7
ISomewhat unlikely 1 231 7.51 10.41 68.0
IVery unlikely I 711 23.11 32.01 100.0
ITotal I 2221 72.11 100.01
IM;";O'ID~Ref",~1 311 10.11 1
Isystem 1 551 17.91 1
/Total I 86 1 27.91 I
ITotal I 308 1 100.01 I
I q22a What is your major objection to the District going paperless?
I 'IFreqUencylPercent'l Valid I Cumulative
Percent,,Percent
Valid IWant paper record I 19,1 6.21 20.21 20.2
IComputer failure 1 51 1.61 5.31 25.5
ITrust/security I 51 1.61 5.31 30.9
100 not use computers that often 1 161 5.21 17.01 47.9
INa personal records on the computer I 51 1.61 5.31 53.2
IUsed to paying by check 1 131 4.21 13.81 67.0
JI will forget to check for the bill on the ~~I 5.31 72.3
computer
IOther I 41 1.31 4.31 76.6
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
75 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,20II
INoobjection I 31
I-'-N-'-o-'-re-'-a-'-So-'-n-/o-'-0-'-n-'-'t-'-kn-'-0-'-w-'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'----'--':'---------'-1'-'9,I
I-::-To....;..ta....;..1-'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'-""';'"1-,--,--,--,-9....;..4:I
i--IM-iS-'-S-'-in-'-gIsystem 1 2Wl
/Total 1-'--'---'--:-'-30-"'81
1.01 3.2.1 79.8
6.2i1 20.21-----------------------'-10--'-0.--'-01
30.51-'---'-----:-:10-'0.-'0I
69.51 1-'-'--'-'--'-'----1
100'°1 I
I Whatis your majorobjection to theDistrict going paperless?I [IFreqUency ~tr-.."""pV-e~.......~......~n......t......·I..---C-~-~......ru-~e......a~-i~......e--'-1
vaiid:11 paythrough autodeduct 'I 111 25.01 25.01 25.0
fa:~~l~:~f:~::;~bd,'~~~~~:"tro!nL~C
II work for the post office 1 11 25.01 25.01 75.0
jwaste of paper.I 11 25.0.1 25.01 100.0
ITotal I 41 100.0,1 100.01
I q23 How would you rate ~~~~~~:I:::~~~C~~~v~i~~te Otay Water Oistrict as
I I Frequency IPercent 1validPercend Cumulative Percent
Valid IExcelient I 741 24.01 24.51 24.5
IVery Good I 1161 37.71 38.41 62.9
IGood I 901 29.21 29.81 92.7
IFair 19,1 6.21 6.31 99.0
IPoor 21 .61 .71 99.7
IVery Poor 11 .31 .31 100.0
ITotal 3021 98.11 100.01
i-IM-iS-S-in-g-IOK/Refused 61 1.91 I
ITotaI 3081100.0 Ir""------'--'--'--'---i-I-'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--I
I q24 Have you called the Otay Water Oistrict for service or other help during the
past 6 months?
I IFrequency Ipercent/Valid Percent/Cumulative Percent
r'dIY~I 531 17.21 17.41 17.4
INo I 2521 81.81 82.61 100.0
ITotal I 305 1 99·°1 100·°1
IMissing 10K/Refused 1 3 1 1·°1 I
ITotal 1 308 1 100·°1 I
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
76 Rea &ParkerResearch
February,20ll
Valid
IGood 'I 1.21 3.91 22.61 77.4
IFair I 51 ul.9.41 86.8
IPoor I 41 1.31 7.51 94.3
IVery Poor I 3:1 1.01 5.71 100.0
Irotal I 53 1 17.21 100.01
IMiSSing ISystem I 255 1 82.81 I
Irotal 1 308'1 100.01 I
Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age..
1Frequency Ipercent:1 Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
118 to 24 I 41 1.3:1 1.41 1.4
125 to 34 I 171 5.51 5.81 7.2
135 to 44 1 671 21.8122.91 30.1
/45 to 54 I 711 23.11 24.31 54.5
155 to 64 1 781 25.31 26.71 81.2
165 or over 1 551 17.91 18.81 100.0
IrotaI I 292 1 94.81 100.01
I-M--iSS--in-g-I'D-K/-R-e-fu-se-d---1 161 5.21 1"""""'---'--'--'--'--1
Irotall 3081 100.01 I
I How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District?
I I
Frequency I percent!Valid Percent 1 Cumulative Percent
Valid ~I 111 3.61 3.61 3.6
rz-I 101 3.21 3.31 6.9
~I 101 3.21 3.31 10.2
~I 61 1.91 2.01 12.2rs-I 171 5.51 5.61 17.8
r-'I 61 1.91 2.01 19.7
rr-I 51 1.61 1.61 21.4
~I 81 2.61 2.61 24.0
~I 31 1.01 1.01 25.0rw--I 381 12.31 12.51 37.5
~I 61 1.91 2.01 39.5
~I 141 4.51 4.6/44.1
~I 61 1.91 2.01 46.1
~I 61 1.91 2.01 48.0
~I 18:1 5.81 5.91 53.9
~I 31 1.01 1.01 54.9
~I 31 1-01 1.01 55.9
~I 31 1.01 1.01 56.9
~I 11 .31 .3/57.2
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
77 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
120 .1231 7.51 7.61 64.8
121 .'1---------------------1'I .31 .31=---=---=---=---6'-'-5.'"""'11
1221 111 3.6"'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-3""=-.61 68.8
123 ...1---------------21 .61·7,1--=--=--=--=6-'--9.'-4'
124 ,I 51 1.61 1.6/71.1
1251-------------1.;.;,.,,21 3.91 3.91---------------------7'-5'-.0'
126 ..1 511.61 1.61 76.6
127 .1-----------------21 .61 .71----------------------'-7'-7.--,31
;\28..1 11 .31 .31 77.6
129 .1-------------------4....1--------'-1.'"""'3i--I---------------------1..;.;,.,,31----------------------------'-7'-8.'"""'91
~I 261 8.41 8.61----------------------'-8-7.-5'
131 q 61 1.91 2.01 89.5
132j-------------------2;1;'------'-.-'-'61--'1-----------------.-'-'71---------------------9'-0.---'1'
~I 11 .31 .31 90.5
134 .1--==----5-;'1=----1-.61r-------------------1.-:-;6''1r--------------------9-'-2'-'-.11
[35"I 51 1.61r--------------'-1.6---'I'r---------------------9......3........8 '
1361 11 .31 .31 94.1
137 '/r--------------'--11 .31;------------------.-31'.---------------------------9......4........4'
138.1 11 .31 .31 94.7
pg-1r--------------'-'-21 .61 .71.--------------------------9----5.----4'
~I 61 1.91 2.01 97.4~1r---------------'--21 .61 .71----------------'-9-8.~01
~I 11 .31 .31 98.4~1------------,21 .61 .71---------------------9'-9.-01
~I 11 .31 .31 99.3
~1------------,11 .31 .31-----9'-9.---'7'
~I 11 .31 .3/100.0
ITotall----------------30----41 98.71 100.0 1------------------------'1
Ir--Mi.......ss.......ing---O\99 .1 4 1 1.31 I
Total ,------3--0-81 100.0 I 1-----------------------------1
What is the highest grade or year ofschool that you have completed and received credit for..
•/Frequency/percentl
Valid I Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid IHigh school or less 1 481 15.6,1 16.3\16.3
At least one year of college,trade or ~~I 24.11 40.5
vocational school
Graduated college With a bachelor's ~~I 34.7/75.2
degree,or
At least one year of graduate work r-nr-wl 24.81 100.0
beyond a SA degree
ITotal I 294 1 95.51 100.01
IMiSsing/DKIRefused I 14 1 4.5/I
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
78 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
ITotal 3081 100.0 I
I Which ofthe following best describes your ethnic or racial background..
I Frequency iPercent I Valid Percent 1 Cumulative Percent
Valid IWhite,not of Hispanic origin 1571 51.0 I 56.11 56.1
Islack,not of Hispanic origin 61 1.91 2.1 I 58.2
IHispanic or Latino 721 23.41.25.71 83.9
IAsian or Pacific Islander 391 12.71 13.91 97.9
INative American,or 2/.61 .71 98.6
IArlOther ethnic group 41 1.31 1.41 100.0
ITotal 280
1
90.91 100.01
IMiSSing IDK/Refused 28 1 9.1 I I
ITotal 308 1 100.0 I I
I eth_o1
I IFrequency IPercent I Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
Ivalid I I 31 75.0 I 75.0 I 75.0
IAmerican I 1I 25.0 I 25.0 I 100.0
ITotal I 41 100.0 I 100.0 I
I gender
I 1 Frequency I Percent I Valid Percent I Cumulative Percent
Iva"d IMa"I 1541 50.01 50.01 50.0
IFemale 1 1541 50.0 I 50.0 I 100.0
ITotal I 308 1 100.0 I 100.0 I
Now we don't want to know your exact income,butjust roughly,could you tell me ifyour
annual household income before taxes is..
I I ~I Valid I Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid lunder $25,000 I 131 4.21 6.21 6.2
$25.000 up to but not including I 30 [VI 14.41 20.6
$50,000
$50,000 up to (but not including)I 51~1 24.41 45.0
$75,000
$75.000 up to (but not including)I 48~1 23.01 67.9
$100.000 or
~100.000 up to but not including I 47~1 22.51 90.4
$150,0007
1$150,000 or more 1 20 I 6.51 9.61 100.0
ITotal I 209 1 67.91 100.0 I
IMissing IDK/Refused I 991 32.11 I
ITotal I 308
1
100.0 I
1
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
79 Rea &Parker Research
Februaly,2011
100.0
Cumulative Percent
96.1
'r-----------.:....,Language of Interview
1 IFrequencYIPercent.1 validPercentl
Ivalid .••.•'lr·SEonptgaa.nlliS.ISh·.h I 2951 95.8196:11•..I 121 3.9'1 3.9,1I307199fI100.0 1""'----""'----""'--------------1
1Missing ISystem I 11.3 1 ·lr---"""---"""---------"""-----'
Irotal I 308 1 100.0:11
How many persons,inclUding yourself,live in your household?
IFrequency IPercent II Valid Percent 'I Cumulative Percentr-:----....;..-.-....;..-.-----
Valid 11 451 14.6:1 15.01 15.0
1-2"""------------------------------'-11---'-81 38.3:I 39.21....;..-.-....;..-.-....;..-.-....;..-.-....;..-.-5---4....;..21
1-'-3------....;......;.."""---441 14.3'1---'--'-----'--'-----'--'--1-4.---'-61 68.8
/4 561 18.21 18.61---------------------------'-8---'-7.-':-'41
15 --------------'-2---'-51 8.11 8.31 95.7
/-=-6------"""---7/2.31------------------2-..3'-1r---------------------------'-9-8.-0I
17 41 1.31 1.31 99.3
19 """---"""------'.11·3'/.31 99.7
1---'-10---'-------------;-.------------'-'-11 .31 .31r-------------------------10'---0.'---01
Irotal 3011 97.71 100.01Ii-M-is--Sin'-'g--/::"'-DK/--R...;..ef-us-e-d-r------7/2.3/Ir------------I
Irotal 3081 100.0:1 I
1 Is your residence owned by someone in your household,or is it rented?
I Frequency IPercent IValid percentl Cumulative Percent
rlO~2941 95.51 96.71 96.7
IRenUOther Status 101 3.21 3.31 100.0
Irotal 304
1 98.71 100.01
IMiSSing IDK/Refused I 4
1 1.31 I
Irotal I 308
1 100.01 I
I recoded cust
,,---------------.,..-"';"Fr"';"e--qU-e-n"';"cy""'"percentl"';"v-a-lid"';"p-e-rc"';"e"';"n-tl Cumulative Percent
1""..•.11111'-61~_2~55Y:Y·ee"affi.rrSs i ':61 ~:~I ~::::;:
1 641 20.81 21.11 75.0
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
80 Rea &Parker Research
February,20ll
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
126 or more years I 761 24.71 25.0,1 100.0
ITotal I 304 1 98.71 100.01
IMissing ISystem I 41 1.31 I
ITotal 1 308 1 100.01 I
recoded pph
I-F-re---q---ue---n---cy"""IPercent I'V---a-Ii-d---p---er---ce-n-t""r-c---u---m---u---Ia-t---jve------p---er-ce---n---t-I
1---1------------I 45[14.61 15.0 1 15.0
12 I 11 81 38.31---------------39~.2--i-1-----------------------~5----4.---21
'---3------------I 44 [14.31 14.61 68.8
14 I 561 18.21-----------18~.6...,1 c--------------------~8-7.--,41
150rmore I 381 12.31 12.61 100.0
ITotaI I 3011 97.71 100.0 ,-------------------------------1
I-Mi-ss----ing-----"'"Is----ys----te----m-----i-I-------------71 2.3 1 I
/Total 1 308 1 100.0 I ,-----------------------1
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
I q8a_o1
I IFrequency IpercentlValid percent!Cumulative Percent
ri;:~:";~:::a:;;at.,mstes bad ii li l~~~i l~i~i 1~~~
1 q12c_o1
,..,-------------------------------------,FrequencYI-p-er-ce-n-t'Valid Percent ICumulative Percent
[ValidlUsing compost into the dirt.1 11 100.01 100.01 100.0
1 'rq_19_a_-o1______
IIFreqUencylPercentl p~~~~ntl
\Iaiid"I 11~---12---.5-;.,---------------1-2.---5'1"'"--------------------12-.-5'
I-Ih---a-ve------no-t-re-g-is-te---re-d---------------------i--------------11 12.51 12.51----------2-5-.0-1
II use the other line 11------.....,12-.5-'Ir------------12-.---5 /37.5
I~~~y do not give me a discount for n~1 12.51---------------5-0-.0-
1
IAmatlerofhabit 1 11 12.51 12.51 62.5IIjusthaven't set it up 1 11 12.51r-----------------12-.5---1---------------------------75---.0--1
Ii would charae it butthev do notuse 1 11 12.51 12.51 87.5
Otay Water District
20II Customer Opinion andAwareness Survey
81 Rea &Parker Research
February,20ll
Ivisa r--""'-"--=I ;-.''__""'-"--""'-"--""'-"--_1
II'mold school 11 12.51 12.51 100.0
ITotal """""----""----'="8:I 100.0 I 100.0,1--------------------"'-1
What can the District do to make paying on-line through the District's website a more
appealing option for you?
IIFreqUency/percent/p~~~ntl c~~~:~~e
'vaiid"IAsimple way withoutworrying about bills.1 11 20.0:1 20.01 20.0
IBy this phone call and future newsletters 1 11 20.01 20.01;"..";,c.;"..,,;,c.;,,..,,;,c.-'-40-.0---'
lit is unimportant to me I 11 20.01.20.01 60.0
I-'-La-'-te-r-'-e-'-nt-ry-'-re-'-c-'-o-'-rd-'-s;"..";,c.------;,,..,,;,c.----------1,..-'---'"--------11 20.0 I 20.0 1------'-80-.O~I
:1~~~ii~~~r~~tFo~:~;~~h~~~gohn~i~~1and use ~~~I 100.0
Ii'=To----ta----1""'-"----""'-"----------------..............'1i---------="5/100.01 100.0/-------1
I What is your major objection to the District going paperless?
L,II ~I Valid I Cumulative•Frequency Percent Percent,Percent
Valid II pay through auto deduct 1 11 25.01 25.01 25.0
Iwo~al fue po,'offioe If fue d~lrict goe,.~125.01 250e
paperless I would lose my job I do not want to
lose my job
II work for the post office I 11 25.01 25.01 75.0
IWaste of paper.I 11 25.01 25.01 100.0
ITotal I 41 100.01 100.01
Otay Water District
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey
82 Rea &Parker Research
February,2011
Attachment C
Customer Satisfaction
•Customers demonstrate a high level of overall
satisfaction with the Otay Water District
•Rebound to 2008 levels
•Substantial level :,of,confidence in the District's
ability to provide enough water for its
customers
•93 percent very confident or sOlnewhat confident (increase [roln 2008
and 2009)back to 2005-?006 levels
•Trust in clean,safe water at highest level
•Trust in obtaining water at a reasonable price has declined
•Overall high rating of v'alue and quality of the work
done by th,e Otay Water District.
Chart 1
Overall Satisfaction with Otay Water District
as Water Service Provider
(2.21 =mean on 1-6 scale where 1 =Excellent)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%--
0%
2011 2010 2009 2008 2006
•Excellent
.Very Good
•Good
Fair
•Poor
Very Poor
Chart 2
Confidence in Local Water Agencies,to Provide Enough Water
(1.67 =mean confidence on 1-4 scale,where 1 =very confident)
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
•Very Confident •Somewhat Confident •Not Very Confident •Not at All Confident
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Chart 3
Trust Otay Water Distr"ct to Provide Clean,Safe Water
(1.90 =mean on 1-5 scale where 1 =Great Deal ofTrust)
•Great Deal of Trust
Good Amount of Trust
.Some Trust
D Not Much Trust
•No Trust at All
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%-
10%
0%
2011 2010 2009 2008
In 2006 and 2005,respondents were asked about their confidence in Otay Water District to prevent contamination of water supply.In 2006,
29%had "not much"or "no"confidence.In 2005,that percentage was 22%.It should also be noted that there was only one clearly positive
option in those surveys,skipping from "great deal of confidence"to "some confidence."
Chart 4
Trust Otay Water District to Obtain Water at a Reasonable Price
(2.73 =mean on 1-5 scale where 1 =Great Deal of Trust)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2010 2009
•Great Deal of Trust
Good Amount of Trust
.Some Trust
1:1 Not Much Trust
•No Trust at All
100%90%
12%
Internet Access •Sewer
80%70%
19%
60%
I
50%40%30%20%
III Trash Collection •Water IB Gas &Electric 0 Telephone 0 Cable TV
10%
Chart 38
Best Value Among Utilities
0%
2009
2008
2011
---------------
Conservatio n
·C,olntl,n,ued in'lc,re,asing li,nterestin
co nservatli';on
•Awarenes'$,ofco"ln,servatio'n ;measures has
d'ec'lined
•Higihe,r ratesihave m,iotiv,atedconservation i,n
71 %of th",ose who beHeve th.at rates have
increased-50perce~ntoverall
•Conservation has focused upon less watering outside
(ti"me and days)and shorter showers less than in the
'past-repairing leaks,waterin,g early or late,
sweeping driveways have ihcreased
•Sprinklers being adjusted more frequently
Chart 10
Household's Level of Interest in Conserving Water
•High Interest
•Moderate Interest
•Low Interest
•No Interest
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
Chart "11
Householdls Awareness of Water Conservation During Past Year
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%'
30%
20%
10%
2011
Chart 8
Conservation Motivated by Higher Rates
amon 70 ercent who think that rates have increased)
'2009 2008
II Yes
.No
DNot Sure
Chart 9,
ConseNation Steps Undertaken in Past Year
(by 50 percent who think that rates have increased and have taken conservation steps in response--
numbers in parentheses are 2009 responses)
Less Time Watering
Outdoors,19%
(24%)
Fewer Days per Week
Watering Outdoors,7%
Do Not Allow Water to (1O%~o)-----
Run,10%(8%)
Wash Only Full Loads of
Dishes and Clothes,11%
(10%)
Shorter Showers,14%
(21%)
Irrigate Early in Morning
I or Late at Night,6%(2%)
Other,33%
(25%)
Let Landscape/Lawn Die·I -Eliminate,5%(7%)
Fix Indoor Leaks,5%(2%)
//Fix Outdoor Leaks,5%(1%)
/Purchase High-
Efficiency Clothes
Washer/Low-flow
Fixtures,4%(4%)
Use Broom Instead of
Hose,4%(0%)
Collect and Reuse,3%(2%)
Replaced Turf with Low
Water Plants,2%(2%)
Upgrade Irrigation
System,2%(2%)
Other,3%(2%)
Chart 13
Adjustments to Sprinkler Settings
•Have Weather-Based Controller o Automatic Controller--Adjusted 7 or More TimeslYear
•Automatic Controller--Adjusted 4-6 TimeslYear •Automatic Controller--Adjusted 1-3 TimeslYear
.Automatic Controller--Never Adjusted •Automatic Controller--Unsure about Number of AdjustmentsoNoAutomaticController
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
18%
~
15%23%13%1%
20%
23%
16%
25%
23%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Conservation Garden/Recycling
•Less visitation to Cuyamaca Conservatio~n
Garde'n (especially among lower and higher
inco~mes)
•Changes in response to visits are less
replacement with water tolerant plants and more
~Iawnsbeing eliminated (esp.in Chula Vista and ."
middle income households)
•T.rend in support for using recycled water
t,urneddownward
Chart 14
Have Seen/Heard ofNisited
Cu amaca Colle e Water Conservation Garden
•Heard of and Visited
Conservation Garden
o Heard of but Not Visited
..Never Heard of or Seen
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%~
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
Chart 16
Most Significant Change Made Resulting from Visiting
Water Conservation Garden
(among 9 percent who have visited !ill!made changes)
I 2009 .2011 I
Other
Collect and Reuse
Let Landscape/Lawn Die-
Eliminate
Replaced Lawn with Low-
Water Plants
Upgraded Irrigation System
~""""'_rT
Changed Plants to 39%54%
WaterwiselDrought Tolerant P-r------r-------...,------r------,------~--
Adjusted Sprinkers/Reduced
Outdoor Water Use
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
Chart 30
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering
alo,ng Freeways,Open Space,Parks,Golf Courses
(mean =1.24 on 1-4 scale where 'I =Strongly Favor)
Somewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose •Unsure
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Chart 31
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering Residential Front Yards
(1.39 =mean on 1-4 scale where 1 =Strongly Favor)
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
•Somewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose •Unsure
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2011
2008
2006
2005
Chart 32
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Replenish Recreational Lakes
(1.78 =mean on 1-4 scale where 1 =Strongly Favor)
•Strongly Favor IISomewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose IIStrongly Oppose •Unsure
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2011
2008
2006
Chart 33
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Supplement Drinking Water Supply
(2.97 =mean on 1-4 scale where 1 =Strongly Favor)
• Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose •Strongly Oppose •Unsure
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Website/Communications/Onlinie
Bill Payment
•Increase in reading CCR
•De,crease ~i,n reading newsletter and bill
ilnserts from,20,09 but higher than 2008
and be'fore
•Visitors to the Otay Water District website
have increased steadily
•Rating of website has rebound,ed from 2009
•Significant increase in rec.eptivity to
receiving biUsby e-mail
•Record keeping,lack of c,ontrol and security issues
are main reasons for not wanting to pay bills online
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
Chart 24
Read Consumer Confidence Report
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%-
20%
10%
0%
2005 2006
Chart 23
Read Newsletter
2008 2009 2011
•Every Time
•Most Times
•Sometimes
•Never
Chart 25
Visits to Otay Water District Website
2011
2009
2008
2006
Have Visited Website ..Have Internet Access But Have Not Visited Website •Do Not Have Access to the Internet
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
Chart 26
Rating of Website
(2.1 =mean rating on 1-5 scale,where 1 =Excellent)
(by 39 percent who have vistited website)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Chart 20
Receive Monthly Bill by E-mail?
2011
2009
2008
0%10%20%
I
30%40%50%60%70%
No,74%
80%
~------
Chart 18
Reason for Not Paying Online
(asked of 47%who do not pay online)
Other,19%
Do Not Use Internet,9%
Automatic Bank
Deduction,9%
Do Not Trust SecurityJ
Online,12%
Easier for
AccountinglTaxes,37%
Feel More in Control
When Writing Checks,
14%
Chart 22
Objection to Paperless Bill Paying
(asked of 42%who indicated that they were unlikely to utilize a paperless system)
No ReasonlDo Not
Know,21%
Other,3%
Will Forget to Check
Computer for Bill,6%
Computer Failures,6%
Lack of Security/Do Not
Keep personal Records
on Computer,11 %
Want Paper Record,21 %
Do Not Use Computers
That Often,18%
Comfortable Paying by
Check,14%
Chart 27
Use of Social Media/Networks
50%-
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Facebook You Tube Linkedln Twitter My Space
46%
At Least One of
These Websites
Construction/Repair
Notification
Questions/Comments about
Service Satisfaction
Emergency Information
Water Industry News
Information about Otay Water
District
Chart 28
Potential Uses for Social Media Websites
""
Yes,39%No,44%Unsure,17%.
..-
Yes,38%Np,44%Unsure,18%
-..
Yes,40%NO,43'%Unsure,17%"
0%10%20%30%
I
40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Chart 29
Importance of Otay Water District Having
Social Media Presence
(2.53 =mean on 1-5 scale where 1 =Very Important)
Very Unimportant,16%
Somewhat Unimportant,
10%
Neither Important nor
Unimportant,13%
Somewhat Important,
33%
._-----,-~---------------
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 6
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Armando BuelnafJ
Communications Officer
APPROVED BY:
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:2011 Legislative Program Guidelines
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors adopt the 2011 Otay Water District
Legislative Program.
PURPOSE:
To provide direction to staff in the formulation of the District's
response to legislative initiatives on issues affecting the
District during the 2011 legislative session.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A
BACKGROUND
Each legislative session,representatives to the California
Legislature sponsor some 2,000 or more bills or significant
resolutions.While many fail to make it out of their house of
origin,many of these bills become law and can affect special
districts in substantive ways.The same is true with each session
of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Legislative programs establish guidelines and policy direction
that can be used by staff in monitoring legislative activity,and
facilitate actions that can be taken quickly in response to
proposed bills.
The principles provided in the 2011 Legislative Program are meant
to serve as guidelines for staff and legislative advocates in
formulating a consistent District response to legislative
initiatives.This is particularly helpful in dealing with time
sensitive matters such as last minute amendments should calls or
letters to legislators be needed.Sensitive or controversial
policy matters will nevertheless be brought to the full Board of
Directors for deliberation and direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments
Attachment A-Committee Action Report
Attachment 8-2011 Otay Water District Legislative Program
Attachment C-2011 Otay Water District Legislative Program (Strike-thru)
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:2011 Legislative Program Guidelines
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications
reviewed this item at a meeting held on March 16,
supported staffs'recommendation.
NOTE:
Committee
2011 and
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 8
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Legislative Policy Guidelines
Effective Date:/ /
Legislative Policy Guidelines
The Otay Water Legislative Policy Guidelines for the 2011 Legislative Session includes the
following:
Water Services
Support efforts to:
a.Develop and finalize a Bay-Delta Plan to address environmental and water quality
issues in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Bay Delta in a cost effective and
environmentally sensitive manner.
b.Promote Delta conveyance in a size and fiscally conservative way to improve water
quality or water transport and reduce the possibility oflevee failure.
c.Complete long-term Delta planning work and studies ofnew water storage facilities,
and support efforts to promote additional surface and underground water storage
infrastructure to ensure water availability and quality.
d.Study Global Climate Change and its potential impact on the snow pack,rising sea
levels,increased salinity in the Delta,the possibility ofreduced precipitation or more
severe storms.
e.Provide financial support to projects designed to mitigate potential negative impacts
ofGlobal Climate Change on water supply reliability.
f.Provide ongoing federal and state funding for the California Bay-Delta.
g.Support implementation ofthe Quantitative Settlement Agreement.
h.Provide reliable water supplies to meet California's short and long-term needs.
1.Develop and adopt a comprehensive state water plan that balances California's
competing water needs and results in a reliable supply ofhigh-quality water for the
San Diego region.
J.Provide conveyance and storage facilities that are cost effective,improve the
reliability and quality ofSan Diego region's water supplies as well as the Bay-Delta
regIOn.
k.Equitably allocates costs ofthe Bay-Delta solution to all those benefiting from
improvements.
1.Support agriculture to urban water transfers.
m.Promote desalination pilot studies and projects.
n.Reduce restrictions on recycled water use or reduce regulations in an effort to expand
recycled water use.
o.Reduce restrictions on injecting recycled water into basins where there is no direct
potable use.
p.Provide financial incentives for recharge ofgroundwater aquifers using recycled
water.
q.Encourage feasibility studies ofwater resource initiatives.
lof6
Otar Water District 2011Legislative Program
r.Increase funding for infrastructure and grant programs for construction,
modernization or expansion ofwater,wastewater treatment,reclamation facilities and
sewer systems.
s.Provide funding for water recycling,groundwater recovery and recharge,surface
water development projects and seawater desalination.
t.Mandate uniform or similar regulations and procedures by state agencies in the
processing and administering of grants and programs.
u.Streamline grant application procedures.
v.Improve the existing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water conveyance system
to increase flexibility and enhance water supply,water quality,levee stability and
environmental protection.
w.Evaluate long-term threats to the Delta levee and conveyance system and pursue
actions to reduce risks to the state's water supply and the environment.
x.Promote or assist voluntary water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers
and move those transactions through without delay.
y.Establish reasonable statewide approaches to sewer reporting standards.
z.Provide the State Water Project with more flexibility to operate their systems to
maximize water deliveries while avoiding unacceptable impacts to third parties,
habitat or the environment.
aa.Fast-track design,permits and construction for pilot projects in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta to create barriers to keep fish away from Delta water pumps,improve
water quality and supply reliability.
bb.Focus on resolution ofconflicts between water management and the environment in
the Delta and the Colorado River.
cc.Provides funding and support for efforts to address Colorado River water quality
issues and concerns.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increase the cost ofimported
water without also improving the reliability and/or quality ofthe water.
b.Create unrealistic or costly water testing protocol.
c.Create unrealistic or costly to obtain water quality standards for recycled water or
storm water runoff.
d.Restrict use of recycled water for groundwater recharge.
e.Disproportionately apportion costs ofwater.
f.Establish new water or recycled water fees solely to recover State costs without also
providing some benefit.
g.Create undo hurtles for seawater desalination projects.
h.Make the use ofeminent domain for water infrastructure projects more costly or
burdensome.
1.Create regulatory schemes that alter or limit the existing authority to reuse and
recycle water.
J.Create unreasonable,costly,or confusing sewer reporting standards.
20f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
k.Create administrative or other barriers to sales between willing buyers and willing
sellers that delay water transfers.
1.Increases regulatory or procedural impediments to water transfers at the local or state
level.
m.Establish a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific program activity;any
fee must provide a clear nexus to the benefit the fee would provide.
Financial
Support efforts to:
a.Support efforts to clarify procedures and provisions ofProposition.
b.Require the federal government and State ofCalifornia to reimburse special districts
for all mandated costs or regulatory actions.
c.Give special districts the discretion to cease performance ofunfunded mandates.
d.Provide for fiscal reform to enhance the equity,reliability,and certainty of special
district funding.
e.Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively,share costs or resources.
f.Provide for the stable,equitable and reliable allocation ofproperty taxes.
g.Continue to reform workers compensation.
h.Authorize financing ofwater quality,water security,and water supply infrastructure
improvement programs.
1.Promote competition in insurance underwriting for public agencies.
j.Establish spending caps on State ofCalifornia overhead when administering voter
approved grant and disbursement programs.
k.Require disbursement decisions in a manner appropriate to the service in question.
1.Encourage funding infrastructure programs that are currently in place and that have
been proven effective.
m.Produce tangible results,such as water supply reliability or water quality
improvement.
n.Provide financial incentives for energy projects that increase reliability,diversity,and
reduce green house gasses.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Impose new,unfunded state mandates on local agencies and their customers.
b.Undermine Proposition 1A -Protection ofLocal Government Revenues -and the
comprehensive reform approved by voters in 2004.
c.Reallocate special district reserves in an effort to balance the state budget.
d.Reallocate special district revenues to fund infrastructure improvements in cities or
counties.
e.Usurp special district funds,reserves,or other state actions that force special districts
to raise rates,fees or charges.
f.Complicate existing conservation-based rate structures.
g.Establish funding mechanisms that put undue burdens on local agencies or make
local agencies defacto tax collectors for the state.
h.Complicate compliance with SB 610 and SB 221.
30f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Governance/Local Autonomy
Support efforts to:
a.Expand local autonomy in governing special district affairs.
b.Promote comprehensive long-range planning.
c.Assist local agencies in the logical and efficient extension ofservices and facilities to
promote efficiency and avoid duplication ofservices.
d.Streamline the Municipal Service Review Process or set limits on how long services
reviews can take or cost.
e.Establish clear and reasonable guidelines for appropriate community sponsorship
activities.
f.Reaffirm the existing "all-in"financial structure,or protect the San Diego County
Water Authority voting structure based on population.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Assume the state legislature is better able to make local decisions that affect special
district governance.
b.Create one-size-fits-all approaches to special district reform.
c.Unfairly target one group of agencies or local elected officials.
d.Usurp local control from special districts regarding decisions involving local special
district finance,operations or governance.
e.Limit the board of directors'ability to govern the district.
f.Create unfunded local government mandates.
g.Create costly,unnecessary or duplicative oversight roles for the state government of
special district affairs.
h.Change the San Diego County Water Authority Act regarding voting structure,unless
it is based on population.
1.Shift the liability to the public entity and relieve private entities ofreasonable due
diligence in their review ofplans and specifications for errors,omissions and other
Issues.
J.Place a significant and unreasonable burden on public agencies,resulting in increased
cost for public works construction or their operation.
Conservation
Support efforts to:
a.Provide funding for water conservation programs including those that help special
districts meet 20%by 2020 targets as outlined in SBX7-7.
b.
c.Encourage the installation ofwater conserving fixtures in new and existing buildings.
d.Promote the environmental benefits ofwater conservation.
e.Enhance efforts to promote water awareness and conservation.
f.Offer incentives for landscape water efficiency devices such as ET controllers and
soil moisture sensors.
40f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
g.Develop landscape retrofit incentive programs and/or irrigation retrofit incentive
programs.
h.Permit local agencies adopting stricter ordinances requiring water wise landscaping
for commercial and residential development.
1.Create tax credits for citizens or developers who install water wise landscapes.
J.Create tax credits for citizens who purchase high efficiency clothes washers,dual
flush and high-efficiency toilets and irrigation controllers above the state standards.
k.Expand community-based conservation and education programs.
1.Develop incentives for developers to install water wise landscape in new
construction.
m.Encourage large state users to conserve water by implementing water efficient
technologies in all facilities both new and retrofit.
n.Create higher incentives for solar power.
o.Encourage large state water users to conserve water outdoors.
p.Educate all Californians on the importance ofwater,and the need to conserve,
manage,and plan for the future needs.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Weaken federal or state water efficiency standards.
Safety,Security and Information Technology
Support efforts to:
a.Provide funding for information security upgrades to include integrated alarms,
access/egress,and surveillance technology.
b.Provide incentives for utilities and other local agencies to work cooperatively,share
costs or resources.
c.Provide funding for communication enhancements,wireless communications,GIS or
other technological enhancements.
d.Encourage or promote compatible software systems.
e.Fund infrastructure and facility security improvements that include facility roadway
access,remote gate access and physical security upgrades.
f.Protect state,local and regional drinking water systems from terrorist attack or
deliberate acts ofdestruction,contamination or degradation.
g.Provide funds to support training or joint training exercises to include contingency
funding for emergencies and emergency preparedness.
h.Equitably allocate security funding based on need,threats and/or population.
i.Encourage or promote compatible communication systems.
j.Encourage and promote funding ofDepartment ofHomeland Security Risk
Mitigation programs.
Oppose efforts that:
a.Create unnecessary,costly,or duplicative security mandates.
50f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Optimize District Effectiveness
Support efforts to:
a.Continue to reform Workers Compensation.
b.Give utilities the ability to avoid critical peak energy pricing or negotiate energy
contracts that save ratepayers money.
c.Develop reasonable Air Pollution Control District engine permitting requirements.
d.Reimburse or reduce local government mandates.
e.Allow public agencies to continue offering defined benefit plans.
f.Result in predictable costs and benefits for employees and taxpayers.
g.Eliminate abuses.
h.Retain local control ofpension systems.
1.Be constitutional,federally legal and technically possible.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Restrict the use of,or reallocate,district property tax revenues to the detriment of
special districts.
b.Create unrealistic ergonomic protocol.
c.Micromanage special district operations.
d.Balance the state budget by allowing regulatory agencies to increase permitting fees.
Hi-National Initiatives
Support efforts to:
a.Promote and finance cross-border infrastructure development such as water
pipelines,desalination plants or water treatment facilities.
b.Develop cooperative and collaborative solutions to cross-border issues.
c.Develop and enhance understanding ofthe interdependence ofcommunities on both
sides ofthe border with the goal ofimproved cross-border cooperation.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Usurp local control over the financing and construction ofwater supply and
infrastructure projects in the border region.
60f6
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Legislative Policy Guidelines
Effective Date:/ /----
Legislative Policv Guidelines
The Otay Water Legislative Policy Guidelines for the 2011 Legislative Session includes the
following:
Water Services
SuppOli efforts to:
a.Develop and finalize a Bay-Delta Plan to address a eempreheAsive fllaR to aedress
Bay Delta environmental and water quality issues in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Bay Delta in a cost effective and environmentally sensitivemanner.~
b.8tl:le)',f.iRali:i'!e aRe flPromote '"Arol:ll1e the Delta-C:conveyance in a size and fiscally
conservative way alternatives as a way to improve water quality or water transpOli
and reduce the possibility oflevee failure.
c.Complete aRe f.iRalii!:e long-term Delta planning work and oRgoiRg studies ofnew
water storage facilities,and suppOli efforts to promote additional surface and
underground water storage infrastructure to ensure water availability and quality.
d.Study Global Climate Change and its potential impact on the snow pack,rising sea
levels,increased salinity in the Delta,the possibility ofreduced precipitation or more
severe storms.
e.Provide financial support to projects designed to mitigatethe-potential negative
impacts ofGlobal Climate Change on water supply reliability.
f.Provide ongoing federal and state funding for the California Bay-Delta.
g,Support implementation ofthe Quantitative Settlement Agreement.
h.Provide reliable water supplies to meet Califol11ia's ShOli and long-telm needs.
I.Develop and adopt a comprehensive state water plan that balances Califol11ia's
competing water needs and results in a reliable supply ofhigh-quality water for the
San Diego region.
j.Provide conveyance and storage facilities that are cost effective,improve the
reliability and quality ofSan Diego region's water supplies as well as the Bay-Delta
region.
k.Equitably allocates costs ofthe Bay-Delta solution to all those benefiting from
improvements.
\.Support agriculture to urban water transfers.
m.Promote desalination pilot studies and projects.
n.Reduce restrictions on recycled water use or reduce regulations in an effort to expand
recycled water usage,
o.Reduce restrictions on injecting recycled water into basins where there is no direct
potable use.
p.Provide financial incentives for recharge ofgroundwater aquifers using recycled
water.
q.Encourage feasibility studies ofwater resource initiatives.
Ion
ATTACHMENT C
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
r.Increase funding for infrastructure and grant programs for construction,
modernization or expansion ofwater,wastewater treatment,reclamation facilities and
sewer systems.
s.Provide funding for water recycling,groundwater recovery and recharge,surface
water development projects and seawater desalination.
t.Mandate uniform or similar regulations and procedures by state agencies in the
processing and administering ofgrants and programs.
u.Streamline grant application procedures.
e.LiB'lit the awti Iahility,or prohibit IRe ins~JIa-tioft,ofwatBf softeAiAg IIflflIiB:f1ees that
E1iseharge brine ta the sewer systems feediflg lrealmBftI plants leal fJredl1ee r-eeyeled
wateF;
W7_v._lmprove the existing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta water conveyance
system to increase flexibility and enhance water supply,water quality,levee stability
and environmental protection.
*,~Evaluate long-term threats to the Delta levee and conveyance system and pursue
actions to reduce risks to the state's water supply and the environment.
T~_Yromoteor assist voluntary water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers
and move those transactions through without delay.
&-:ic.Establish reasonable statewide approaches to sewer reporting standards.
rrrr.-~_Provide the State Water Project with more flexibility to operate their systems to
maximize water deliveries while avoiding unacceptable impacts to third parties,
habitat or the environment.
illLFast-track design,permits and construction for pilot projects in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta to create balTiers to keep fish away from Delta water pumps,improve
water quality and supply reliability.
bb.Focus on resolution ofconflicts between water management and the environment in
the Delta and the Colorado River.
cc.Provides funding and support for efforts to address Colorado River water quality
issues and concerns.
elr.
Oppose effOlis to:
a.Make urban water supplies less reliable or substantially increase the cost ofimported
water without also improving the reliability and/or quality ofthe water.
b.Create unrealistic or costly water testing protocol.
c.Create unrealistic or costly to obtain water quality standards for recycled water or
storm water runoff.
d.Restrict use ofrecycled water for groundwater recharge.
e.DispropOliionately apportion costs ofwater.
f.Establish new water or recycled water fees solely to recover State costs without also
providing some benefit.
g.Create undo hUliles for seawater desalination projects.
h.Ban the I:Ise afar mMake the use ofeminent domain for water infrastructure projects
more costly or burdensome.
2 on
Formatted:Indent:Left:0.5",No bullets or
numbering
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
I.Create regulatory schemes that alter or limit the existing authority to reuse and
recycle water.
j.Createl:lRFeaSeRaale unreasonable,costly,or confusing sewer reporting standards.
LCreate administrative or other barriers to sales between willing buyers and willing
sellers that delay water transfers.
I.Increases regulatory or procedural impediments to water transfers at the local or state
level.
m.Establish a broad-based user fee that does not support a specific program activity;any
fee must provide a clearnexus to the bt<Il~fiL!h.0eewould provide.
+-- --{Formatted:No bullets or numbering
Financial
Support efforts to:
h-Support efforts to clarify procedures and provisions ofProposition 21 g iR IRe walEe ef·---
IRe Bighem eeeisieR.
~
Hr.L-Require the federal government and State of California to reimburse special
districts for all mandated costs or regulatory actions.
~Give special districts the discretion to cease performance ofunfunded mandates.
e4.Provide for fiscal reform to enhance the equity,reliability,and certainty ofspecial
district funding.
jr.-!<,.Provide incentives for local agencies to work cooperatively,share costs or resources.
tr-LProvide for the stable,equitable and reliable allocation ofproperty taxes.
r:&...Continue to reform workers compensation.
!r.h.Authorize financing ofwater quality,water security,and water supply infrastructure
improvement programs.
hi-Promote competition in insurance underwriting for public agencies.
&.1..Establish spending caps on State ofCalifornia overhead when administering voter
approved grant and disbursement programs.
¥:k,Require disbursement decisions in a manner appropriate to the service in question.
w,.1Encourage funding inti'astructure programs that are currently in place and that have
been proven effective.
*"'nL.-Produce tangible results,such as water supply reliability or water quality
improvement.
Y:!hProvide financial incentives for energy projects that increase reliability,diversity,and
reduce green house gasses.
Oppose e;lforts to:
a.[mpose new,unfunded state mandates on local agencies and their customers.
b.Undermine Proposition IA -Protection of Local Government Revenues -and the
comprehensive reform approved by voters in 2004.
c.Reallocate special district reserves in an effort to balance the state budget.
30f7
Formatted:Numbered +Level:t +
Numbering Style:a,b,c,...+Start at:1 +
Alignment:Left +Aligned at:0.5"+Tab after:
0.75"+Indentat 0.75"
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
d.Reallocate special district revenues to fund infrastructure improvements in cities or
counties.
e.Usurp special district funds,reserves,or other state actions that force special districts
to raise rates,fees or charges.
f.Complicate existing conservation-based rate structures.
g.Establish funding mechanisms that put undue burdens on local agencies or make
local agencies de facto tax collectors for the state.
h.Complicate compliance with SB 610 and SB 221.
Governance/Local Autonomy
Support efforts to:
a.Expand local autonomy in govellling special district affairs.
b.Promote comprehensive long-range planning.
c.Assist local agencies in the logical and efficient extension ofservices and facil ities to
promote efficiency and avoid duplication ofservices.
d.Streamline the Municipal Service Review Process or set limits on how long services
reviews can take or cost.
e.Establish clear and reasonable guidelines for appropriate community sponsorship
activities.
f.Reaffirm the existing "all-in"financial structure,or protect the San Diego County
Water Authority voting structure based on population.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Assume the state legislature is better able to make local decisions that affect special
district govelllance.
b.Create one-size-fits-all approaches to special district refonTI.
c.Unfairly target one group ofagencies or local elected officials.
d.Usurp local control from special districts regarding decisions involving local special
district finance,operations or govelllance.
e.Limit the board ofdirectors'ability to govern the district.
f.Create unfunded local government mandates.
g.Create costly,unnecessary or duplicative oversight roles for the state govelllment of
special district affairs.
h.Change the San Diego County Water Authority Act regarding voting structure,unless
it is based on population.
i.Shift the liability to the public entity and relieve private entities ofreasonable due
diligence in their review ofplans and specifications for errors,omissions and other
issues.
j.Place a significant and unreasonable burden on public agencies,resulting in increased
cost for public works construction or their operation.
40f7
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
Conservation
Support efforts to:
.1h.-Provide funding for water conservation programs including those ~that help special
districts meet 20%by 2020 targets as outlined in SBX7-7.
n7b.
&f-,Encourage the installation ofwater conserving fixtures in new and existing buildings.
&.-~Promote the environmental benefits ofwater conservation.
th.'2,.Enhance efforts to promote water awareness and conservation.
eeLOffer incentives for landscape water efficiency devices such as ET controllers and
soil moisture sensors.
j,,~Develop landscape retrofit incentive programs and/or irrigation retrofit incentive
programs.
gclLPermit local agencies adopting stricter ordinances requiring water wise landscaping
for commercial and residential development.
&LCreatetax credits for citizens or developers who install water wise landscapes.
f.,LCreate tax credits for citizens who purchase high efficiency clothes washers,dual
flush and high-efficiency toilets and irrigation controllers above the state standards.
f,LExpand community-based conservation and education programs.
*'-LDevelop incentives for developers to install water wise landscape in new
construction.
h!:!L-Encourage large state users to conserve water by implementing water efficient
technologies in all facilities both new and retrofit.
ffi7!L-Create higher incentives for solar power.
fl720Encourage large state water users to conserve water outdoors.
p':-Educate all Californians on the importance ofwater,and the need to conserve,
manage,and plan for the future needs.
&.-
Oppose efforts to:
a.Weaken federal or state water efficiency standards.
Safety,Security and Information Technology
Support ~fforts to:
a.Provide funding for information security upgrades to include integrated alarms,
access/egress,and surveillance technology.
b.Provide incentives for utilities and other local agencies to work cooperatively, share
costs or resources.
c.Provide funding for communication enhancements,wireless communications,GIS or
other technological enhancements.
d.Encourage or promote compatible software systems.
50f7
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
e.Fund infrastructure and facility security improvements that include facility roadway
access,remote gate access and physical security upgrades.
f.Protect state,local and regional drinking water systems from terrorist attack or
deliberate acts ofdestruction,contamination or degradation.
g.Provide funds to support training or joint training exercises to include contingency
funding for emergencies and emergency preparedness.
h.Equitably allocate security funding based on need,threats and/or population.
i.Encourage or promote compatible communication systems.
j.Encourage and promote funding ofDepartment ofHomeland Security Risk
Mitigation programs.
Oppose efforts that:
a.Create unnecessary,costly,or duplicative security mandates.
Optimize District Effectiveness
Support efforts to:
a.Continue to reform Workers Compensation.
b.Give utilities the ability to avoid critical peak energy pricing or negotiate energy
contracts that save ratepayers money.
c.Develop reasonable Air Pollution Control District engine permitting requirements.
d.Reimburse or reduce local government mandates.
e.Allow public agencies to continue offering defined benefit plans.
f.Result in predictable costs and benefits for employees and taxpayers.
g.Eliminate abuses.
h.Retain local control ofpension systems.
i.Be constitutional,federally legal and technically possible.
Oppose efforts to:
a.Resttict the use of,or reallocate,district property tax revenues to the detriment of
special districts.
b.Create unrealistic ergonomic protocol.
c.Micromanage special district operations.
d.Balance the state budget by allowing regulatory agencies to increase permitting fees.
Bi-Nationallnitiatives
Support efforts to:
a.Promote and finance cross-border infrastructure development such as water
pipelines,desalination plants or water treatment facilities.
b.Develop cooperative and collaborative solutions to cross-border issues.
c.Develop and enhance understanding ofthe interdependence ofcommunities on both
sides ofthe border with the goal ofimproved cross-border cooperation.
Oppose efforts to:
60f7
7 of?
Otay Water District 2011Legislative Program
a.Usurp local control over the financing and construction of water supply and
infrastructure projects in the SaB Diege/Baja California border region.
AGENDA ITEM 7
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
STAFF REPORT
Regular Board MEETING DATE:
Alice Mendez-Schomer d;1'/J W.O.lG.F.NO:
Customer Service Supervisor
Joseph R.Be~hief Financial Officer
G~iV!~arez,Assistant General Manager,
~ation
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
Finance and
SUBJECT:Adopt Ordinance No.528 Amending Section 34,Issuance and
Payment of Water Bills and Section 53,Fees,Rates,Charges
and Conditions for Sewer Service of the District's Code of
Ordinances
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board adopt Ordinance No.528 amending Sections 34 and
53 of the District's Code of Ordinances.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present to the Board revisions to Sections 34 and 53 of the
Code of Ordinances to amend the District's policies on the
requirement and handling of deposits for habitually delinquent
accounts and the accepted forms of payment for water and sewer
accounts.
ANALYSIS:
Section 34:Issuance and Payment of Water Bills
Existing provisions in Section 34.02 F.2 of the Code of
Ordinances establishes the amount of deposits for habitually
delinquent accounts.Currently,the deposit is calculated at
two times the average of the previous three months billing.
The issue with this provision is that many of the District's
highest water users are landscape irrigation accounts with
average monthly usage peaking in the summer.Deposits added
during the winter months could be significantly short of
covering unpaid summer water bills.The proposed change to the
Code addresses this issue by allowing deposit amounts up to two
times the highest monthly bill in the preceding 12 months.
The other proposed change is to update the acceptable forms of
payment for water accounts.The forms of payment added include
credit card,draft,electronic funds transfer or any other
acceptable form of payment that will be honored by the bank.
Section 53:Fees,Rates,Charges and Conditions for Sewer
Service
Since this section does not currently address the issuance and
payment of sewer bills or deposits on habitually delinquent
accounts,the proposed changes under Section 53.11,Sewer
Service Rates and Charges,include the additions of item H,
Issuance and Payment of Sewer Bills and item I,Delinquent
Accounts.
FISCAL IMPACT:0~
This will have a positive financial impact due to the reduction
in write-offs to the District.
STRATEGIC GOAL:------
Improve the District's collection process.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Ordinance No.528
Exhibit 1 Strike-through Section 34
Exhibit 2 Strike-through Section 53
C)Proposed Section 34
D)Proposed Section 53
ATTACHMENT A
Adopt Ordinance No.528 Amending Section 34,Issuance and
Payment of Water Bills and Section 53,Fees,Rates,Charges
and Conditions for Sewer Service of the District's Code of
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Ordinances
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration,and Communications Committee
recommend that the Board adopts Ordinance No.528 amending
Section 34,Issuance and Payment of Water Bills and Section 53,
Fees,Rates,Charges and Conditions for Sewer Service of the
District's Code of Ordinances.
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.
F:\DianeA\Staff Rpts 2011\CommMtgSection34and53 040611.doc
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.528
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY
WATER DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 34,ISSUANCE AND
PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS AND SECTION 53,FEES,RATES,
CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE
OF THE DISTRICT'S CODE OF ORDINANCES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of Otay Water
District that the District's Code of Ordinances,Section 34,
Rates and Conditions for Water Service and Section 53,Fees,
Rates,Charges and Conditions for Sewer Service be replaced as
per Attachments C and D,respectively).
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the new proposed
Sections 34 and 53 of the Code of Ordinances shall become
effective April 6,2011.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
the Otay Water District at a regular meeting duly held this 6th
day of April,2011,by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1
SECTION 34 ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS
Exhibit 1
4 -- -i Formatted:Justified
34.01
A.
B.
C.
D.
34.02
A.
ISSUANCE,DUE DATE AND FINAL PAYMENT DATE OF
STATEMENT OF CHARGES FOR SERVICE
Issuance of Statements.Statements for water
service or other charges will be mailed or presented
as soon as practicable after the water meter has
been read and the applicable charges have been
determined.
Due Date.Each statement issued by the District for
such charges shall be due and payable on the date of
mailing or other presentation to the customer.
Final Payment Date.All charges in each statement
must be paid on or before the final payment date
shown on the statement,which shall be at least 20
calendar days following the date of mailing or
presentation of the statement.
Payment of Charges.
1.Place of Payment.Payments shall not be
credited to a customer's account until either cash,
aft acceptable check,credit card ra)qfteftt,draft,
electronic funds transfer,~money order,or any
other acceptable form of payment that will be
honored by the bank has been received by the
District at the District business office during
regular office hours.Deposit of payment in the
mail or at a location other than the District
business office shall not be credited to a
customer's account until received at the business
office.
2.Returned Check Charges.A returned payment
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 0.2.for charge)shall
be added to a customer I s account in each instance
where payment has been made to the District with
~a check,draft,credit card or any other
acceptable form of payment that -hi:t¥ehas not been
returftedhonored upon presentment to the District by
the bank upon which it is drawn.
DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
For Non-Payment of Charges.I f full payment of a'::s~t:"::a~tLe-=-m:"=e-=-n't=-=~f;:':o:":r:':"'='---'a=-=----'w:":a:";:t=e-=r-==se r vice acc 0 untis not
received at the District business office on or
before the final payment date,the account shall
become delinquent.
34-1
B.Late Payment Charge.A late payment charge (see
Appendix A,34.02 B.for charge)of the total amount
delinquent shall be added to each delinquent account
at the time any amount becomes delinquent,provided
that the charge shall not be made on any account
which at that time has no delinquencies of record.
When a late payment charge is made,such shall be
added to the delinquent account as of the date the
account becomes delinquent and such charges shall
become an inseparable part of the amount due as of
that time.
C.Notice of Delinquency.A delinquency notice shall
be mailed to each customer whose account is
delinquent,notifying the customer that service will
be turned off unless payment is made.The notice
shall indicate the amount due,including late
payment charges,and that the total amount must be
paid within fifteen (15)calendar days from the date
of mailing or presentation of the notice to the
customer,or service will be discontinued.
D.Record of Delinquent Accounts.The District
maintains records of delinquent accounts.Each year
one delinquency shall be removed from the record of
each account that has one or more delinquencies.
E.Partial Payment on Delinquent Account.A partial
payment on a delinquent account may be accepted and
credited to a customer's account;however,the
partial payment shall not cause removal of the
account from a delinquent status and furthermore,
the partial payment shall not preclude the meter
from being turned off for delinquency.
F.Financial Arrangements for Delinquent Accounts.
1.Continuation of Service.The General Manager,
GOHtrollerChief Financial Officer,or any person
delegated by the General Manager,may authorize
continuation of service to a delinquent account if
financial arrangements,satisfactory to the
District,have been established.
2.Requirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Delinquencies.If payments on a customer account
have become delinquent five or more times,or if a
meter has been turned off three or more times for
non-payment of charges,the General Manager,
GORtrollerChief Financial Officer,or any person
delegated by the General Manager,shall be
authorized to require the customer to make a ea-sfi
deposit with the District.!...in aHcash or any other
34-2
form satisfactory to the General Manager.The
deposit amount equal to shall be established at the
discretion of the General Manager and the Chief
Financial Officer,but shall not exceed two times
the amouHt of the avcragehighest monthly bill
.fe.rduring the three ffiOHth periodtwelve (12)months
preceding the diseoHtiHuancedate of service before
further ';vater scz....iec ·..·ill""""i3Cproyided under the
customer's aceoUBt.demand for a deposit.
(a)Handling of Deposit.A deposit shall not earn
interest and shall only be applied to reduce or
satisfy amounts due the District in the event
of termination of service.A de osit does not
constitute payment for service bills and the.
customer shall be required to comply with bill
payment requirements to continue receiving
service.
(b)Refund of Deposit.A deposit required under
this Section shall be refunded to the customer
as provided in Section 25.04.B.
G.
.---i Formatted:Justified
Termination and Reinstatement of Water Service Under
uellnquent Accounts
1.Termination of Service.The water meter or
meters under delinquent accounts may be turned off
and locked if payment has not been made in
accordance with the Notice of Delinquency.
(a)Where an owner or manager is listed by the Dis-
trict as the customer of record of the service,
the District shall make every good faith effort
to inform the actual users of the services when
the account is in arrears by means of a notice
that service will be terminated in ten days.
The notice shall further inform the actual
users that they have the right to become cus-
tomers of the District without being required
to pay the amount due on the delinquent
account.
(b)Residential water service shall not be termi-
nated for non-payment in any of the following
situations:
(1)During an investigation by the District of
a customer dispute or complaint.Any
residential customer who has initiated a
complaint or requested an investigation
within five days of receiving the disputed
bill,or who has,within 13 days of the
34-3
mailing of the notice that the customer's
service will be terminated for non-
payment,or made a request for extension
of the payment period of a bill asserted
to be beyond the means of the customer to
pay in full during the normal period for
payment,shall be given an opportunity for
a review.The review shall include
consideration of whether the customer
shall be permitted to amortize the unpaid
balance of the account over a reasonable
period of time not to exceed 12 months.
No termination of service shall be
effected for any customer complying with
an amortization agreement,if the customer
also keeps the account current as charges
accrue in each subsequent billing period.
Any customer,whose complaint or request
for an investigation has resulted in an
adverse determination by the District,may
appeal the determination to the Board.
(2)When a customer has been granted an exten-
sion of the period for payment of a bill.
(3)On the certification of a licensed physi-
cian and surgeon that to do so will be
life threatening to the customer and the
customer is financially unable to pay for
service within the normal payment period
and is willing to enter into an amortiza-
tion agreement to pay the unpaid balance
of any bill asserted to be beyond the
means of the customer over a period not to
exceed 12 months.
(c)The ten-day notice of proposed termination may
not be sent to the customer until at least 19
days from the date of mailing of the bill for
services.The ten-day period shall not com-
mence until five days after the mailing of the
notice.
(d)The District shall make a reasonable,good
faith effort to contact an adult person resid-
ing at the premises of the customer by tele-
phone or in person,at least 48 hours prior to
any termination of service.A charge (see
Appendix A,34.02 G.1.(d)for charge)shall be
added to the bill for a contact made in person.
34-4
(e)Every notice of termination of service pursuant
to subdivisions (a)and (c)shall include all
of the following information:
(1)The name and address of the customer whose
account is delinquent.
(2)The amount of the delinquency.
(3)The date by which payment or arrangements
for payment is required in order to avoid
termination.
(4)The procedure by which the customer may
initiate a complaint or request an inves-
tigation concerning service or charges,
except that if the bill for service con-
tains a description of that procedure,
then the notice is not required to contain
that information.
(5 )The procedure by which
request amortization
charges.
the
of
customer may
the unpaid
(6)The procedure for the customer to obtain
information on the availability of finan-
cial assistance including private,local,
state or federal sources,if applicable.
('7)The telephone number of a representative
of the District who can provide additional
information or institute arrangements for
payment.
(f)If a residential customer fails to comply with
an amortization agreement,the District shall
not terminate service without giving notice to
the customer at least 48 hours prior to termi-
nation of the conditions the customer is
required to meet to avoid termination,but the
notice does not entitle the customer to further
investigation by the District.
(g)Termination of service shall not occur on any
Friday,Saturday,Sunday,legal holiday or at
any time during which the business offices of
the District are not open to the public.
(h)No termination of service may be effected with-
out compliance with this section and any ser-
vice wrongfully terminated shall be restored,
without charge,for the restoration of service.
34-5
(See California Government Code Section 60373.)
2.Reinstatement of Service.Water service
terminated for delinquency may not be reinstated
until all amounts due and payable,including late
payment charges and meter "turn-on"charges,have
been paid at the District business office,or unless
credit arrangements satisfactory to the District
have been made.
3.Meter "Turn-On"Charge.A "turn-on"charge
shall be made for turning on any meter which has
previously been turned off for a delinquent account.
The charges for turn-on shall be as follows:
(a)For any account turned on during the District's
regular business hours the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(a).
(b)For any account turned on after the District's
regular business hours,the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(b).
I ND:4839-5321-9592,v.±.?
34-6
.-- --{Formatted:Justified
Exhibit 2
SECTION 53 FEES,RATES,CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER
SERVICE
53.01 CONDITIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF SEWER SERVICE CAPACITY
Sewer service capacity may be acquired only for service
to a specific address,parcel of land,or a land development
project covered by an approved map.An approved map shall
mean a recorded final map,a recorded parcel map or a
tentative subdivision map that has been approved by the County
or by a City,as applicable.
53.02
A.
53.03
A.
53.04
A.
SERVICE AREAS
Service Areas.Sewer service shall be furnished by
the District only to property located in Improvement
District No.14 ("1.D.14"),Improvement District
No.18 ("1.D.18"),and Assessment District No.4
("A.D.4"),and the Russell Square Sewer Service
Area.Sewer service to property located outside
such areas may be furnished only upon annexation to
ID 18 and payment of all applicable annexation fees.
ACQUISITION OF SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR SERVICE IN I.D.
14,I.D.18 AND A.D.4
There shall be no connection capacity fee for sewer
service to parcels already annexed into Improvement
District No.14,Improvement District No.18 and
Assessment District No.4 on or after December 16,
1998.
ACQUISITION AND PURCHASE OF SEWER CAPACITY FOR
SERVICE IN THE RUSSELL SQUARE SEWER SERVICE AREA
District Acceptance of Sewer Facilities for Russell
Square Area.Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado
Development,Inc.,dated June 28,1981,the District
accepted title to a sewer pump station,force main
and appurtenances for a sewage system to provide
sewer service to the residential dwelling
units to be constructed within the parcels of land
in San Diego County Tentative Parcel Map 17150.
Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado Development,
Inc.,dated June 18,1981,the District agreed to
provide service to such parcels on the terms and
conditions contained therein.On October 1,1984,
pursuant to Resolution No.2139,the District Board
of Directors accepted title to the facilities.
53-1
B.Designation of Russell Square Sewer Area.The geo-
graphical area described on the District Map
entitled "Russell Square Sewer Service Area,"dated
October 11,1988,on file with the District
Secretary,constitutes the Russell Square Sewer
Service Area.
C.Connection Fees for Connections for Sewer Service
through the Russell Square Sewer Pump Station.
1.Sewer Connection Fee
A connection fee (see Appendix A,53.04 C.1.
for fee)for each EDU of sewer service provided
through Russell Square Pump Station shall be
collected.The connection fee is due at the
time an application for sewer service is
submitted.The number of EDUs for the con-
nection shall be as set forth in Section 53.09
of the Code.Since the Russell Square Pump
Station and force main were constructed by the
developer or his assignee,at their expense,
for the purpose of providing service to the
parcels within Tentative Parcel Map 17150,the
connection fee shall not apply to connections
for sewer service to the parcels within said
map.Such exempt parcels are currently identi-
fied as Assessor Parcel Nos.497-011-41,497-
011-42,497-011-44,497-011-46 and 497-011-47.
2.Monthly Sewer Service Charge
A monthly sewer service charge (see Appendix A,
53.04 C.2.for charge)to cover normal
operational costs of the Russell Square Pump
Station and force mains shall be collected.
This charge shall be reviewed by the Board of
Directors from time to time to assure that such
charges cover the costs for operation of the
sewer facilities.
3.The proceeds of the fees and charges received
by the District under 1 and 2 above shall be
used by the District solely for maintenance,
replacement or repair under C.1.above and for
the operation of the facilities under C.2.
above.
4.In addition,the customer for such service
shall pay the monthly service charge for sewer
service set forth in Section 53.11.
53-2
53.05
53.06
53.07
53.08
1.
CHARGES FOR INSTALLATION OF SEWER LATERALS
Upon application for construction of one or more
sewer laterals,the customer shall deposit with the
District the estimated costs to be incurred by the
District in connection with the installation of the
facilities required,as determined by the District.
Upon completion of the work,the District shall
calculate the actual costs incurred by the District
in performing the work.If actual costs are less
than the amount deposited,the District shall refund
the balance of the deposit to the customer.If
actual costs exceed the amount deposited,the
customer shall reimburse the District for the
additional costs.
PAYMENT OF FEES
All fees prescribed in the Code shall become owing,
due and payable at the time application is made to
connect a premise to the sewer system of the Dis-
trict.The fees shall be paid to the District prior
to the issuance of any permit authorizing the
connection of such premise to the District sewer
system.If the proposed connection cannot be made,
the fee may be refunded when approved by the General
Manager.
SEWER SERVICE USE CHANGES RESULTING IN INCREASED
SYSTEM UTILIZATION
The use of a sewer connection shall be limited to
the type and number of EDUs authorized by the
original wastewater discharge permit.Before adding
any additional equivalent dwelling units,buildings,
modifying existing buildings,or change of occupancy
type,the property owner shall make a supplementary
wastewater permit application to the District for
such change in use and pay additional sewer
annexation fees per EDU,if necessary,as may be
applicable.Periodic inspection of the premises may
be made by the District and if actual use is greater
than estimated use,an assessment for additional
annexation fees shall be assessed in accordance with
the fee schedule in the then current Code of
Ordinances.
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT ISSUANCE AND LIMITATION
A wastewater discharge permit shall be required for
any property for which a request is made to dis-
charge into the District sewage system.
53-3
53.09
2.
3.
1.
Every wastewater discharge permit shall expire by
limitations and shall become null and void,if the
construction or work authorized by such permit is
not commenced within 120 days from date of issuance
of such wastewater discharge permit or if the con-
struction or work authorized by such wastewater dis-
charge permit is suspended or abandoned for a period
of 120 days at any time after the work is commenced.
Before such work can be recommenced,a new waste-
water discharge permit application must be filed
with the District.The District may reactivate the
previous wastewater discharge permit provided that
wastewater quantity and type is the same as the
wastewater discharge allowed under the original per-
mit,and provided further that such suspension and
abandonment has not exceeded one year.Fees paid
for the previous wastewater discharge permit may be
credited toward the total permit fees required on
the new permit application.Reactivation of the
previous wastewater discharge permit shall be sub-
ject to District sewer capacity being available at
the time of new application and subject to any
additional costs or charges imposed during the
period of such suspension or abandonment.
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF EDUs
The number of EDUs for sewer service shall be deter-
mined on the following basis:
a)Residential Facilities EDUs
1)Single-Family Residence 1.0
(Includes manufactured homes,and mobile
homes which are on private lots
A secondary structure with a kitchen is
considered an additional EDU
2)
3)
4)
Apartments and Multiple Family Housing
Each individual living unit
Residential condominiums
Each individual living unit
Mobile Home and Trailer Parks
Per each individual space
53-4
1.0
1.0
1.0
b)Commercial/Industrial Facilities
1)Food Service Establishments
a)Take-out restaurants with dis-
posable utensils,no dishwasher
and no public restrooms 3.0
b)Miscellaneous food establishments -
ice cream/yogurt shops,bakeries
(sales on premise only)3.0
c)1)Take-out/eat-in restaurants with
disposable utensils,but with
seating and public restrooms 3.0I
2)Restaurants with reuseable
utentsils,seating and public
restrooms (0-18 seats)3.0
Each additional 6 seat unit,
or portion thereof 1.0
2)Hotels and Motels
a)
b)
Per living unit without kitchen
Per living unit with kitchen
0.38
0.60
3)Commercial,Professional,Industrial
Buildings,Establishments not specifi-
cally listed herein
a)Any office,store or industrial
condominium or establishments.
first 1,000 sq.ft.1.2
Each additional 1,000 sq.ft.or
portion thereof 0.7
b)Where occupancy type or usage is
unknown at the time of application
for service,the following EDUs
shall apply.This shall include,
but not be limited to,shopping
centers,industrial parks and profes-
sional office buildings.
53-5
First 1,000 sq.ft.of gross build-
ing floor area 1.2
Each additional 1,000 square feet
of gross building floor area.Por-
tions less than 1,000 sq.ft.will
be prorated.0.7
4)Self-service laundry per washer 1.0
5)Churches,theaters and auditoriums per
each 150 person seating capacity or any
fraction thereof.(Does not include
office spaces,schoolrooms,day-care
facilities,food preparation areas,etc.
Additional EDUs will be assigned for
these supplementary uses).1.5
6)Schools
a)
b)
c)
Elementary Schools -For
each 50 pupils or fraction
thereof
Junior High Schools -For
each 40 pupils or fraction
thereof
High Schools,Colleges and
Universities -For each
24 pupils or fraction
thereof
1.0
1.0
1.0
Additional EDUs will be prorated based
on above values.
The number of pupils shall be based on
the average daily attendance of pupils
at the school during the preceding fiscal
year,computed in accordance with the
education code of the State of California.
However,where the school has had no
attendance during the preceding fiscal
year,the General Manager shall estimate
the average daily attendance for the fiscal
year for which the fee is to be paid and
compute the fee based on such estimate.
53-6
53.10
7)Convalescent Homes
a)Skilled nursing care facilities,
psychological hospitals,con-
valescent hospitals;licensed by
the Department of Health.0.7/bed
b)Community Care Facilities with 16
or more beds licensed by the State
Department of Health.0.5/bed
c)Small Community Care Facilities
with 7 to 15 beds licensed by the
County Department of Social
Services 0.5/bed
d)Community Care Homes with six or
fewer total residents,including
resident staff and housekeepers
(to be the same EDU as a single-
family residence).1.0
8)Other
In the case of commercial,industrial and
other business establishments such as bot-
tling works,supermarkets,markets,
deli/markets,convenience stores,hospi-
tals,laundries (other than self-service
laundries),automobile service stations,
mortuaries,day-care centers,bars,pool
halls,and other establishments not
included in items 1)through 7)inclusive,
or when the EDUs specified in items 1)
through 7)are not representative of
actual flow due to the number of employees
or type of operation,the number of
equivalent dwelling units shall be deter-
mined in each case by the General Manager
and shall be based upon the estimated vol-
ume and type of wastewater discharge into
the sewer.
TRANSFER,ASSIGNMENT,OR RESALE OF SEWER
CONNECTION RIGHTS
53-7
53.11
A.
B.
EDU sewer connection rights obtained by a customer
may not be sold,transferred,or assigned separately
from ownership of the real property for which they
were obtained,unless otherwise stated in an
agreement with the District.
SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES
Set-up Fees for Accounts.A set-up fee (see
Appendix A,53.11 A.for fee)shall be charged for
each account transferred to another customer.
Residential Sewer Charges.
Five-year Rate Increase Schedule -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are subject to a
five-year schedule of rate increases beginning
September 1,2009 and periodically thereafter
through June 30,2014.The increases under this
schedule shall be the amount sufficient to cover
cost increases related to operation and maintenance,
but not to exceed 10%per year.
Five-year Periodic Pass-through Rate Increases or
Decreases from District Wholesalers -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are subject to
periodic rate changes from the District's public
agency wholesalers for a five-year period beginning
September 1,2009 through June 30,2014.
(1)Winter Average Determination.Sewer service
usage fee shall be based on the "Winter
Average"water consumption,measured in units
of hundred cubic feet (RCF).The winter
average period is January through April.The
winter average is calculated by adding the four
months of water consumption for the preceding
winter and dividing the resulting amount by
four.This average is then reduced by a 15%
usage discount,recognizing that not all water
used flows into the sewer system,to determine
the "Winter Average"for billing purposes.
(2)Usage Fee.The usage fee rate (see Appendix A,
53.11 B.2.for rate)is multiplied by the
"Winter Average"calculation for each customer
(after the above noted 15%discount)and the
resulting amount is added to the Fixed Service
Charge applicable to the size of meter.The
resulting fixed fee shall be charged on a
monthly basis for an entire calendar year,
until a new "Winter Average"is determined for
the following year.
53-8
(3)Base Fee.The monthly base fee per meter size
is set forth in Appendix A,53.11 B.3.
(4)Monthly Residential Sewer Rate without
Consumption History.The average residential
sewer charge shall be determined by calculating
the total usage fee for all residential
customers and dividing by the number of
residential customers.Then the monthly base
fee for a 3/4 inch meter is added to this
average fee and this shall be used to determine
the rate per ASU to be used for commercial
customers.The monthly residential sewer rate
without consumption history is as set forth in
Appendix A,53.11 B.4.
C.Single Residential Winter Averaging
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for individually
metered residential households.
(2)The monthly sewer bill is calculated by adding
the base fee plus the usage fee as described in
5 .11 .B.(1),(2),& (3)above.
(3)The maximum "Winter Average"for individually
metered residential customers is 30 units
(after the 15%discount).
(4)Residential Service without Consumption
History.Sewer service for new accounts with
no prior winter consumption,customers using
well water or other unmetered water shall be
assigned a "Winter Average"for single
individually metered households.See Appendix
A,53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
D.Multi-Residential Rate Charges
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for master metered
water service for multiple-residential
households including for example;duplex,
townhomes,apartments,and mobile homes.
(2)The monthly sewer bill for the complex is
calculated by adding a 3/4 inch base fee (as
set forth in Appendix A,53.11.B.3.)times the
number of units in the complex plus the usage
fee (as set forth in Appendix A,53.11.0.2.)
for the entire complex.(Note:There is no cap
on consumption for the multi-residential
customers.)
53-9
(3)New complexes that do not have a prior winter
consumption history to determine their monthly
usage fee shall be assigned a "Winter Average"
for each multiple-residential unit in a master
metered residential complex.See Appendix A,
53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
E.Commercial Sewer Charges
(1)ASU Determination:The charges for commercial
sewer service shall be based on the rate of
discharge and the strength of sewage.The Board
of Directors may adjust the charges in proportion
to the amount of water not entering the sewer
which is substantiated by the property owner or
discharger.
(2)The strength of sewage is based on its biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD)and the cost of removing
suspended solids (SS).
(3)The formula is derived by taking the total cost of
providing sewer service and charging each user
for a pro-rata share.
(4)The State Revenue Program Guidelines require use
of an "Assigned Service Unit Assignment Formula"
which converts higher strength uses into a
service unit value which is comparable to the use
impact of a single-family residential user or
equivalent dwelling unit.The formula for
determining an Assigned Service Unit (ASU)for a
single-family dwelling is set forth in the annual
budget,which is incorporated herein by
reference.
(5)The formula is based on an estimated daily flow of
250 gallons per day plus 280 milligrams per liter
of BOD and 234 milligrams per liter of SS for a
residential equivalent dwelling unit.
(6)For commercial users the flow is based on 85%of
their prior 12-month water consumption to reflect
the amount of water that returns to the system.
The basis for determining estimated flow for
unmetered water will be calculated on the demand
imposed on the water system.The strength of
discharge for commercial user is based on whether
it is classified as a low-strength,medium-
strength or high-strength user.
User Classification
53-10
Low-Strength Commercial 1.000 Strength Factor
Car wash
General office and buildings
Barber and beauty shops
Department,retail stores and general
commercial
Hospitals and convalescent homes
Laundromat,laundry and dry cleaners
Professional office or office building
Warehouse
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
Medium-Strength Commercial =1.238 Strength Factor
Bars without dining facilities
Bowling alley
Hotels without dining facilities or cooking
facilities
Auto repair/sales shop and service station
Shopping centers
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
High-Strength Commercial =2.203 Strength Factor
Bakery or bakery with deli
Hotel with dining facilities
Restaurants and bars with food
Supermarkets
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
Institutional =1.000 Strength Factor
Churches:Treated the same as Low-Strength
Commercial.
Schools:For public schools flow is based on
average daily attendance ("ADA")for the prior
school year,including summer school,as
reported by schools to meet state requirements.
Private schools will be required to file a
report verifying their attendance.For
elementary schools 50 students shall equal 1
ASU.For junior high schools 40 students shall
equal 1 ASU and for high schools 24 students
equals 1 ASU.The formula for schools shall be
the same as applies to single-family
residential.For charges see Appendix A,53.11
E.6.
53-11
Colleges:For colleges,flow is based on the
number of Certificated and Classified Staff,
and students enrolled in each school session
(spring,summer,and fall):
Gallons per day (GPO)no.of students and staff x
no.of weeks spring
session)
+(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks summer
session)
+(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks fall
session)
+(no.of staff x no.of non-
session weeks)
x 23 -;-52
ASU Daily Flow x Strength Factor
[(GPO x 85%)-;-250]x 1.000
The minimum charge for commercial shall be no lower
than 1 ASU at low strength.Charges are determined
each fiscal year.The formula is set forth in the
annual budget,which is incorporated herein by
reference.
F.Charges to Cover the State Loan Program for the
Treatment Facility.A (see Appendix A,53.11 F.for
fee)fee per ASU shall be attached to the property
tax bills to cover the annual payment on the
$5,000,000 state loan until such loan is paid in
full.
G.Monthly Service Charges for Commercial Sewer
Service.The Monthly Sewer Service charges for
service furnished by the District,shall be:
1.Commercial and Institutional (per ASU)
Commercial users shall be charged based upon
the ASUs derived in Section 53.11 E.(4)For
charges see Appendix A,53.11.G.1.
2.Industrial and Other Users
Charges determined by the Board of Directors on
a case-by-case basis.
Monthly sewer service charges shall commence upon
installation of the water meter to serve the
premises receiving the sewer service,upon
53-12
connection to the District sewer system,upon start
of occupancy of the premises to be served,or one
year after the date the application for sewer
service is filed,whichever is earlier.If a sewer
service connection has been obtained and if sewer
service will not be used until some time after
installation of the water meter,commencement of the
sewer service charge may be deferred until the later
date only upon prior approval of the General
Manager.
H.Issuance and Payment of Sewer Bills
1.Issuance of Statements:Statements for sewer
service or other charges will be mailed monthly
or as soon as practical,after the applicable
charges have been determined.
2.Due Date:Each statement issued by the
District for such charges shall be due and
payable on the date of mailing or other
presentation to the customer.
3.Final Payment Date:All charges in each
statement must be paid on or before the final
payment date shown on the statement,which
shall be at least 20 calendar days following
the date of mailing or presentation of the
statement.
4,
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:OS',Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.2S"+Indent at:1.5"
Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25"
Formatted:Indent:Hanging;0.5",Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indent at:1.5"
-Formatted:List Paragraph,Line spacing:
single,No bullets or numbering
.Formatted:Indent:Hanging:0.5",Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indentat:IS'
4.
5.
Place of Payment:Payments shall not be 4-_-
credited to a customer's account until cash,
check,credit card,draft,electronic funds
transfer,money order or any other acceptable
form of payment that will be honored by the
bank has been received by the District at the
District business office during regular office
hours.Deposit of payment in the mail or at a
location other than the District business
office shall not be credited to a customer's
account until received at the business office.
Returned Check Charges:A returned payment 4-
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 0.2 for charge)
shall be added to a customer's account in each
instance where payment has been made to the
District with a check,draft,credit card or
any other acceptable form of payment that has
not been honored upon presentment to the bank
upon which it is drawn.
Formatted:Indent:Left:1.25"
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:0.5",Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment;Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indent at:1.5"
Formatted:List Paragraph,Line spacing;
single,No bullets or numbering
Formatted:Indent:Hanging:OS',Numbered
+Level:1 +Numbering Style;1,2,3,...+
Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned at:
1.25"+Indentat:1.5"
Formatted:Indent:Left:A"
1.Delinquent Accounts
53-13
Formatted:Numbered +Level;1 +
Numbering Style:I,II,Ill,...+Start at:1 +
Alignment:Left +Aligned at:OS'+Indent at:
I"
1.
2.
3.
Requirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Refund of Deposit:A deposit required under .,
this Section shall be refunded to the customer
as provided in Section 25.04 B.
53-14
Formatted:Indent:Left:1",Hanging:0.5",
Numbered +Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,
3,...+Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned
at:1"+Indentat:1.25"
Formatted:Indent:Left:1.5"
Formatted:Indent:Left:1",Hanging:0.5",
Numbered +Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,
3,...+Start at:1 +Alignment:Left +Aligned
at:1"+Indentat:1.25"
Formatted:List Paragraph,Line spacing:
single,No bullets or numbering
Formatted:Indent~Left:1",Hanging:0.5",
Numbered +Level:1 +Numbering Style:1,2,
3,...+Start at:1 +Aiignment:Left +Aligned
at:1"+Indentat:1.25"
Attachment C
SECTION 34 ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS
34.01 ISSUANCE,DUE DATE AND FINAL PAYMENT DATE OF
STATEMENT OF CHARGES FOR SERVICE
A.Issuance of Statements.Statements for water
service or other charges will be mailed or presented
as soon as practicable after the water meter has
been read and the applicable charges have been
determined.
B.Due Date.Each statement issued by the District for
such charges shall be due and payable on the date of
mailing or other presentation to the customer.
C.Final Payment Date.All charges in each statement
must be paid on or before the final payment date
shown on the statement,which shall be at least 20
calendar days following the date of mailing or
presentation of the statement.
D.Payment of Charges.
1.Place of Payment.Payments shall not be
credited to a customer's account until cash,check,
credit card,draft,electronic funds transfer,money
order,or any other acceptable form of payment that
will be honored by the bank has been received by the
District at the District business office during
regular office hours.Deposit of payment in the
mail or at a location other than the District
business office shall not be credited to a
customer's account until received at the business
office.
2.Returned Check Charges.A returned payment
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 0.2.for charge)shall
be added to a customer'saccount in each instance
where payment has been made to the District with a
check,draft,credit card or any other acceptable
form of payment that has not been honored upon
presentment to the bank upon which it is drawn.
34.02
A.
DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
For Non-Payment of Charges.If full payment of a-s"7t-a--;t-e-m-e-n"7t-..L..;:f-o-r--a--w-a7"t-e-r~-s e rvice ac countis not
received at the District business office on or
before the final payment date,the account shall
become delinquent.
B.Late Payment Charge.A late payment charge (see
Appendix Aj 34.02 B.for charge)of the total amount
34-1
delinquent shall be added to each delinquent account
at the time any amount becomes delinquent,provided
that the charge shall not be made on any account
which at that time has no delinquencies of record.
When a late payment charge is made,such shall be
added to the delinquent account as of the date the
account becomes delinquent and such charges shall
become an inseparable part of the amount due as of
that time.
C.Notice of Delinquency.A delinquency notice shall
be mailed to each customer whose account is
delinquent,notifying the customer that service will
be turned off unless payment is made.The notice
shall indicate the amount due,including late
payment charges,and that the total amount must be
paid within fifteen (15)calendar days from the date
of mailing or presentation of the notice to the
customer,or service will be discontinued.
D.Record of Delinquent Accounts.The District
maintains records of delinquent accounts.Each year
one delinquency shall be removed from the record of
each account that has one or more delinquencies.
E.Partial Payment on Delinquent Account.A partial
payment on a delinquent account may be accepted and
credited to a customer's account;however,the
partial payment shall not cause removal of the
account from a delinquent status and furthermore,
the partial payment shall not preclude the meter
from being turned off for delinquency.
F.Financial Arrangements for Delinquent Accounts.
1.Continuation of Service.The General Manager,
Chief Financial Officer,or any person delegated by
the General Manager,may authorize continuation of
service to a delinquent account if financial
arrangements,satisfactory to the District,have
been established.
2.Requirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Delinquencies.If payments on a customer account
have become delinquent five or more times,or if a
meter has been turned off three or more times for
non-payment of charges,the General Manager,Chief
Financial Officer,or any person delegated by the
General Manager,shall be authorized to require the
customer to make a deposit with the District,in
cash or any other form satisfactory to the General
Manager.The deposit amount shall be established at
the discretion of the General Manager and the Chief
34-2
Financial Officer,but shall not exceed two times
the highest monthly bill during the twelve (12)
months preceding the date of demand for a deposit.
(a)Handling of Deposit.A deposit shall not earn
interest and shall only be applied to reduce or
satisfy amounts due the District in the event
of termination of service.A deposit does not
constitute payment for service bills and the
customer shall be required to comply with bill
payment requirements to continue receiving
service.
(b)Refund of Deposit.A deposit required under
this Section shall be refunded to the customer
as provided in Section 25.04.8.
G.Termination and Reinstatement of Water Service Under
Delinquent Accounts
1.Termination of Service.The water meter or
meters under delinquent accounts may be turned off
and locked if payment has not been made in
accordance with the Notice of Delinquency.
(a)Where an owner or manager is listed by the Dis-
trict as the customer of record of the service,
the District shall make every good faith effort
to inform the actual users of the services when
the account is in arrears by means of a notice
that service will be terminated in ten days.
The notice shall further inform the actual
users that they have the right to become cus-
tomers of the District without being required
to pay the amount due on the delinquent
account.
(b)Residential water service shall not be termi-
nated for non-payment in any of the following
situations:
(1)During an investigation by the District of
a customer dispute or complaint.Any
residential customer who has initiated a
complaint or requested an investigation
within five days of receiving the disputed
bill,or who has,wi thin 13 days of the
mailing of the notice that the customer's
service will be terminated for non-
payment,or made a request for extension
of the payment period of a bill asserted
to be beyond the means of the customer to
pay in full during the normal period for
34-3
payment,shall be given an opportunity for
a review.The review shall include
consideration of whether the customer
shall be permitted to amortize the unpaid
balance of the account over a reasonable
period of time not to exceed 12 months.
No termination of service shall be
effected for any customer complying with
an amortization agreement,if the customer
also keeps the account current as charges
accrue in each subsequent billing period.
Any customer,whose complaint or request
for an investigation has resulted in an
adverse determination by the District,may
appeal the determination to the Board.
(2)When a customer has been granted an exten-
sion of the period for payment of a bill.
(3)On the certification of a licensed physi-
cian and surgeon that to do so will be
life threatening to the customer and the
customer is financially unable to pay for
service wi thin the normal payment period
and is willing to enter into an amortiza-
tion agreement to pay the unpaid balance
of any bill asserted to be beyond the
means of the customer over a period not to
exceed 12 months.
(c)The ten-day notice of proposed termination may
not be sent to the customer until at least 19
days from the date of mailing of the bill for
services.The ten-day period shall not com-
mence until five days after the mailing of the
notice.
(d)The District shall make a reasonable,good
faith effort to contact an adult person resid-
ing at the premises of the customer by tele-
phone or in person,at least 48 hours prior to
any termination of service.A charge (see
Appendix A,34.02 G.1.(d)for charge)shall be
added to the bill for a contact made in person.
(e)Every notice of termination of service pursuant
to subdivisions (a)and (c)shall include all
of the following information:
(1)The name and address of the customer whose
account is delinquent.
34-4
(2)The amount of the delinquency.
(3)The date by which payment or arrangements
for payment is required in order to avoid
termination.
(4)The procedure by which the customer may
initiate a complaint or request an inves-
tigation concerning service or charges,
except that if the bill for service con-
tains a description of that procedure,
then the notice is not required to contain
that information.
(5)The procedure by which
request amortization
charges.
the
of
customer may
the unpaid
(6)The procedure for the customer to obtain
information on the availability of finan-
cial assistance including private,local,
state or federal sources,if applicable.
(7)The telephone number of a representative
of the District who can provide additional
information or institute arrangements for
payment.
(f)If a residential customer fails to comply with
an amortization agreement,the District shall
not terminate service without giving notice to
the customer at least 48 hours prior to termi-
nation of the conditions the customer is
required to meet to avoid termination,but the
notice does not entitle the customer to further
investigation by the District.
(g)Termination of service shall not occur on any
Friday,Saturday,Sunday,legal holiday or at
any time during which the business offices of
the District are not open to the public.
(h)No termination of service may be effected with-
out compliance with this section and any ser-
vice wrongfully terminated shall be restored,
without charge,for the restoration of service.
(See California Government Code Section 60373.)
2.Reinstatement of Service.
terminated for delinquency may not
until all amounts due and payable,
payment charges and meter "turn-on"
34-5
Water service
be reinstated
including late
charges,have
been paid at the District business office,
credit arrangements satisfactory to the
have been made.
or unless
District
3.Meter "Turn-On"Charge.A "turn-on"charge
shall be made for turning on any meter which has
previously been turned off for a delinquent account.
The charges for turn-on shall be as follows:
(a)For any account turned on during the District's
regular business hours the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(a).
(b)For any account turned on after the District's
regular business hours,the turn-on charge is
set forth in Appendix A,34.02 G.3.(b).
ND:4839-5321-9592,v.2
34-6
Attachment D
SECTION 53 FEES,RATES,CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER
SERVICE
53.01 CONDITIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF SEWER SERVICE CAPACITY
Sewer service capacity may be acquired only for service
to a specific address,parcel of land,or a land development
project covered by an approved map.An approved map shall
mean a recorded final map,a recorded parcel map or a
tentative subdivision map that has been approved by the County
or by a City,as applicable.
53.02
A.
53.03
A.
53.04
A.
SERVICE AREAS
Service Areas.Sewer service shall be furnished by
the District only to property located in Improvement
District No.14 ("1.D.14 "),Improvement District
No.18 ("I.D.18"),and Assessment District No.4
("A.D.4"),and the Russell Square Sewer Service
Area.Sewer service to property located outside
such areas may be furnished only upon annexation to
ID 18 and payment of all applicable annexation fees.
ACQUISITION OF SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR SERVICE IN I.D.
14,I.D.18 AND A.D.4
There shall be no connection capacity fee for sewer
service to parcels already annexed into Improvement
District No.14,Improvement District No.18 and
Assessment District No.4 on or after December 16,
1998.
ACQUISITION AND PURCHASE OF SEWER CAPACITY FOR
SERVICE IN THE RUSSELL SQUARE SEWER SERVICE AREA
District Acceptance of Sewer Facilities for Russell
Square Area.Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado
Development,Inc.,dated June 28,1981,the District
accepted title to a sewer pump station,force main
and appurtenances for a sewage system to provide
sewer service to the residential dwelling
units to be constructed within the parcels of land
in San Diego County Tentative Parcel Map 17150.
Under an Agreement with Cal Dorado Development,
Inc.,dated June 18,1981,the District agreed to
provide service to such parcels on the terms and
conditions contained therein.On October 1,1984,
pursuant to Resolution No.2139,the District Board
of Directors accepted title to the facilities.
53-1
B.Designation of Russell Square Sewer Area.The geo-
graphical area described on the District Map
entitled "Russell Square Sewer Service Area,"dated
October 11,1988,on file with the District
Secretary,constitutes the Russell Square Sewer
Service Area.
C.Connection Fees for Connections for Sewer Service
through the Russell Square Sewer Pump Station.
1.Sewer Connection Fee
A connection fee (see Appendix A,53.04 C.1.
for fee)for each EDU of sewer service provided
through Russell Square Pump Station shall be
collected.The connection fee is due at the
time an application for sewer service is
submitted.The number of EDUs for the con-
nection shall be as set forth in Section 53.09
of the Code.Since the Russell Square Pump
Station and force main were constructed by the
developer or his assignee,at their expense,
for the purpose of providing service to the
parcels within Tentative Parcel Map 17150,the
connection fee shall not apply to connections
for sewer service to the parcels within said
map.Such exempt parcels are currently identi-
fied as Assessor Parcel Nos.497-011-41,497-
011-42,497-011-44,497-011-46 and 497-011-47.
2.Monthly Sewer Service Charge
A monthly sewer service charge (see Appendix A,
53.04 C.2.for charge)to cover normal
operational costs of the Russell Square Pump
Station and force mains shall be collected.
This charge shall be reviewed by the Board of
Directors from time to time to assure that such
charges cover the costs for operation of the
sewer facilities.
3.The proceeds of the fees and charges received
by the District under 1 and 2 above shall be
used by the District solely for maintenance,
replacement or repair under C.1.above and for
the operation of the facilities under C.2.
above.
4.In addition,the customer for such service
shall pay the monthly service charge for sewer
service set forth in Section 53.11.
53-2
53.05
53.06
53.07
53.08
1 .
CHARGES FOR INSTALLATION OF SEWER LATERALS
Upon application for construction of one or more
sewer laterals,the customer shall deposit with the
District the estimated costs to be incurred by the
District in connection with the installation of the
facilities required,as determined by the District.
Upon completion of the work,the District shall
calculate the actual costs incurred by the District
in performing the work.If actual costs are less
than the amount deposited,the District shall refund
the balance of the deposit to the customer.If
actual costs exceed the amount deposited,the
customer shall reimburse the District for the
additional costs.
PAYMENT OF FEES
All fees prescribed in the Code shall become owing,
due and payable at the time application is made to
connect a premise to the sewer system of the Dis-
trict.The fees shall be paid to the District prior
to the issuance of any permit authorizing the
connection of such premise to the District sewer
system.If the proposed connection cannot be made,
the fee may be refunded when approved by the General
Manager.
SEWER SERVICE USE CHANGES RESULTING IN INCREASED
SYSTEM UTILIZATION
The use of a sewer connection shall be limited to
the type and number of EDUs authorized by the
original wastewater discharge permit.Before adding
any additional equivalent dwelling units,buildings,
modifying existing buildings,or change of occupancy
type,the property owner shall make a supplementary
wastewater permit application to the District for
such change in use and pay additional sewer
annexation fees per EDU,if necessary,as may be
applicable.Periodic inspection of the premises may
be made by the District and if actual use is greater
than estimated use,an assessment for additional
annexation fees shall be assessed in accordance with
the fee schedule in the then current Code of
Ordinances.
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT ISSUANCE AND LIMITATION
A wastewater discharge permit shall be required for
any property for which a request is made to dis-
charge into the District sewage system.
53-3
53.09
2 .
3.
Every wastewater discharge permit shall expire by
limitations and shall become null and void,if the
construction or work authorized by such permit is
not commenced within 120 days from date of issuance
of such wastewater discharge permit or if the con-
struction or work authorized by such wastewater dis-
charge permit is suspended or abandoned for a period
of 120 days at any time after the work is commenced.
Before such work can be recommenced,a new waste-
water discharge permit application must be filed
with the District.The District may reactivate the
previous wastewater discharge permit provided that
wastewater quantity and type is the same as the
wastewater discharge allowed under the original per-
mit,and provided further that such suspension and
abandonment has not exceeded one year.Fees paid
for the previous wastewater discharge permit may be
credited toward the total permit fees required on
the new permit application.Reactivation of the
previous wastewater discharge permit shall be sub-
ject to District sewer capacity being available at
the time of new application and subject to any
additional costs or charges imposed during the
period of such suspension or abandonment.
BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF EDUs
1.The number of EDUs for sewer service shall be deter-
mined on the following basis:
a)Residential Facilities EDUs
1)Single-Family Residence 1.0
(Includes manufactured homes,and mobile
homes which are on private lots
A secondary structure with a kitchen is
considered an additional EDU
2)
3)
4 )
Apartments and Multiple Family Housing
Each individual living unit
Residential condominiums
Each individual living unit
Mobile Home and Trailer Parks
Per each individual space
53-4
1.0
1.0
1.0
b)Commercial/Industrial Facilities
1)Food Service Establishments
a)Take-out restaurants with dis-
posable utensils,no dishwasher
and no public restrooms 3.0
b)Miscellaneous food establishments -
ice cream/yogurt shops,bakeries
(sales on premise only)3.0
c)1)Take-out/eat-in restaurants with
disposable utensils,but with
seating and public restrooms 3.0
2)Restaurants with reuseable
utentsils,seating and public
restrooms (0-18 seats)
Each additional 6 seat unit,
or portion thereof
2)Hotels and Motels
3.0
1.0
a)
b)
Per living unit without kitchen
Per living unit with kitchen
0.38
0.60
3)Commercial,Professional,Industrial
Buildings,Establishments not specifi-
cally listed herein
a)Any office,store or industrial
condominium or establishments.
first 1,000 sq.ft.1.2
Each additional 1,000 sq.ft.or
portion thereof 0.7
b)Where occupancy type or usage is
unknown at the time of application
for service,the following EDUs
shall apply.This shall include,
but not be limited to,shopping
centers,industrial parks and profes-
sional office buildings.
First 1,000 sq.ft.of gross build-
ing floor area 1.2
53-5
Each additional 1,000 square feet
of gross building floor area.Por-
tions less than 1,000 sq.ft.will
be prorated.0.7
4)Self-service laundry per washer 1.0
5)Churches,theaters and auditoriums per
each 150 person seating capacity or any
fraction thereof.(Does not include
office spaces,schoolrooms,day-care
facilities,food preparation areas,etc.
Additional EDUs will be assigned for
these supplementary uses).1.5
6)Schools
a)
b)
c)
Elementary Schools -For
each 50 pupils or fraction
thereof
Junior High Schools -For
each 40 pupils or fraction
thereof
High Schools,Colleges and
Universities -For each
24 pupils or fraction
thereof
1.0
1.0
1.0
Additional EDUs will be prorated based
on above values.
The number of pupils shall be based on
the average daily attendance of pupils
at the school during the preceding fiscal
year,computed in accordance with the
education code of the State of California.
However,where the school has had no
attendance during the preceding fiscal
year,the General Manager shall estimate
the average daily attendance for the fiscal
year for which the fee is to be paid and
compute the fee based on such estimate.
7)Convalescent Homes
a)Skilled nursing care facilities,
psychological hospitals,con-
valescent hospitals;licensed by
the Department of Health.
53-6
0.7/bed
53.10
53.11
A.
b)Community Care Facilities with 16
or more beds licensed by the State
Department of Health.0.5/bed
c)Small Community Care Facilities
with 7 to 15 beds licensed by the
County Department of Social
Services 0.5/bed
d)Community Care Homes with six or
fewer total residents,including
resident staff and housekeepers
(to be the same EDU as a single-
family residence).1.0
8)Other
In the case of commercial,industrial and
other business establishments such as bot-
tling works,supermarkets,markets,
deli/markets,convenience stores,hospi-
tals,laundries (other than self-service
laundries),automobile service stations,
mortuaries,day-care centers,bars,pool
halls,and other establishments not
included in items 1)through 7)inclusive,
or when the EDUs specified in items 1)
through 7)are not representative of
actual flow due to the number of employees
or type of operation,the number of
equivalent dwelling units shall be deter-
mined in each case by the General Manager
and shall be based upon the estimated vol-
ume and type of wastewater discharge into
the sewer.
TRANSFER,ASSIGNMENT,OR RESALE OF SEWER
CONNECTION RIGHTS
EDU sewer connection rights obtained by a customer
may not be sold,transferred,or assigned separately
from ownership of the real property for which they
were obtained,unless otherwise stated in an
agreement with the District.
SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES
Set-up Fees for Accounts.A set-up fee (see
Appendix A,53.11 A.for fee)shall be charged for
each account transferred to another customer.
53-7
B.Residential Sewer Charges.
Five-year Rate Increase Schedule -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are subject to a
five-year schedule of rate increases beginning
September I,2009 and periodically thereafter
through June 30,2014.The increases under this
schedule shall be the amount sufficient to cover
cost increases related to operation and maintenance,
but not to exceed 10%per year.
Five-year Periodic Pass-through Rate Increases or
Decreases from District Wholesalers -All District
sewer rates,charges,and fees are subject to
periodic rate changes from the District's public
agency wholesalers for a five-year period beginning
September I,2009 through June 30,2014.
(1)Winter Average Determination.Sewer service
usage fee shall be based on the "Winter
Average"water consumption,measured in units
of hundred cubic feet (HCF).The winter
average period is January through April.The
winter average is calculated by adding the four
months of water consumption for the preceding
winter and dividing the resulting amount by
four.This average is then reduced by a 15%
usage discount,recognizing that not all water
used flows into the sewer system,to determine
the "Winter Average"for billing purposes.
(2)Usage Fee.The usage fee rate (see Appendix A,
53.11 B.2.for rate)is multiplied by the
"Winter Average'!calculation for each customer
(after the above noted 15%discount)and the
resulting amount is added to the Fixed Service
Charge applicable to the size of meter.The
resulting fixed fee shall be charged on a
monthly basis for an entire calendar year,
until a new "Winter Average'!is determined for
the following year.
(3)Base Fee.The monthly base fee per meter size
is set forth in Appendix A,53.11 B.3.
(4)Monthly Residential Sewer Rate without
Consumption History.The average residential
sewer charge shall be determined by calculating
the total usage fee for all residential
customers and dividing by the number of
residential customers.Then the monthly base
fee for a 3/4 inch meter is added to this
average fee and this shall be used to determine
53-8
the rate per ASU to be used for commercial
customers.The monthly residential sewer rate
without consumption history is as set forth in
Appendix A,53.11 B.4.
C.Single Residential Winter Averaging
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for individually
metered residential households.
(2)The monthly sewer bill is calculated by adding
the base fee plus the usage fee as described in
5 .11 .B.(1),(2),& (3)above.
(3)The maximum ~~Winter Average I I for individually
metered residential customers is 30 units
(after the 15%discount).
(4)Residential Service without Consumption
History.Sewer service for new accounts with
no prior winter consumption,customers using
well water or other unmetered water shall be
assigned a ~~Winter Average I I for single
individually metered households.See Appendix
A,53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
D.Multi-Residential Rate Charges
(1)Defined as:Sewer service for master metered
water service for multiple-residential
households including for example;duplex,
townhomes,apartments,and mobile homes.
(2)The monthly sewer bill for the complex is
calculated by adding a 3/4 inch base fee (as
set forth in Appendix A,53.11.B.3.)times the
number of units in the complex plus the usage
fee (as set forth in Appendix A,53.11.D.2.)
for the entire complex.(Note:There is no cap
on consumption for the multi-residential
customers.)
(3)New complexes that do not have a prior winter
consumption history to determine their monthly
usage fee shall be assigned a ~~Winter Average"
for each multiple-residential unit in a master
metered residential complex.See Appendix A,
53.11 C.4.for Winter Averaging fees.
E.Commercial Sewer Charges
(1)ASU Determination:The charges for commercial
sewer service shall be based on the rate of
discharge and the strength of sewage.The Board
53-9
of Directors may adjust the charges in proportion
to the amount of water not entering the sewer
which is substantiated by the property owner or
discharger.
(2)The strength of sewage is based on its biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD)and the cost of removing
suspended solids (SS).
(3)The formula is derived by taking the total cost of
providing sewer service and charging each user for
a pro-rata share.
(4)The State Revenue Program Guidelines require use
of an "Assigned Service Unit Assignment Formula"
which converts higher strength uses into a service
unit value which is comparable to the use impact
of a single-family residential user or equivalent
dwelling unit.The formula for determining an
Assigned Service Unit (ASU)for a single-family
dwelling is set forth in the annual budget,which
is incorporated herein by reference.
(5)The formula is based on an estimated daily flow of
250 gallons per day plus 280 milligrams per liter
of BOD and 234 milligrams per liter of SS for a
residential equivalent dwelling unit.
(6)For commercial users the flow is based on 85%of
their prior 12-month water consumption to reflect
the amount of water that returns to the system.
The basis for determining estimated flow for
unmetered water will be calculated on the demand
imposed on the water system.The strength of
discharge for commercial user is based on whether
it is classified as a low-strength,medium-
strength or high-strength user.
User Classification
Low-Strength Commercial 1.000 Strength Factor
Car wash
General office and buildings
Barber and beauty shops
Department,retail stores and general
commercial
Hospitals and convalescent homes
Laundromat,laundry and dry cleaners
Professional office or office building
Warehouse
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
53-10
Medium-Strength Commercial =1.238 Strength Factor
Bars without dining facilities
Bowling alley
Hotels without dining facilities or cooking
facilities
Auto repair/sales shop and service station
Shopping centers
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
High-Strength Commercial =2.203 Strength Factor
Bakery or bakery with deli
Hotel with dining facilities
Restaurants and bars with food
Supermarkets
Other uses having a similar strength as
determined by the District
Institutional =1.000 Strength Factor
Churches:Treated the same as Low-Strength
Commercial.
Schools:For public schools flow is based on
average daily attendance ("ADA")for the prior
school year/including summer school/as
reported by schools to meet state requirements.
Private schools will be required to file a
report verifying their attendance.For
elementary schools 50 students shall equal 1
ASU.For junior high schools 40 students shall
equal 1 ASU and for high schools 24 students
equals 1 ASU.The formula for schools shall be
the same as applies to single-family
residential.For charges see Appendix A/53.11
E.6.
Colleges:For colleges/flow is based on the
number of Certificated and Classified Staff/
and students enrolled in each school session
(spring/summer,and fall):
Gallons per day (GPD)
+
+
no.of students and staff x
no.of weeks spring
session)
(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks summer
session)
(no.of students and staff
x no.of weeks fall
session)
53-11
+(no.of staff x no.of non-
session weeks)
x 23 +52
ASU Daily Flow x Strength Factor
[(GPD x 85%)+250]x 1.000
The minimum charge for commercial shall be no lower
than 1 ASU at low strength.Charges are determined
each fiscal year.The formula is set forth in the
annual budget,which is incorporated herein by
reference.
F.Charges to Cover the State Loan Proqram for the
Treatment Facility.A (see Appendix A,53.11 F.for
fee)fee per ASU shall be attached to the property
tax bills to cover the annual payment on the
$5,000,000 state loan until such loan is paid in
full.
G.Monthly Service Charqes for Commercial Sewer
Service.The Monthly Sewer Service charges for
service furnished by the District,shall be:
1.Commercial and Institutional (per ASU)
Commercial users shall be charged based upon
the ASUs derived in Section 53.11 E.(4).For
charges see Appendix A,53.11.8.1.
2.Industrial and Other Users
Charges determined by the Board of Directors on
a case-by-case basis.
Monthly sewer service charges shall commence upon
installation of the water meter to serve the
premises receiving the sewer service,upon
connection to the District sewer system,upon start
of occupancy of the premises to be served,or one
year after the date the application for sewer
service is filed,whichever is earlier.If a sewer
service connection has been obtained and if sewer
service will not be used until some time after
installation of the water meter,commencement of the
sewer service charge may be deferred until the later
date only upon prior approval of the General
Manager.
H.Issuance and Payment of Sewer Bills
1.Issuance of Statements:Statements for sewer
service or other charges will be mailed monthly
or as soon as practical,after the applicable
charges have been determined.
53-12
2.Due Date:Each statement issued by the
District for such charges shall be due and
payable on the date of mailing or other
presentation to the customer.
3.Final Payment Date:All charges in each
statement must be paid on or before the final
payment date shown on the statement,which
shall be at least 20 calendar days following
the date of mailing or presentation of the
statement.
4.Place of Payment:Payments shall not be
credited to a customer's account until cash,
check,credit card,draft,electronic funds
transfer,money order or any other acceptable
form of payment that will be honored by the
bank has been received by the District at the
District business office during regular office
hours.Deposit of payment in the mail or at a
location other than the District business
office shall not be credited to a customer's
account until received at the business office.
5.Returned Check Charges:A returned payment
charge (see Appendix A,34.01 D.2 for charge)
shall be added to a customer's account in each
instance where payment has been made to the
District with a check,draft,credit card or
any other acceptable form of payment that has
not been honored upon presentment to the bank
upon which it is drawn.
I.Delinquent Accounts
1.Requirement of Deposit Due to Repeated
Delinquencies:If payments on a customer
account have become delinquent five or more
times,the General Manager,Chief Financial
Officer,or any person delegated by the General
Manager,shall be authorized to require the
customer to make a deposit with the District,
in cash or any other form satisfactory to the
General Manager.The deposit amount shall be
established at the discretion of the General
Manager and the Chief Financial Officer,but
shall not exceed two times the highest bill
during the twelve (12)months preceding the
date of demand for a deposit.
53-13
2.Handling of Deposit:A deposit shall not earn
interest and shall only be applied to reduce or
satisfy amounts due the District in the event
of termination of service.A deposit does not
constitute payment for service bills and the
customer shall be required to comply with bill
payment requirements to continue receiving
service.
3.Refund of Deposit:A deposit required under
this Section shall be refunded to the customer
as provided in Section 25.04 B.
53-14
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 8
Joseph R ac Chief Financial Officer
Ger~rez.Assistant General Manager,Finance and
Administration
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:James cudlif:~~iim
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
MEETING DATE:
Manager W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:Adopt Resolution No.4170 to Designate District Agents for
Disaster Assistance
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board adopts Resolution No.4170 designating specific
staff positions to be authorized as Agents to deal with the
State of California,Office of Emergency Services (OES),on the
District's behalf in all matters pertaining to disaster
assistance.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To authorize District staff in the positions of Safety and
Security Administrator,Finance Manager,and Environmental
Compliance Specialist,to be the authorized contacts on behalf
of the District for all matters pertaining to disaster
assistance.
ANALYSIS:
In December 2010,severe rainstorms throughout California caused
extensive damage throughout the State,resulting in a
Presidential declaration of a disaster for the State of
California (FEMA-1952-DR).San Diego County was one of the
areas designated for Public Assistance,and the District has 5
specific areas where storm damage was incurred.Damage repair
is currently expected to include some or all of the following:
1)debris removal,2)fencing,3)road repair,and 4)erosion
control.Total costs could potentially exceed $200,000.
The District is applying to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA),and the State of California,Office of Emergency
Services (OES),for disaster assistance to help pay for these
repairs.FEMA requires all claims to be processed through OES.
OES requires the governing body of each agency to formally
designate specific agents,by position title,to represent the
agency in all matters pertaining to their application for
disaster assistance.OES will not release any grant money to an
agency that has not provided them with a fully executed Agent
Resolution (OES Form 130)(Attachment C).
In December 2007,as a part of working with OES to obtain funds
for repairs to District property from the October 2007 Harris
Fire,the Board passed Resolution No.4115 to Designate District
Agents for Disaster Assistance.However,OES policy mandates
that this resolution is only valid for a maximum of 3 years.
The District has identified the following three positions as
being the most knowledgeable and appropriate for working
directly with OES and FEMA:1)Safety and Security
Administrator;2)Finance Manager;and 3)Environmental
Compliance Specialist.These are the same positions that were
identified for the previous resolution.
Resolution No.4170 (Attachment B)will renew the District's
designation of individuals authorized to work with FEMA and OES,
which allows for the possibility of a change in personnel
assignments to these agent positions without requiring the Board
to execute a new resolution for another 3 years.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Potential reimbursement of expenses in accordance with FEMA and
OES guidelines.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This item supports a strategic objective of maintaining and
protecting District assets and property.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
2
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Resolution No.4170
C)OES Form 130
3
ATTACHMENT A
Adopt Resolution No.4170 to Designate District Agents for
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Disaster Assistance
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration,and Communications Committee
recommend that the Board adopt Resolution No.4170,
designating specific staff positions to be authorized as Agents
to deal with the State of California,Office of Emergency
Services,on the District's behalf in all matters pertaining to
disaster assistance.
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.
F:\DianeA\Staff Rpts 2011\CommMtgDisasterAssist040611.doc
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO.4170
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
FOR DESIGNATION OF AGENTS TO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
WHEREAS,the Otay Water District Board of Directors have
been presented with a "Designation of Applicant's Agent
Resolution"for the Otay Water District,authorizing it's
agent(s)to execute for and on behalf of the District for the
purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under
P.L.93-288 as amended by the Robert T.Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988,and/or state financial
assistance under the Natural Disaster Assistance Acti and
WHEREAS,the Board needs to authorize its agent(s)to
provide to the State Office of Emergency Services for all matters
pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and
agreements requiredi and
WHEREAS,it is in the interest of the District to so
designate agentsi
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,DETERMINED AND ORDERED by
the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District that the
following three positions are so designated as Authorized Agents:
1)Safety and Security Administratori 2)Finance Manageri and 3)
Environmental Compliance Specialist.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of
Otay Water District at a board meeting held this 6th day of April
2011,by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
ATTEST:
District Secretary
President
StaleofCalifornIa
OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Attachment C
OESID#--------
DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION
FOR NON-STATE AGENCIES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(Governing Body)
OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT
(Name ofApplicant)
THAT -=:::;SA:.=;F::...;E:::.;T::...;Y~A.:.:N:.:.:D::........,::S:::::E:;.::C::..::U:::-R~Ic:::T-=Y~A~DM~I=.:N07I~S~T~R~A",-=,T:..::Oo:;R~__,OR
(Title ofAuthorized Agent)
FINANCE MANAGER OR-------------------,(Title ofAuthorized Agent)
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST
(Title ofAuthorized Agent)
, a public entity
, a public entity established under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia,
is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalfofthe Otay Water District
(Name ofApplicant)
established under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia,this application and to file it in the Office ofEmergency Services for
the purpose ofobtaining certain federal financial assistance under P.L.93-288 as amended by the Robert T.Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988,and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster
Assistance Act.
THAT the Otay Water District
(Name ofApplicant)
hereby authorizes its agent(s)to provide to the State Office ofEmergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state
disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required.
IKI This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters.
o This is a disaster specific resolution and is effective for only disaster number(s)_
Passed and approved this _---=6'--_day of ::..:A""'p.::.r.::.i:..=l=---__,20 11
Jaime Bonilla,President
(Name and Title ofGoveming Body Representative)
(Name and Title ofGoverning Body Representative)
(Name and Title ofGoverning Body Representative)
CERTIFICATION
I,Susan Cruz ,duly appointed and District Secretary of
(Name)(Title)
__O_t:.,.a:....y"--W_a...:t...:e...:r:.."..,:D:..:l=-·s=-t.:::-r=i~c...:t---,-,do hereby certifY that the above is a true and correct copy ofa
(Name ofApplicant)
resolution passed and approved by the Board of Directors
(Governing body)
ofthe Otay Water District
(Name ofApplicant)
on the .>:.6t.::.h=-=--__day of April
(Signature)
DES Fonn 130(03/081 DAD Fonn
,20_11_,
(Title)
Puge I
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 9
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Armando Bue Ina/~
Communications Officer
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
SUBJECT:Authorize Agreement with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck for
Comprehensive State and Federal Legislative Issues Advocacy
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors authorize a one (1)year Agreement
with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS)for an amount not-to-
exceed $160,000 for comprehensive State and Federal legislative
issues advocacy.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See "Attachment An.
PURPOSE:
Authorize a one (1)year Agreement with Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck for an amount not-to-exceed $160,000 for comprehensive
State and Federal legislative issues advocacy.
ANALYSIS:
Procedures governing the selection of general consultants in the
performance of District work are outlined in the District's
Purchasing Procedures Manual.
The District had a time and service consulting agreement with BHFS
for legislative advocacy services.This action will replace the
consultant's Legislative Issues and Service Agreement and expand
the Agreement to authorize BHFS to act as government relations
counsel in Sacramento and Washington DC for both general
legislative matters and in connection with the District's interest
in purchasing water from an ocean water desalination project in
Rosarito Beach,Mexico.
Based on past work,the District feels BHFS is uniquely qualified
to best meet the District's needs for comprehensive state and
federal legislative issues advocacy.
In this expanded role,working with the project team,BHFS will
develop a comprehensive state and federal legislative strategy to
support the Rosarito Beach Desalination Project's implementation.
This action would also authorize the General Manager to amend the
Agreement with BHFS to extend the term as necessary to provide for
the continuation of services,terminate elements of the Agreement,
or to include such other services as deemed necessary and
appropriate by the General Manager.
FISCAL IMPACT :~
~The total budget for CIP 2451 is $30,000,000.Actual expenditures
to date are $674,702.Total expenditures plus outstanding
commitments and forecast are approximately $4,840,345.See
Attachment B for budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budget,the Project Manager has
determined that the budget is sufficient to support this project.
Finance has determined that 40%of the funding is available from
the Expansion Fund and 60%of the funding is available from the
Betterment Fund.
General legislative advocacy is included in the General Manager's
Outside Services budget.The total Fiscal Year 2011 budget for
Legislative Advocacy is $42,000.Total expenditures,plus
outstanding commitments for general legislative advocacy in FY
2011 are $5,339,leaving a balance of $36,661.
Based on a financial review of the Genenal Manager's budget,the
Communication Officer has determined that the budget is sufficient
to support the general legislative advocacy services included in
the Agreement.
Funds will be expended in FY 2011 and FY 2012
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This action supports the District's goal for providing the best
quality water service to the customers of the Otay Water District.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment A -Committee Action Statement
Attachment B -Budget Detail
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Authorize Agreement with
for Comprehensive State
Advocacy
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
and Federal Legislative
Schreck
Issues
COMMITTEE ACTION:
NOTE:
The "Committee ActionH 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:
Authorize Agreement with
for Comprehensive State
Advocacy
Otay Water District
P2451 -Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance
Brownstein Hyatt Farber
and Federal Legislative
Date Updated:March 10,2011
Schreck
Issues
Outstanding ProjectedFinalBudgetCommitledExpendituresCommitment&Vendor/Comments
30,000,000 Forecast Cost
Planning
Addl subprojects
Labor 288,717 288,717 288,717
Printing 61 61 -61 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
Mileage Reimbursement 138 138 -138 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Parking and Tolls 55 55 55 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
45 45 45 USBANK CORPORATEPAYMENT
21 21 -21 WATTON,MARK
Airfare and Transportation 8,746 8,746 8,746 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
78 78 78 WATTON,MARK
Lodging 3,139 3,139 -3,139 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
1,590 1,590 1,590 WATTON,MARK
729 729 -729 BONILLA,JAIME
472 472 472 CONSOLIDATEDWATER COMPANY
Mealsand Incidentals 237 237 237 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
38 38 -38 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT
194 194 -194 WATTON,MARK
395 395 -395 CONSOLIDATEDWATER COMPANY
Business Meetings 86 86 86 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
949 949 949 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Insurance 26 26 26 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
27 27 27 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT
Professional Legal Fees 43,175 43,175 -43,175 SOLORZANO CARVAJALGONZALEZ Y
151,001 151,001 151,001 GARCIACALDERON &RUIZLLP
otherLegal Expenses 9,975 9,975 9,975 GARCIACALDERON &RUIZLLP
WOODRUFF,SPRADLIN &SMART
Regulatory Agency Fees COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO-US FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
ConsullantContracts 112,562 98,577 13,984 112,562 CAMP DRESSER &MCKEE INC
82,795 44,420 38,375 82,795 MARSTON+MARSTONINC
12,200 12,200 12,200 REA &PARKER RESEARCH
45,000 2,013 42,987 45,000 SALVADOR LOPEZ-CORDOVA
-CPM PARTNERS INC
Service Contracts -UNIONTRIBUNE PUBLISHINGCO
Service Contracts 106 106 106 SAN DIEGODAILYTRANSCRIPT
500 500 500 REBECA SOTURANICKERSON
--OLLI BROS
160,000 160,000 160,000 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
Total Planning 923,056 667,709 255,346 923,056
Design
Labor 6,650 6,650 6,650
Consultant Contrects 3,910,297 -3,910,297 3,910,297 AECOM TECHNICALSERVICES INC
Service Contracts 343 343 343 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
Total Design 3,917,289 6,992 3,910,297 3,917,289
Grand Total 4,840,345 674,702 4,165,643 4,640,345
AGENDA ITEM 10
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Geoffrey Stevens,Chief
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
March 28,2011
DIV.NO.
Information Technology and
Strategic P~'n'ng
APPROVED BY:G;tf,rmaAlvar...Assistant General Manager,Administration and(Chief)
Fl '
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
SUBJECT:FY 2011 Strategic Plan and Performance Measures Report
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation.This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To provide a fiscal mid-year report on the District's Strategic
Performance Plan.
ANALYSIS:
The District has completed the first half of the Strategic Plan
for FY 2011.Overall,results for performance measures continue
to be positive with the District exceeding its target (at least
75%on target).Results for objectives were just under target
(at least 90%complete or on track),but are expected to recover
by next quarter.Detailed information on each objective and
measure is also available electronically on the Board Extranet.
Looking at these results in more detail:
Strategic Plan Objectives -84%
Strategic plan objectives are designed to ensure we are making
the appropriate high-level changes necessary to move the agency
in the planned direction to meet new challenges and
opportunities.Objective results were just under target with 27
of 32 (84%)complete,ahead or on schedule.2 items are on hold
and are thus excluded from the calculation.Five items are
behind schedule.Of these five items,three have been corrected
as of March 1st •
FY 11 Objectives
Objectives:All Scorecard Areas
Detail
30
25 23
20 .-
15 ,,/'
10
5 0 0
0 /,
Compl On Schd Behind Hold No Rpts Not strt
34 Total
27/32 Objectives on or ahead of schedule (84%).
Target is 90%.
Performance Measures -84%(6 Points Below Goal)
Performance measures are designed to track the day-to-day
performance of the District.Sometimes referred to as a "dash
board",these items attempt to measure the effectiveness and
efficiency of daily operations.The overall goal is that at
least 75%of these measures be rated "on target".District
results in this area are positive with 37 of 44 (84%)items
achieving the desired level or better.
FY 11 Performance Measures
Measures:All Scorecard Areas
I Summary I"---De_ta_il ----I
40
30
20
10 /
37--~~----------
1----------"~---.~
-7
/'...
Compl On ScM Behind Hold
44 Total
No Rpls Not Strt
37/44 Measures on or ahead of schedule (84%).
Target is 75%.
Balanced Scorecard -External View
The Balanced Scorecard methodology is designed to ensure that a
company is performing consistently on a wide range of measures
necessary to ensure both short-term and long-term improvements.
Many of the areas do not meet the target due to a lower ratio of
open items.For example 4 out of 5 Learning &Growth objectives
are completed or on schedule,but 4/5 is still only 80%,just
missing the 90%target.For a more detailed explanation,quarter
reports for these measures are available on the Board Extranet.
Balanced Scorecard Pers ective
FY 2011 •Qtr 2 •All Departments
r.:--lCustomer
•Objectives Measures
Financial --]
•Objectives •Measures
---
Learning and Growth
Objectives Measures [.
lBusinessProcesses'
•Objectives_II Measures
Green =meets or exceedsl Red =does not meet
Departmental Perspective -Internal View of Performance
The departmental perspective breaks down performance objectives
and measures by the responsible internal departments.The
results here are similar to the balanced scorecard scenario
where a lower ratio in open items resulted in a lower on target
percentage.
FY 2011 •Qtr 2 •All Scorecard Areas
2-Engineering •Objectives III Measures
--I
3-Finance Objectives II Measures Ii
4-lnformation Technology Objectives Measures II
•Objectives iii Measures -lS-Operations
Green =meets or exceeds!Red =does not meet
Significant Achievements
Some significant mid-year achievements include 46 objectives
complete to-date and 37 of 44 measures with results on target.
FISCAL IMPACT:~
Informational item only,no fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Strategic Plan and Performance Measure reporting is a critical
element in providing performance reporting to the Board and
staff.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None
Gener
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECTIPROJECT:FY 2011 Strategic Plan and Performance Measures Report
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Administration and Finance Committee and the Engineering and
Operations Committee met in March and reviewed this item.Based
upon this discussion the Committees recommend that the Board
receive that attached information.
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.
OWD Business Planning ProcessYi~O:sion L strat:egl~PI..Stral:egie~
Resources }Corrective Accountability ~tatian
Action Tools PI
Training
Objectives:All Scorecard Areas
Summary Detail'""--;;....;;;.....;;;....;..;..,...;....;;.,;..;..a.;;L.~~
.~.,...,.."
o 0
23
30
25 /
20 /
15 ,/
10 /
5
0
Compl On Schd Behind Hold No Rpts Not Strt
34 Total
FY2010 Objectiv s
27 0 32 objectives com lete a ead or on target (840/0)
Target IS 90%
Measures:All Scorecard Areas
Summary Detail---~------"";';;;;"';;";;""';"";;;;;';"'~:""-_~------l
50
40
30
20
10
o
/
/.j!
~
/
,,
.//
--0 y 0 0 0
1/7 '/.//
Compl On Schd Behind Hold No Rpts Not Strt
44 Total
FY2 10 Perf rm nee easures
37 of 44 performance measures complete,ahead or 0 tar et (84%)
Target is 750/0
Balan ed Scorecalrd
FY 2011 •Qtr 2 •All Departments
~I
Business Processes '
I
Objectives ~fl/leasulies IObjectives•Measures
~-~~-------,
Learning and Growth
Measures
Financial
~~~-L~~_.~_.~__~._~._------
Objectives
Customer I
Objectives Measures I
I
Bal need 5 or c rd
Green =meets or exceedsl Red =does not mee
FY 2011 •Qtr 2 •All Scorecard Areas
Departments
i-Administrative Services
Objectives I;J I-leasures2-Engineering
3-Finance
4-Information Technology
----_._--,.._---
Objectives
Objectives
Measures
M'easures
De rtme t Vie
Green =me ts or exceedsl Red =does not meet
•Additional Fields for Strat Plan Application
•FY 2012-2014 Strategic Plan
•FY 2009-2011 Strat Plan Completion Report