Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-19 Board Packet1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DISTRICT BOARDROOM 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY September 4, 2019 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1.ROLL CALL 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4.SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY OVERVIEW AND 75TH ANNIVERSAY PRESENTATION (MR. JASON FOSTER, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SER- VICES AND MS. CHRISTINE ANTOINE, PRINCIPLE PUBLIC AFFAIRS REPRESENTA- TIVE – SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY) 5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURIS- DICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING 6.PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL REPORT THE BOARD WILL BE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL REPORT. THE BOARD INVITES THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE REPORT. a)APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL (PHG) REPORT TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN REDUCING THE LEVELS OF THE FIVE CONSTITUENTS LISTED IN THE REPORT TO LEVELS AT OR BE- LOW THE PHGs (VACLAVEK) 2 CONSENT CALENDAR 7. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICU- LAR ITEM: a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4370 FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE AUDAY A. SALEM SEWER ANNEXATION, 10610 SNYDER ROAD, LA MESA, CA 91941, APN 497-011-37-00, TO THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND TO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 18 b) APPROVE AN INCREASE TO THE OVERALL BUDGET OF CIP S2024 IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $450,000 (FROM $10,530,000 TO $10,980,000) AND APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 TO THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH WIER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $289,908.63 FOR THE CAMPO ROAD SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT c) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR AS-NEEDED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES WITH MORAES, PHAM AND ASSOCIATES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2020-2022 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2022) d) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO MURRAYSMITH, INCORPORATED FOR AS-NEEDED PLAN CHECK SERVICES FOR DEVELOPER POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000 FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) FISCAL YEARS (FY 2020, FY 2021, AND FY 2022) WITH A CONTRACTUAL END DATE OF JUNE 30, 2022 ACTION ITEMS 8. BOARD a) DISCUSS THE 2019 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PUR- POSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: a) REVIEW THE RESULTS OF THE 2019 EMPLOYEE SURVEY (WILLIAMSON) b) FOURTH QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO- GRAM REPORT (MARTIN) c) UPDATE ON THE DISTRICT’S SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBSITE ANALYTICS (OTERO) 3 d) YEAR-END REPORT ON THE DISTRICT’S FISCAL YEARS 2019-2022 STRATE- GIC PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 (SEGURA) REPORTS 10. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 11. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 12. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS 13. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 14. CLOSED SESSION a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – POTENTIAL [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] 1 CASE -- CWA MEMBER AGENCY DETACHMENTS RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 15. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY 16. NO MATTERS TO DISCUSS 17. ADJOURNMENT 4 All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280. If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici- pate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at (619) 670-2280 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on August 30, 2019 I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on August 30, 2019. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY:Jake Vaclavek, System Operations Manager PROJECT: DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Jose Martinez, Assistant Chief of Water Operations Pedro Porras, Chief, Water Operations Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT:Approval of Public Health Goal Report Recommendations GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve the recommendations in the Public Health Goal (PHG) Report to take no further action in reducing the levels of the five constituents listed in the report to levels at or below the PHGs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To present the July 1, 2019 PHG Report to the Board and to obtain approval for the recommendation that no action be taken to reduce the levels of the five constituents listed in the report to the PHG or below. The Board meeting will also meet the requirement to have a public hearing to accept and respond to public comment. ANALYSIS: California Health and Safety Code §116470 specifies that larger water utilities (>10,000 service connections) prepare a special report every three years to July 1 if their water quality measurements have exceeded any Public Health Goals (PHGs). PHGs are non-enforceable goals established by the Cal-EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The law also requires that where OEHHA has not adopted a PHG for a AGENDA ITEM 6a 2 constituent, the water suppliers are to use the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Only constituents which have a California primary drinking water standard and for which either a PHG or MCLG has been set are to be addressed. PHGs are based solely on public health risk considerations. None of the practical risk-management factors that are considered by the USEPA or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in setting Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are considered in setting the PHGs. These factors include analytical detection capability, available treatment technology, benefits and costs. The PHGs are not enforceable and are not required to be met by any public water system. MCLGs are the federal equivalent to the state’s PHGs. If a constituent was detected in the District’s distribution system or in the treated water the District purchases from other agencies, between 2016 and 2018, at a level exceeding an applicable PHG or MCLG, the PHG report provides the information required by the regulation. Included is the numerical public health risk associated with the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and the PHG or MCLG, the category or type of risk to health that could be associated with each constituent, the best treatment technology available that could be used to reduce the constituent level, and an estimate of the cost to install that treatment if it is appropriate and feasible. The purpose of the report is to provide customers with information on health-related contaminants detected in the water supply, even when detected below the enforceable MCLs, so customers are aware of whatever risks might be posed by the presence of these contaminants. MCLs are set at very conservative levels that provide very low to negligible risk and are considered the regulatory definition of what is safe. PHGs and MCLGs are set at the theoretical level where there is no health risk. MCLGs are set at zero for many contaminants, such as radiologicals and carcinogens, even though it is understood that zero is an unattainable goal and cannot be measured analytically. Most PHGs and MCLGs are set far below the required Detection Levels for Reporting (DLR) which is the minimum level that SWRCB has determined can be accurately reported. Below is a table summarizing the five constituents detected above the PHG or MCLG in calendar years 2016, 2017, and/or 2018. More detail for each is provided in the PHG Report (please see Attachment B). 3 Constituent Units MCL PHG/MCLG DLR Levels Detected Arsenic ppb 10 0.004 2 ND - 3 Gross Alpha pCi/L 15 0 3 ND - 7 Gross Beta pCi/L 50 0 4 ND – 10 Uranium pCi/L 20 0.43 1 ND – 3 Bromate ppb 10 0.1 1 ND – 6 MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level PHG = Public Health Goal MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal DLR = Detection Limits for Reporting Levels Detected = Levels detected in water supplied to the District for 2016 through 2018. ND = Not Detected at or above the DLR This table shows that the PHG or MCLG for the constituents listed is lower than the DLR. This means that even if additional treatment is performed to reduce the levels of these constituents, the effectiveness of the treatment to reduce the levels to the PHG or MCLG cannot be accurately determined by analytical methods. The regulation also requires a preliminary cost estimate of using the Best Available Technology (BAT) for reducing the level of the constituents to below the PHGs. The BAT for the five constituents is reverse osmosis (RO). According to the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) cost estimates for a treatment BAT, would cost approximately $1.85 - $3.55 per 1000 gallons to further remove these constituents using RO treatment. The District’s average annual demand for the three year period was 9,230 million gallons per year. Therefore, RO treatment installed and operated by the District or the District’s water suppliers to meet the District’s water demands would cost from $17 to $33 million per year, which translates to an average monthly cost increase of $28.15 - $54.01 per District customer (using the January 2019 meter count of 50,551 meters). These estimates include all costs including capital, land, construction, engineering, planning, environmental, contingency and O&M costs for the life of the facilities. 4 Staff’s recommendation is that no action be taken for the District to install RO treatment or request suppliers to install RO treatment for the following reasons: •Water served by the District during this three year period met or exceeded all SWRCB and USEPA drinking water standards set to protect public health. SWRCB considers water that meets these standards as safe to drink. •To reduce the levels of the constituents identified in this report that are already significantly below the health- based MCLs established that already provide safe drinking water, costly treatment processes would be required, translating to an average monthly cost increase of $28.15 - $54.01 per District customer. •The effectiveness of the treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in constituent levels to the PHGs is difficult, if not impossible to determine since the analytical DLR is higher than the PHG. •The health protection benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may not be quantifiable. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. STRATEGIC GOAL: To meet the District’s Mission of providing high quality and reliable water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District, in a professional, effective and efficient manner. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Attachment A: Committee Action Attachment B: Otay Water District Public Health Goals Report on Water Quality ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Approval of Public Health Goal Report Recommendations COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 23, 2019, and the following comments were made: •Staff indicated that the last Public Health Goal (PHG) Report was approved by the Board in 2016. It was noted that data from the last three annual water quality reports from 2016 to 2018 which is available for review in the District’s Annual Consumer Confident Reports, was used to draft the 2019 PHG Report. •Since the District does not treat raw water, all values shown on Table 3 of the staff report are values from treatment plants (i.e. Twin Oaks, Carlsbad Desal, Helix, and Skinner) that serve water to the District. •Staff recommended that the board hold a public hearing at its September 4, 2019 board meeting and approve staffs’ recommendation to take no further action in reducing the levels of the five constituents listed in the report. Page 4 of the staff report provides reasons to approve staffs’ recommendations. •In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that the District might be able to reduce the level of the constituents to below the PHGs through reverse osmosis, which would cost anywhere from $17 to $33 million to implement. However, as stated in the staff report, the effectiveness of the reverse osmosis treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in constituent levels to the PHGs is difficult, if not impossible to determine since the analytical Detection Limits for Reporting is higher than the PHGs of the constituents listed in the PHG Report. 6 •The Committee inquired if other water agencies have taken steps to reduce their level of constituents below the PHGs. Staff stated no. Following the discussion, the committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as a public hearing item. OTAY WATER DISTRICT  Public Health Goals  Report on Water Quality  June 2019  ATTACHMENT B 2 OTAY WATER DISTRICT PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS REPORT ON WATER QUALITY SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION………………………………………...3  What Are Public Health Goals (PHGs)? ..................................................................................... 3  Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................................... 4  Water Quality Data Considered ............................................................................................... 4  Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates ........................................................ 5  SECTION 2: CONSTITUENTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PHG ................. 5  Arsenic .................................................................................................................... 5  Bromate .................................................................................................................. 6  Radiological:  Gross Alpha & Uranium ...................................................................................... 7  Radiological:  Gross Beta .......................................................................................................... 8  SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION ......................... 8  3 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Background: California Health and Safety Code Health and Safety Code §116470 specifies that larger  (>10,000 service connections) water utilities prepare a special report by July 1, 2019 if  their water quality measurements have exceeded any Public Health Goals (PHGs).  PHGs  are non‐enforceable goals established by the Cal‐EPA’s Office of Environmental Health  Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The law also requires that where OEHHA has not adopted  a PHG for a constituent, the water suppliers are to use the Maximum Contaminant Level  Goals (MCLGs) adopted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   Only constituents which have a California primary drinking water standard and for which  either a PHG or MCLG has been set are to be addressed.   The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) formed a workgroup which  prepared guidelines for water utilities to use in preparing these required reports. The  ACWA guidelines were used in the preparation of our report.  The ACWA guidelines  included health risk information from OEHHA.  If a constituent was detected in the Otay Water District’s (District’s) distribution system  or in the treated water the District purchases from other agencies, between 2016 and  2018 at a level exceeding an applicable PHG or MCLG, this report provides the  information required by the law.  Included is the numerical public health risk associated  with the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and the PHG or MCLG, the category or  type of risk to health that could be associated with each constituent, the best treatment  technology available that could be used to reduce the constituent level and an estimate  of the cost to install that treatment if it is appropriate and feasible.   What Are Public Health Goals (PHGs)? PHGs are set by California OEHHA, which is part of Cal‐EPA and are based solely on  public health risk considerations.  None of the practical risk‐management factors that  are considered by the USEPA or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in  setting drinking water standards (MCLs) are considered in setting the PHGs.  These  factors include analytical detection capability, available treatment technology, benefits  and costs.  The PHGs are not enforceable and are not required to be met by any public  water system.  MCLGs are the federal equivalent to the state’s PHGs.  4 Reporting Requirements: The purpose of this report is to inform consumers of the District’s drinking water PHGs  that were exceeded during 2016, 2017 and 2018, pursuant to California Health and  Safety Code Section 116470(b).  In addition, this report provides information about the  cost of achieving a water quality level that does not exceed the PHGs.  For general  information about the quality of the water delivered by the District, please refer to the  Consumer Confidence Report, also known as the Annual Water Quality Report.  An  online version of these annual reports can be found at www.otaywater.gov.  Included in this report is information regarding the public health risk associated with the  MCL and the PHG, such as the possible type of health risk associated with each  constituent, the best available treatment technology that may reduce the constituent  level, and an estimate of the cost to install such treatment.  Water Quality Data Considered: All of the water quality data collected by our water system between 2016 and 2018 for  purposes of determining compliance with drinking water standards was considered.   This data was summarized in our 2016, 2017, and 2018 Consumer Confidence Reports  which is made availible to all of our customers annually in June.   For each regulated contaminant, the CDPH establishes Detection Limits for the purposes  of Reporting (DLR).  DLRs are the minimum levels at which any analytical result must be  reported to the SWRCB.  Results indicated below the DLRs cannot be quantified with any  certainty.  In some cases, PHGs are set below the DLRs making them impossible to  achieve analytically.  Any contaminant reported below the DLR will be considered zero  for the purpose of this report, which is accepted by the SWRCB.  5 Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates: Both the USEPA and SWRCB adopt what are known as Best Available Technologies  (BATs), which are the best methods of reducing contaminant levels to the MCL.  Costs  can be estimated for such technologies.  However, since many PHGs and MCLGs are set  much lower than the MCL, it is not always possible nor feasible to determine what  treatment is needed to further reduce a constituent downward to or near the PHG or  MCLG, many of which are set at zero.  Estimating the costs to reduce a constituent to  zero is difficult, if not impossible because it is not possible to verify by analytical means  that the level has been lowered to zero.  In some cases, installing treatment to try and  further reduce very low levels of one constituent may have adverse effects on other  aspects of water quality.  SECTION 2: CONSTITUENTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PHG The following is a discussion of constituents that were detected in the District’s  distribution system, or one or more of our drinking water treated water sources at  levels above the PHG, or MCLG (if no PHG has been established).  Arsenic: Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the earth's crust and is very widely  distributed in the environment. All humans are exposed to microgram quantities of  arsenic (inorganic and organic) largely from food (25 to 50 μg/day) and to a lesser  degree from drinking water and air. In certain geographical areas, natural mineral  deposits may contain large quantities of arsenic and this may result in higher levels of  arsenic in water. Waste chemical disposal sites may also be a source of arsenic  contamination of water supplies. The main commercial use of arsenic in the U.S. is in  pesticides, herbicides and in wood preservatives. Misapplication or accidental spills of  these materials could result in contamination of nearby water supplies.  Arsenic does  not have a tendency to accumulate in the body at low environmental exposure levels.  6 Studies in humans have shown considerable individual variability in arsenic toxicity.  The  levels of arsenic that most people ingest in food and water (up to 50 μg/day) have not  usually been considered to be of health concern for non‐cancer effects.    The MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion (ppb), the PHG for arsenic is .004 ppb.  The  DLR, which is the lowest level that SWRCB has determined can be measured with  certainty, is 2 ppb. Arsenic levels in water that the District purchases from other  agencies from 2016 – 2018 averaged from <2 ppb – 3 ppb.  The health risk associated  with arsenic, and the reason that a drinking water standard was adopted for it, is that  people who drink water containing arsenic above the MCL of 10 ppb throughout their  lifetime could experience an increased risk of getting cancer. The PHG of .004 ppb is  estimated on a level that will result in not more than 1 additional cancer case in a  population of 1 million people who drink 2 liters of water daily for 70 years. The actual  cancer risk may be lower or zero.  Because the DLR for arsenic (2 ppb) is greater than  the PHG (.004 ppb), it would be difficult to assess the effectiveness of any treatment  technique on reaching the PHG level.  The BAT cited in literature to remove arsenic is RO. All costs including capital, land,  construction, engineering, planning, environmental, contingency and O&M costs are  included but only general assumptions can be made for these items.  According to the  ACWA cost estimates for a treatment technology BAT would cost approximately $1.85‐ $3.55 per 1000 gallons to treat arsenic using RO treatment.  The District’s average  annual demand for the three‐year period was 9,230 million gallons per year.  Therefore,  RO treatment installed and operated by the District’s water suppliers to meet the  District’s water demands would cost from $17 to $33 million per year, which translates  to an average monthly cost increase of $28.15 ‐ $54.01 per District customer.  Bromate: Bromate in water is formed when water containing naturally occurring bromide is  disinfected with ozone.  Bromate also has a long history of use as a food additive in  flour.    The MCL for bromate is 10 ppb, the PHG is 0.1 ppb based on a running annual average  (RAA).  The DLR is 1 ppb.  The RAA of bromate levels in water that the District purchases  from other agencies from 2016 – 2018 averaged from <1 ppb to 6 ppb.  The SWRCB and USEPA have determined that bromate is a health concern at certain  levels of exposure. The category of health risk associated with bromate, and the reason  that a drinking water standard was adopted for it, is that some people who drink water  containing bromate in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of  7 getting cancer.  The PHG of 0.1 ppb is estimated on a level that will result in not more  than 1 additional cancer case in a population of 1 million people who drink 2 liters of  water daily for 70 years. The actual cancer risk may be lower or zero.  The SWRCB and  USEPA set the drinking water standard for bromate at 10 ppb to reduce the risk of  cancer or other adverse health effects.  One of the most effective treatment BATs for bromate reduction is RO. RO treatment  reduces the natural occurring bromide in source water, therefore reducing bromate  formation when ozone is applied. Because the DLR for bromate (1 ppb) is greater than  the PHG (0.1ppb), it would be difficult to assess the effectiveness of RO treatment on  reaching the PHG level.  According to ACWA cost estimates for a treatment, BAT would  cost approximately $1.85‐$3.55 per 1000 gallons to treat bromate using RO treatment.   The District’s average annual demands for the three‐year period were 9,230 million  gallons per year.  Therefore, RO treatment installed and operated by the District’s water  suppliers to meet the District’s water demands would cost from $17 to $33 million per  year, which translates to an average monthly cost increase of $28.15 ‐ $54.01 per  District customer.  Radiological: Gross Alpha & Uranium: Gross alpha particle activity detections are typically due to uranium.  Uranium is a  naturally‐occurring radioactive element that is ubiquitous in the earth’s crust.  Uranium  is found in ground and surface waters due to its natural occurrence in geological  formations.  The requirement for radiological monitoring, including uranium, is four consecutive  quarters every four years.  The California MCL for uranium is 20 pCi/L.  Uranium levels in  water that the District purchases from other agencies from 2016 – 2018 averaged from  <1 pCi/L – 3 pCi/L.  The PHG for uranium is 0.43 pCi/L and the DLR is 1 pCi/L.  The numerical health risk for  uranium based on the California PHG is 1 x 10‐6.  This means one additional cancer case  per million population.  The health risk category for uranium is carcinogenicity.   Carcinogenic risk means capable of producing cancer.  The BAT cited in literature to remove gross alpha particle activity and uranium is reverse  osmosis. All costs including capital, land, construction, engineering, planning,  environmental, contingency and O&M costs are included but only general assumptions  can be made for these items.  According to ACWA cost estimates for a treatment BAT  would cost approximately $1.85‐$3.55 per 1000 gallons to treat Alpha and Uranium  using RO treatment.  The District’s average annual demands for the three‐year period  were 9,230 million gallons per year.  Therefore, RO treatment installed and operated by  8 the District’s water suppliers to meet the District’s water demands would cost from $17  to $33 million per year, which translates to an average monthly cost increase of $28.15 ‐  $54.01 per District customer.  Gross Beta: Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as photons  and beta radiation. The MCL is 50 pCi/L and the DLR is 4 pCi/L.  There is no PHG for gross  beta particle activity and the MCLG is zero pCi/L.  Gross beta levels in water that the District purchases from other agencies from 2016 –  2018 averaged from <4 pCi/L – 10 pCi/L.  The SWRCB and USEPA, which set drinking  water standards, have determined that gross beta particle activity is a health concern at  certain levels of exposure. This radiological constituent is a naturally occurring  contaminant in some groundwater and surface water supplies. The category of health  risk associated with gross beta particle activity, and the reason that a drinking water  standard was adopted for it, is that some people who drink water containing beta and  photon emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of  getting cancer. The numerical health risk for the MCLG of zero pCi/L is zero. The SWRCB  and USEPA set the drinking water standard for gross beta particle activity at 50 pCi/L to  reduce the risk of cancer or other adverse health effects.  The BATs identified to treat gross beta particle activity are ion exchange and RO. The  most effective method to consistently remove beta and photon emitters to the MCLG is  to install RO treatment.  All costs including capital, land, construction, engineering,  planning, environmental, contingency and O&M costs are included but only general  assumptions can be made for these items.  According to ACWA cost estimates for a  treatment BAT would cost approximately $1.85‐$3.55 per 1000 gallons to treat gross  beta using RO treatment.  The District’s average annual demands for the three‐year  period were 9,230 million gallons per year.  Therefore, RO treatment installed and  operated by the District’s water suppliers to meet the District’s water demands would  cost from $17 to $33 million per year, which translates to an average monthly cost  increase of $28.15 ‐ $54.01 per District customer.  SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION All water served by the District met all SWRCB and USEPA drinking water standards set  to protect public health during this three‐year period.  The SWRCB considers water that  9 meets all standards as safe to drink.  To further reduce the levels of the constituents  identified in this report that are already significantly below the health‐based MCLs  established to provide safe drinking water, additional costly treatment processes would  be required, translating to an average monthly cost increase of $28.15 ‐ $54.01 per  District customer.  The effectiveness of the treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in  constituent levels to the PHGs is difficult, if not impossible to determine since the  analytical DLR is much higher than the PHG in most cases. The health protection  benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may not be  quantifiable.  Therefore, no further action is recommended.  STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: ANX- 18-001 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief of Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4370 for the Auday A. Salem Sewer Annexation, 10610 Snyder Road, La Mesa, CA 91941, APN 497-011-37-00, to the Otay Water District and to Improvement District 18 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) adopt Resolution No. 4370 (Attachment B) for the annexation of the property of Auday A. Salem, 10610 Snyder Road, La Mesa, CA 91941, APN 497-011-37-00, to the Otay Water District (“District”) and to Improvement District 18. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: The purpose of the proposed annexation of the property of the Auday A. Salem (“Property Owner”), 10610 Snyder Road, La Mesa, CA 91941, APN 497-011-37-00, to the District and to Improvement District 18 is to make sewer service available to a parcel owned by the Property Owner. ANALYSIS: A written request and Petition signed by the Property Owner has been received for annexation of APN 497-011-37-00 into Improvement District No. 18 for sewer service. The total acreage to be annexed is 1.493 acres. The property currently has a septic system that is approximately sixty-one years old. The Property Owner requests to be AGENDA ITEM 7a 2 connected to the District’s sewer system prior to failure of the property’s septic system. The parcel is currently outside the District's sphere of influence as well as the District’s Sewer Improvement District No. 18, as shown in Exhibit A. Therefore, annexation of this property to the District, and to Improvement District No. 18 is required for sewer service. At the August 5, 2019 meeting of the San Diego County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), LAFCO approved a change of organization to annex APN 497-011-37-00 into the District. It is recommended that the District Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 4370 (Attachment B), annexing the property of the Auday A. Salem located at 10610 Snyder Road, La Mesa, CA 91941, APN 497-011-37-00 to the District and to Improvement District 18. The property receives water from the Helix Water District. The District’s sewer facilities are located adjacent to the property. This annexation will not create an island. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The property owner will pay the District’s annexation processing fee, sewer annexation fees (current fee is $1,159.20 per EDU), and sewer capacity fees for parcels located outside the sewer ID (current fee is $5,822.68) in effect at the time the sewer service is provided, and any additional fees including the availability fee, as established in the attached Resolution No. 4370. STRATEGIC GOAL: Adoption of Resolution No. 4370 supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:jf P:\Public-s\STAFF REPORTS\2019\BD 09-04-19_Salem-Snyder Annexation\BD 09-04-19_Salem Sewer Annexation Staff Report.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B - Resolution No. 4370 -Exhibit A – Description -Exhibit B – Map Exhibit A – Location Map ATTACHMENT A PERMIT NO.: ANX-18-001 Adopt Resolution No. 4370 for the Auday A. Salem Sewer Annexation, 10610 Snyder Road, La Mesa, CA 91941, APN 497-011-37-00, to the Otay Water District and to Improvement District 18 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on August 23, 2019, and the following comments were made: •Staff indicated that the parcel’s total acreage proposed for annexation is 1.492 acres. •The property owner requests to be connected to the District’s sewer system prior to failure of the property’s 61-year-old septic system. •Staff noted that the parcel is outside the District’s sphere of influence and Improvement District No. 18 as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report. Therefore, annexation of the parcel is required for sewer service. •Staff noted that the adjacency of sewer in this area is strictly by the Otay Water District. •At its August 5, 2019 meeting, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission approved a change of organization to annex the parcel into the Otay Water District. •In response to a question from the Committee with regards to the District’s sewer capacity, staff stated that this annexation will not impact the District. Staff confirmed that the conversion of residential private septic systems to District sewer customers has been included in the District’s planning year 2050 sewage flows. •Staff also researched and confirmed that the Ralph W Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) is operating at an average 4 flow of 1.0 MGD. The RWCWRF has a rated capacity of 1.3 MGD to produce Title 22 recycled water. Following the discussion, the committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. ATTACHMENT B Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 4370 RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 18 OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED AS THE "AUDAY A. SALEM SEWER ANNEXATION” (DIV. NO. 5) WHEREAS, a letter has been submitted by Auday A. Salem, the Property Owner and party that has an interest in the land described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto, for annexation of said land to the Otay Water District Sewer Improvement District No. 18 (“ID 18”) pursuant to California Water Code Section 72670 et seq.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 72680.1 of said Water Code, the Otay Water District (“District”) Board of Directors (“Board”) may proceed and act thereon without notice and hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINDS, RESOLVES, ORDERS, AND DETERMINES as follows: 1. A depiction of the area proposed to be annexed, and the boundaries of ID 18 following the annexation, is set forth on a map filed with the Secretary of the District, which map shall govern for all details as to the area proposed to be annexed. 2. The purpose of the proposed annexation is to make sewer service available to the area to be annexed, which availability constitutes a benefit to said area. 3. The Board finds and determines that the area proposed to be annexed to ID 18 will be benefited by such annexation and that the property currently within ID 18 will also be benefited and not injured by such annexation because after the annexation a larger tax base will be available to finance the sewer facilities and improvements of ID 18. Page 2 of 3 4. The Board of Directors hereby declares that the annexa- tion of said property is subject to the Property Owner complying with the following terms and conditions: (a) The petitioners for said annexation shall pay to the District the following: (1) The annexation processing fee at the time of application; (2) A sewer annexation fee per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”) to be collected at the time of connection to the District sewer system; (3) Yearly assessment fees will be collected through the County Tax Assessor’s office in the amount of $30.00 per acre for APN 497-011- 37-00; (4) In the event that sewer service is to be provided, Petitioners shall pay all applicable fees per EDU at the time the sewer connection is purchased; and (5)Payment by the Property Owner of APN 497- 011-37-00 of all other applicable local or state agency fees or charges. (b) The property to be annexed shall be subject to taxation after annexation thereof for the purposes of the ID 18, including the payment of principal and interest on bonds and other obligations of the ID 18, authorized and outstanding at the time of Page 3 of 3 annexation, the same as if the annexed property had always been a part of the ID 18. 5. The Board hereby declares the property described in Exhibit "A" shall be considered annexed to ID 18 upon passage of this Resolution. 6. The Board of Directors further finds and determines that there are no exchanges of property tax revenues to be made pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 95 et seq., as a result of such annexation. 7. The annexation of APN 497-011-37-00 to the District is hereby designated as the “AUDAY A. SALEM SEWER ANNEXATION.” 8. Pursuant to Section 57202(a) of the Government Code, the effective date of the AUDAY A. SALEM SEWER ANNEXATION shall be the date this Resolution is adopted by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District. 9. The General Manager of the District and the Secretary of the District, or their respective designees, are hereby ordered to take all actions required to complete this annexation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District at a regular meeting held this 4th day of September, 2019. President ATTEST: __________________________________ District Secretary SALEM-SNYDER ROAD CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION ANNEXATION TO OTAY WATER DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. CO19-02; DA19-02; SA19-02 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE EAST-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 16 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNJNG AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE THEREOF 1.NORTH 00°34'24" EAST(RECORD NORTH00°13'30" WEST) 2.SOUTH 89°12'10" EAST(RECORD "EAST") 3.SOUTH 77°28'06" EAST 4.NORTH 72°17'38" EAST 5.SOUTH 14°56'07" EAST(RECORD SOUTH15°38'00" EAST) 6.SOUTH 45°01 '53" WEST 7.SOUTH 44°58'07" EAST 8.SOUTH 13°59'43" EAST 325.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO WILLIAM R.BUIST, ET UX, RECORDED APRIL 13,1935 IN BOOK 388, PAGE 418 OF OFFICIALRECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHLINE OF SAID LAND 103.08 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 86.79 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY POINT IN SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE LEA YING SAID SOUTH LINE 36.79 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ROBERT E. HINDMAN, ET UX, RECORDED MARCH 3, 1961 AS FILE NO. 37798; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID HINDMAN'S LAND AS FOLLOWS: 75.00 FEET; THENCE 139.78 FEET; THENCE 66.82 FEET; THENCE 80.00 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID HINDMAN'S LAND, BEING A POINT ON A 180.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCA VE NORTHWESTERLY, BEING ALSO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COUNTY ROAD SURVEY NO. 898, (SYNDER ROAD) AS DESCRIBED IN DEED Page 1 of 2 ilÌ{ ù OF fHE COIJN|I OFSAN UEEO HA,]X IHE CITY æ lcltY r t POR. E 1/2 AF NW 1/4 oF NE 1/4 rO LA MESA, LEMON GROVE AND SPRING VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT PER DEED REC. 3-29-1939 tN BK. 892, Pc. 279 0.R 75.t5 o @ t- L{ !- S.¡\tÞso = ]ftil Ex. EASEMENT(S) N 7217'38" E 36.79' I ANNEXATION BOUNDARY APN: 497-O11-37 t.493 AC. sEc_ 22, T. 16S..R. 1W S.B.M. 2t7. a{oÉo- EXHTBIT ',9,, LEGEND -r PROP]SED WATER D\STR\CT BOUNDARYP.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING(R) MDTAL BilRtNc DISCUIMER: ''FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY- THIS DESCRIPTION OFUND IS NOT A LEOAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS ÐENNEÐIN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOT BE USED ASTHE BASIS FOR AN OFFER FOR SALE OF IAND DESCRIBED." PoR. E 1/2 OF NW 1/4 aF NE 1/4 sEC. 22, T- 16 S.. R. 1 W Øs 8912'10" E @ APN: 4s7-oy-1 2 103.08',â (n N'LY LINE OF HINDMAN'S LAND frt APN:497-Ar-28 S'LY LINE OF BUTST LAND -\.- POR. W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 Ar NE 1/4sic. 22,T. 16 S.. R. 1 W. S.B.M. APN: 497-O11-17 APN: 497-O11-16 APN: 497-011-15 S.B.M .s N 8854',29" W tg. @ \SOUTH LINE OF THE NW{ or rHr NE +, sEC. 22 ,18 N ì sl/v coR. 0F tHE E I 0F THE NW f OF THE NE I SrC. ZZ g0' 4a' o'g0' SCALE: 1" = 80' o CAL T 1 à Alta Lar¿d Sumetítnag5t7 6ROSSM0MT SUUUî DR. " "u MESA, A 9194t PH0NE // FAX: (619) 713-2582 t7-J600 ANEX pUr.DW6 J.N. t7-J600 1AtE: 0s/02/g SAI.E}¡-SYNDER ROAí C}IANGE OF ORGAI{IZARON AiINÐ(AI0N N0. C0l9-02; DAlg-OZ; SAtg-OZ rN TlE E I 0F THE NW I Or rHr NE I oF SECTION 22, T. 16 S., R. 1 W., S.B.M. OTAY WATER DISTRICT ANNEXATION OF APN 497-011-37-00 TO THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND TO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 18LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A ANX-18-001 F \\O w d - f p 1 \ E N G R P L A N \ P u b l i c - s \ S T A F F R E P O R T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ P l a c e - H o l d e r _ S a l em - S n y d e r A n n e x a t i o n \ B e r n a r d o E x h i b i t A \ E x h i b i t A - 1 0 6 1 0 S n y d e r R d . m x d "LS R$ !\ VICINITY MAP DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ÃÅ54PROJECT SITE ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ905 §¨¦805 FNTS PROJECT SITE ALZEDA DRSNYDER RD DISTRICT SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY 016080 FeetCRESTLAND DR STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY:Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: S2024-001103 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT:Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP S2024 in an amount not-to-exceed $450,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 6 in an amount not-to-exceed $289,908.63 to the Construction Contract with Wier Construction Corporation for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board): 1.Approve to increase the CIP S2024 budget (Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project) in an amount not-to-exceed $450,000.00 (from $10,530,000.00 to $10,980,000.00). 2. Approve Change Order No. 6 to the existing construction contract with Wier Construction Corporation (Wier Construction) in an amount not-to-exceed $289,908.63 for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To increase the overall CIP S2024 project budget in an amount not-to- exceed $450,000.00 and to obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Change Order No. 6 in an amount not-to-exceed $289,908.63 to the construction contract with Wier Construction for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project. AGENDA ITEM 7b 2 ANALYSIS: The District’s Campo Road Sewer Replacement project is replacing an existing 10-inch sewer pipeline, located within and south of Campo Road between Avocado Boulevard and Singer Lane, which is undersized to handle current sewer flows. To accommodate current and future flows, approximately 7,420 linear feet of 15-inch gravity sewer main will be installed to replace the existing 9,225 feet of 10-inch sewer main. The eastern terminus of the new 15-inch sewer main will be located at the intersection of Avocado Boulevard/Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center driveway. The new main’s western terminus will be located in the Rancho San Diego Towne Center where it will connect to the existing 27-inch sewer main within the shopping center’s parking lot. Sewer laterals stemming from the existing pipe will be reconnected to the proposed new pipeline. The majority of the pipeline was installed with open trench construction except in two (2) locations where horizontal auger boring was used for crossing Campo Road. These two (2) locations are Campo Road east of Via Mercado, and at the intersection of Campo Road/Jamacha Boulevard. The existing sewer will be abandoned in place with the exception of a 210-feet long section of aboveground pipeline and seven (7) supporting pillars that will be removed. At the May 3, 2017 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $7,816,645.95 to Wier Construction. Since the award of the construction contract, there have been five (5) Change Orders approved for the contract. Change Order No. 1, which totaled $74,266.00, compensated the contractor for a realignment of the planned sewer main due to a utility conflict. This Change Order also increased the quantity for rock removal and disposal due to rock encountered on the Project and provided for additional Class 2 base due to field conditions at the Rancho San Diego Town Center parking lot. Lastly, this Change Order issued a credit for modifications to traffic control requirements. In total, Change Order No. 1 added forty-six (46) days to the contract as a result of the added work. Change Order No. 2 provided for modifications to the planned grade of the jack and bore pipe at the Campo Road West Bore crossing, which is located east of Via Mercado. This change also included the removal of the internal beading, which is generated during the field construction of the fusible pipe. This was a no-cost change and did not include adjustments to contract time. Board approved Change order No. 3, which totaled $156,192.12, compensated the contractor for realignment of the East Bore launch pit due to a communications utility conflict with the shoring limits 3 indicated on the contract plans. This Change Order also included addressing other unmarked utilities found to be in conflict with the planned sewer installation. Lastly, Change Order No. 3 increased bid item quantity for rock removal and disposal due to rock encountered on the Project. Change Order No. 3 added twenty-nine (29) days to the contract as a result of the added work. Board approved Change order No. 4, which totaled $70,970.00, compensated the contractor for removal and disposal of unmarked utilities; removal and replacement of a Caltrans fiber optic traffic signal interconnection not shown on the plans; and additional trench excavation and backfill associated with field conditions. Change Order No. 4 added fifty-three (53) additional days to the contract. Board approved Change Order No. 5, was for a contractor requested change to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the planned East Bore sewer main located at the intersection of Jamacha Boulevard and Campo Road. This change also included the removal of the internal beading, which is generated during the field construction of the fusible pipe. This was a no-cost change and did not include adjustments to contract time. Change Order No. 6 (Exhibit B), which is the subject of this staff report includes the following eight (8) items: 1. Repair of an unmarked irrigation main line and irrigation controller wiring within the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center. 2. Sealing of the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center using Guard Top seal in lieu of the planned slurry seal as requested by the shopping center management. 3. Deletion of the planned slurry seal bid item work in the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center. 4. Installation of temporary striping along Campo Road to open the lanes to traffic. 5. Reimbursement to the District for costs associated with the District’s response to a contractor caused sewer spill. 6. Removal and disposal of rock encountered within the planned sewer excavation. This item includes an adjustment for rock encountered beyond 200% of the bid allowance item. 7. Additional days due to rock removal and disposal work. 8. Additional days to allow planned contract work to be completed outside the environmentally restricted bird breeding season. In total, the cost associated with the items in Change Order No. 6 is $289,908.63. Time impacts associated with this change are also provided in Exhibit B. In total, the one hundred and seven (107) additional days added to the contract will result in a revised total contract duration of 865 calendar days. 4 As of August 1, 2019, the Campo Road Sewer project is approximately 91% complete. It is anticipated that additional Change Orders for unforeseen items may occur during the completion of the remaining 9% of the construction contract work. The budget increase of $450,000.00 is requested to fund Change Order No. 6, provide for Project support including construction management and inspection, and reestablish a project contingency in anticipation of unforeseen items. If additional unforeseen items are encountered that result in a Change Order, staff will bring the Change Order forward for Board approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The Fiscal Year 2020 budget for CIP S2024 is $10,530,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including this contract Change Order, are $10,977,284. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that if the budget increase is approved by $450,000.00 (from $10,530,000.00 to $10,980,000.00), the budget for CIP S2024 is sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 50% of the funding is available from the Betterment ID 18 fund and 50% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP S2024. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the District’s Vision, “To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:jf P:\WORKING\CIP S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement\Staff Reports\BD 09-04-19\BD 09-04-19, Staff Report Campo Road Sewer Replacement - CO No. 6.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – S2024 Budget Detail Exhibit A – Project Location Map Exhibit B – Change Order No. 6 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: S2024-001103 Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP S2024 in an amount not-to-exceed $450,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 6 in an amount not-to-exceed $289,908.63 to the Construction Contract with Wier Construction Corporation for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 23, 2019, and the following comments were made: •Staff discussed the history of the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project and stated that at the May 3, 2017 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a construction contract in the amount of $7,816,645.95 to Wier Construction. •Staff noted that since the award of the contract, there have been five (5) change orders approved on the contract. A description of each change order is included on Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report. •Staff discussed Change Order No. 6 for the project. Exhibit B of the staff report provides detailed information on the eight (8) items included in the change order. The total amount for Change Order No. 6 is $289,908.63. Staff noted that in total, the one hundred and seven (107) additional days added to the contract will result in a revised total contract duration of 865 calendar days. •Staff indicated that the $450,000 budget increase is requested to fund Change Order No. 6, provide for project support that will include construction management and inspection, and reestablishment of a project contingency in anticipation of unforeseen items. •In response to a question from the Committee, staff indicated that the District is at 7.6% with change orders for this project and it includes Change Order No. 6. Following the discussion, the committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. ATTACHMENT B – S2024 Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: S2024-001103 Approval to Increase the Overall Budget for CIP S2024 in an amount not-to-exceed $450,000.00 and Approval of Change Order No. 6 in an amount not-to-exceed $289,908.63 to the Construction Contract with Wier Construction Corporation for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project 8/7/2019 Budget 10,530,000 Planning Consultant Contracts 20,020 20,020 - 20,020 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 2,139 2,139 - 2,139 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC Regulatory Agency Fees 2,260 2,260 - 2,260 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 894 894 - 894 STATE WATER RESOURCES 132 132 - 132 US BANK Service Contracts 43 43 - 43 EAST COUNTY GAZETTE 162 162 - 162 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Standard Salaries 149,717 149,717 - 149,717 Total Planning 175,367 175,367 - 175,367 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 9,315 9,315 - 9,315 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 4,025 4,025 - 4,025 MICHAEL D KEAGY REAL ESTATE 3,508 3,508 - 3,508 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 691,074 691,074 - 691,074 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 735 735 - 735 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC Professional Legal Fees 182 182 - 182 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF 1,910 1,910 - 1,910 ARTIANO SHINOFF Regulatory Agency Fees 956 956 - 956 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Service Contracts 158 158 - 158 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 62 62 - 62 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Settlements 190,000 190,000 - 190,000 VESTAR CALIFORNIA XVII LLC 144,950 144,950 - 144,950 GRI-REGENCY LLC Standard Salaries 299,842 299,842 - 299,842 Total Design 1,346,718 1,346,718 - 1,346,718 Construction Construction Contracts 405,904 363,196 42,708 405,904 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 7,712,170 6,900,718 811,452 7,712,170 WIER CONSTRUCTION CORP 289,909 - 289,909 289,909 Change Order No. 6 1,272 1,272 - 1,272 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC. Consultant Contracts 8,444 8,444 - 8,444 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 17,400 17,400 - 17,400 ALYSON CONSULTING 8,112 8,112 - 8,112 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 116,461 91,858 24,602 116,461 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 12,258 12,258 - 12,258 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 450,000 388,769 61,231 450,000 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Regulatory Agency Fees 20,000 8,961 11,039 20,000 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 20,000 19,034 966 20,000 CALTRANS PERMIT FEE Service Contracts 3,270 3,270 - 3,270 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC Standard Salaries 315,000 287,477 27,523 315,000 75,000 - 75,000 75,000 Contingency Total Construction 9,455,200 8,110,769 1,344,430 9,455,200 Grand Total 10,977,284 9,632,854 1,344,430 10,977,284 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District S2024-Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost SKYLINEWESLEYANCHURCH ?Ë AV O C A D O B L V D FURY LANE JAMA C H A B L V D JAMAC H A R D CUYAMACACOLLEGE C A M P O R D C A M P O R D ?Ë PROJECTALIGNMENT OWDREGULATORYSITE Ralph W. ChapmanWater ReclamationFacility SINGER L N RANCHOSAN DIEGOVILLAGE RANCHOSAN DIEGOTOWNECENTER Existing 10-inchGravity Sewer tobe Replaced VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä;&s ?p ?Ë !\ OTAY WATER DISTRICTCAMPO ROAD SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENTLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP S2024 0 1,000500 Feet F F P: \ W O R K I N G \ C I P S 2 0 2 4 C a m p o R o a d S e w e r R e p l a c e m e n t \ G r a p h i c s \ E x h i b i t s - F i g u r e s \ E x h i b i t A , L o c a t i o n M a p , O c t 2 0 1 5 . m x d Legend Proposed 15-Inch Sewer Main Alignment Existing 10-inch Gravity Sewer to be Replaced Existing Sewer Mains Description Increase Decrease Time Item No. 1 – Unmarked irrigation repair at Sta. 10+24 9RFI #70). PCO #11 $5,020.65 0 Item No. 2 – Resurface the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center Parking Lot with Guard Top Sealer in lieu of slurry seal. PCO #16 $25,109.71 0 Item No. 3 – Decrease Bid Item #29-Parking Lot Slurry Seal & Restriping by 61,650 SF @ $0.55/SF for a total of $33,907.50. PCO #16 $33,907.50 0 Item No. 4– Install temporary striping along Campo Road. PCO #17 $9,420.70 0 Item No. 5 – District reimbursement for contractor caused sewer spill on 3/12/19 at MH #342-112. PCO #19 $12,470.93 0 Item No. 6 – Rock Removal & Disposal. Revise Unit Price to $539.52 for all rock encountered beyond 200% of Bid Item #43-Rock Removal & Disposal. 550 CY @ $539.52. $296,736.00 0 Item No. 7 - Delays due to rock encountered per Bid Item #43-Rock Removal and Disposal. $0.00 15 Item No. 8 – Additional days for work outside of environmental breeding season. $0.00 92 Subtotal Amount: $336,287.06 <$46,378.43> 107 Total Net Change Order Amount: $289,908.63 Revisions to: BID SCHEDULE Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 29 Parking Lot Slurry Seal & Restriping 16,400 SF $0.55 $9,020.00 Reason: Item No. 1: The contractor encountered an unmarked irrigation line at Sta. 10+24 (RFI #70) that required repair. See PCO #11 for more information. Zero (0) days were added for this work. Item No. 2: The Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center property manager requested the District to use Guard Top Sealer instead of Slurry Seal for the final parking lot resurfacing to match the existing surface of the adjacent, undisturbed parking lot. See PCO #16 for details. Zero (0) days were added for this work. Item No. 3: The remainder of this bid item will not be used due to the Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center request to utilize Guard Top Sealer In lieu of Slurry Seal per PCO #16. Zero (0) days were added for this work. Item No. 4: The project’s environmental permit does not allow the contractor to complete the final paving on Campo Road due to the environmental restrictions for the Gnatcatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo breeding season. The District directed the removal of the temporary traffic control measures and placement of temporary striping to allow full access to the existing traffic lanes until the permanent paving can be completed after the breeding season ends on September 15, 2019. See PCO #17 for details. Zero (0) days were added for this work. Item No. 5: On 3/12/19, a spill occurred from MH #342-112 due to contractor generated debris that entered and blocked the sewer system during work on MH #342-142. The costs to the District for responding and clearing the debris was documented and are being deducted as part of this change order. See PCO #19 for details. Zero (0) days were added for this work. Item No. 6: The bid quantity for Bid Item #43-Rock Removal and Excavation exceeded 200% of the bid quantity. Per Specification Section 1010-1.4, the contractor is entitled to a revised unit price for those quantities in excess of the 200%. The revised unit price was agreed to be $539.52/CY. An estimated quantity of 550 CY is allocated for this change. See PCO #20 for details. Days associated with this change are addressed in Item No. 8 of this Change Order. Contact/P.O. Change Order No. 6 Page 2 of 3 Item No. 7: The contractor was delayed ten (15) days due to rock encountered per Bid Item #43-Rock Removal and on the following dates: 6/14/19, 6/18/19, 6/20/19, 6/24/19, 6/26/19, 6/28/19, 7/2/19, 7/3/19, 7/9/19, 7/11/19, 7/23/19, 7/28/19, 7/30/19, 7/31/19, 8/4/19. Item No. 8: Additional time is provided to the contractor to allow the contract work to be completed outside the environmentally restricted bird breeding seasons. It is mutually agreed by the Contractor and the District that there is no additional costs and no claims associated with this adjustment of contract time. Contact/P.O. Change Order No. 6 Page 3 of 3 CIP S2024 - Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project Project: S2024 Consultant/Contractor:Wier Construction Corporation Subproject: 001103 APPROVED C.O. AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O. 1 $74,266.00 GM 1/12/2018 Utility Conflict per RFI #10 and PCO #1A, Traffic control credit per RFI #4 and PCO #2. Base material at RSD Towne Center parking lot. Rock removal and disposal increase in quantity. Add 46 days. Contractor 2 $0.00 RP 4/5/2018 Revise sewer slope between MH #7 and MH# 8 to a minimum of 1%.Contractor 3 $156,192.12 Board 11/8/2018 East Bore Pit Realignment PCO #3, Cut and Cap Irrigation PCO #5, Sewer Main Realignment MH #18A to MH 17A PCO #7, Remove abandoned utilities PCO #8, Repair Offset Pipe at MH #20 PCO #9, and Increase Bid Item No. 43 Rock Removal and Disposal. Contractor 4 $70,970.00 Board 5/2/2019 Unmarked 24-inch storm drain, abandoned storm drain along SR 94, Increased excavation due to existing sewer alignment, removal and replacement of Caltrans traffic signal interconnect conduit and fiber optic cable, weather days. Contractor 5 $0.00 Board 5/2/2019 No cost/time contractor requested change to revise the horizontal and vertical alignment for the sewer main between MH 12A and MH 14 due to East Pit Jack and Bore. Contractor 6 $289,908.63 Board Rock removal and disposal in excess of 200% of bid allowance item, temporary striping along Campo Road, Guard Top pavement seal in lieu of slurry seal at RSD Village Shopping Center, Credit of District costs associated with sewer spill, unmarked irrigation repair at RSD Village Shopping Center, time adjustments for rock impacts and work outside of environmental breeding season. Contractor 7 8 9 10 Total C.O.'s To Date: $591,336.75 7.6% Original Contract Amount:$7,816,645.95 Current Contract Amount:$8,407,982.70 Month Net C.O.$ Limit Authorization Absolute C.O.$ C.O. % 8/19 $289,908.63 $2,000 Insp $289,908.63 3.7% $10,000 PM/Sr. Engr. 0.0% $20,000 DivM 0.0% $25,000 Chief 0.0% $75,000 GM 0.0% >$75000 Board 0.0% CHANGE ORDER LOG P:\WORKING\CIP S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement\Construction\Change Orders\S2024_COLOG_190807 1 8/7/2019 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron Associate Civil Engineer PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Dan Martin, Assistant Chief, Engineering Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Contract for As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services to Moraes, Pham & Associates for Fiscal Years 2020-2022 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a professional service contracts for As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Moraes, Pham & Associates (Moraes/Pham) in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 during Fiscal Years 2020-2022 (ending June 30, 2022). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a professional services contract for As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services with Moraes/Pham in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 for Fiscal Years 2020-2022. AGENDA ITEM 7c 2 ANALYSIS: The District will require the services of a professional electrical engineering consultant on an as-needed basis in support of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects for Fiscal Years 2020-2022. It is more efficient and cost effective to issue as-needed contracts for electrical engineering services, which will provide the District with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and efficient manner. This concept has also been used in the past for other disciplines, such as construction management, geotechnical, engineering design, and environmental services. The District staff will identify tasks and request a cost proposal from the consultant during the contract period. The consultant will prepare a detailed scope of work, schedule, and fee for each task order. Upon written task order authorization from the District, the consultant shall then proceed with the project, as described in the scope of work. The CIP projects that potentially require electrical engineering services for Fiscal Years 2020-2022, and estimated costs, are listed below: CIP DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST P2174 1090-1 Pump Station Replacement $35,000 P2630 624-3 Reservoir Automation of Chemical Feed System $35,000 P2639 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement $50,000 P2658 832-1 Pump Station Modifications $20,000 P2663 Potable Water Pressure Vessel Program $15,000 TOTAL:$155,000 Staff believes that a $175,000 cap on the As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services contract is adequate, while still providing a buffer for any unforeseen tasks. Fees for professional services will be charged to the CIP projects. The As-Needed Electrical Engineering Services contract does not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to perform the work. The District does not guarantee work to the consultant, nor does the District guarantee to the consultant that it will expend all the funds authorized by the contract on professional services. 3 The District solicited electrical engineering consulting services by placing an advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website and using BidSync, the District’s online bid solicitation website, on May 2, 2019. The advertisement was also placed in the Daily Transcript. Seven (7) firms submitted a Letter of Interest and a Statement of Qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to all seven (7) firms resulting in four (4) proposals received on June 6, 2019. They are as follows: • BSE Engineering (San Diego, CA) • Engineering Partners, Inc (San Diego, CA) • Linkture Consulting Engineers (Los Angeles, CA) • Moraes, Pham & Associates (Carlsbad, CA) Firms that submitted Letters of Interest (LOI), but did not propose, were Elen Consulting, Hazen and Sawyer, and Kewo Engineering Corporation. In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, five (5) staff members evaluated and scored the four (4) proposals. Moraes/Pham received the highest scores based on their experience, understanding of the scope of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their composite hourly rate. Moraes/Pham have provided similar services to other local agencies, and are readily available to provide the services required. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B. Moraes/Pham submitted the Company Background Questionnaire, as required by the RFP, and staff did not find any significant issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. Staff is selecting one consultant for this service because the electrical portions are too small compared to the overall associated CIP projects. Also, it is easier work with one consultant that is familiar with the electrical components that are preferred by District staff. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The funds for these contracts will be expended on a variety of projects, as previously noted above. These contracts are for as- needed professional services based on the District's need and schedule, and expenditures will not be made until a task order is 4 approved by the District for the consultant's services on a specific CIP project. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets will be sufficient to support the professional as-needed consulting services required for the CIP projects noted above. The Finance Department has determined that the funds to cover these contracts will be available as budgeted for these projects. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." GRANTS/LOANS: Not applicable. LEGAL IMPACT: None. KC/BK:jf P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Electrical\FY 2020-2022\Staff Report\BD_09-04-2019_Staff Report_Award of As-Needed Electrical Engineering Services (KC-BK).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award a Professional Services Contract for As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services to Moraes, Pham & Associates for Fiscal Years 2020-2022 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 23, 2019, and the following comments were made: •Staff indicated that the current Electrical Engineering agreement is 79% committed and that an As-Needed Electrical Engineering consultant will be needed for upcoming CIP projects in Fiscal Years 2020-2022. Page 2 of the staff report provides a detailed list of anticipated projects. •Staff discussed the selection process and indicated that Moraes/Pham received the highest overall score. It was noted that staff is selecting one consultant for this service because the electrical efforts are small compared to the overall associated CIP project. It is also easier to work with one consultant that is familiar with the electrical components for the associated work. •The Committee inquired about how the Consultant’s fees are ranked. A brief explanation was provided about the current process. After further discussion, Staff agreed to look into other options, including how selections were done prior to the current process, and report back to the Committee. Following the discussion, the committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. Qualifications of Team Responsiveness and Project Understanding Technical and Management Approach INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Proposed Rates* Consultant's Commitment to DBE TOTAL SCORE 30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 Poor/Good/ Excellent Bob Kennedy 27 23 27 77 Brandon DiPietro 27 20 25 72 Don Anderson 25 23 25 73 Kevin Cameron 27 23 27 77 Michael Kerr 25 22 24 71 Bob Kennedy 24 19 24 67 Brandon DiPietro 24 21 23 68 Don Anderson 25 20 20 65 Kevin Cameron 24 21 24 69 Michael Kerr 22 23 21 66 Bob Kennedy 25 20 24 69 Brandon DiPietro 25 21 24 70 Don Anderson 20 20 25 65 Kevin Cameron 25 21 24 70 Michael Kerr 25 20 21 66 Bob Kennedy 27 22 27 76 Brandon DiPietro 28 25 28 81 Don Anderson 25 25 25 75 Kevin Cameron 29 23 28 80 Michael Kerr 26 23 26 75 Firm BSE EPI Linkture Moraes/Pham Fee $895 $835 $843 $860 Score 1 15 13 9 Notes: 1. Review Panel does not see or consider proposed fee when scoring other categories. The proposed fee is scored by Engineering staff, who are not on the Review Panel. 2. The fees were evaluated by comparing rates for six (6) positions. The sum of these rates are noted in the above table. 74 RATES SCORING CHART Engineering Partners, Inc. (EPI) 67 15 82 81 77 9 86Moraes, Pham & Associates EXCELLENTY BSE Engineering, Inc.75 WRITTEN Y MAXIMUM POINTS 1 Y Y ATTACHMENT BSUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS As-Needed Electrical Engineering Consulting Services Linkture Consulting Engineers, Inc 68 13 REFERENCES \\owd-fp1\ENGRPLAN\WORKING\As Needed Services\Electrical\FY 2020-2022\Staff Report\Summary of Proposal Rankings.xls STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Brandon DiPietro Field Services Manager PROJECT NO./ SUBPROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Dan Martin, Assistant Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of Professional Services Contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects for Fiscal Years 2020, 2021, and 2022 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a Professional Services contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects to Murraysmith, Incorporated (Murraysmith) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Murraysmith in an amount not-to- exceed $175,000, for a period of three (3) fiscal years (FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022). The contractual end date will be June 30, 2022. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a Professional Services contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects with Murraysmith in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000, for a period of three (3) fiscal years (FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022). The contractual end date will be June 30, 2022. AGENDA ITEM 7d 2 ANALYSIS: The District will require the As-Needed services of a consulting firm to provide professional services in support of developer projects. The Consultant assists the Public Services Division of the Engineering Department in processing and performing plan check review for developer potable and recycled projects. The Plan Checking services require the consultant to be a Registered Civil Engineer (Project Manager) familiar with the District’s procedures. The Project Manager will provide quality control for all plan reviews. A Project Engineer will provide approximately twenty (20) hours on average of plan review service per set of plans. Services the consultant will perform are as follows: perform plan review activities necessary to evaluate general compliance with District, WAS, DEH, and DDW standards as required for each plan received. The consultant will coordinate approval with District, DEH, DDW, and developers, as required. The consultant will deliver reviewed recycled water plan(s) to DEH for their evaluation and approval. It is anticipated that the Consultant will review approximately sixty (60) projects or more. Over the same period, staff estimates the cost to perform this responsibility will not exceed $175,000. Since these services are As-Needed, driven by development, and completely funded by developer deposits, the full amount of this contract may not be expended. On June 6, 2019, the District solicited for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects by placing an advertisement on the District’s website, BidSnyc, and the San Diego Daily Transcript. Nine (9) firms submitted a letter of interest and a statement of qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects was sent to the nine (9) firms resulting in two (2) proposals received by Friday, July 19, 2019, from the following firms: •AEGIS Engineering Management of San Diego, CA •Murraysmith Incorporated of San Diego, CA The seven (7) firms that chose not to propose are Brady and Associates, Wood Rodgers Inc., ERSC Inc., Hunsaker and Associates, NV5, Jensen Hughes Engineering, and Michael Baker International. Of the two (2) proposals received, both were found to be responsive with respect to the District’s requirements. The remaining seven (7) declined to propose due to various reasons including expressing difficulty with finding capacity to accommodate additional work. 3 In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and scored the written proposals of the two (2) firms on Wednesday, August 6, 2019. The District has chosen to utilize one consultant for this contract due to the volume of plan checks expected. Murraysmith received the highest score for their services based on their experience, understanding of the scope of work, and proposed method to accomplish the work. Though the composite rate was higher, the District expects to realize efficiencies in reduced consultant and District staff time in the processing of plan checks through the use of technology. Murraysmith was the most qualified with the best overall rating or ranking. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B. Murraysmith submitted the Company Background Questionnaire, as required by the RFP, and staff did not find any significant issues. Staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. Murraysmith’s project manager listed in the proposal has vast plan checking and project management experience. Staff estimated that an average of $2,500 will be needed per project to perform the plan check review services. The District recuperates these funds by billing directly to the developer. The District has historically utilized professional As-Needed services to support the delivery of private potable and recycled water projects that are part of a development. The use of the As- Needed services is directly tied to the rate of development, which is influenced by the economy. As-Needed services are flexible and only used as development is initiated. As a result, the use of As-Needed services in support of developer projects has been a useful tool that can flex with the economic swings that may occur over time. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Plan check, inspection, and project management services are an on- going effort provided by the District’s Public Services Division in support of developer projects. This particular expense is completely funded by developer deposits and does not affect the District’s operating budget. 4 STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." GRANTS/LOANS: Not applicable. LEGAL IMPACT: None. BD/DM:jf P:\Public-s\RFPs\Plan Check Services FY 2020-2022\Staff Report\Staff Report As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects (BD-DM).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award of Professional Services Contract for As-Needed Plan Check Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects for Fiscal Years 2020, 2021, and 2022 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 23, 2019, and the following comments were made: •Staff estimates that the consultant will review approximately sixty (60) projects over the term of this contract in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000. Staff stated that since these services are As-Needed and driven by development, the full amount of this contract may not be expended. •Staff discussed the Request for Proposal and selection process. See Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report for details. It was indicated that of the nine (9) Firms who submitted a letter of interest, only two (2) Firms submitted proposals. Staff noted that the remaining seven (7) Firms declined to submit a proposal due to various reasons including the difficulty with finding capacity to accommodate additional work. •Staff stated that the District has chosen to utilize one consultant for this contract due to the volume of plan checks expected. •Staff indicated that Murraysmith received the highest score for services based on their experience and noted that the Firm was the most qualified with the best overall rating or ranking. •It was highlighted that the use of As-Needed services is directly tied to the rate of development, which is influenced by economy. Staff stated that As-Needed services are flexible and only used as development is initiated. As a result, the use of As-Needed services in support of developer projects has been a useful tool that can flex with the economic swings that may occur over time. •The Committee inquired about the qualifications of both Firms (Murraysmith and AEGIS). Staff stated that Murraysmith’s staff were highly qualified as even plan checking staff were Professional Engineers, whereas AEGIS has Engineers in Training performing plan checking duties. Staff also stated that Murraysmith’s proposal displayed a greater depth and expertise combined with the use of technology. It is expected that this technology will enhance the District’s efficiencies by reducing consultant and District staff time with processing of plan checks. The new technology will also enhance the District’s collaboration with the County of San Diego. •In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that AEGIS is a local business that was established approximately 10 years ago. Murraysmith has been in business for approximately 30 to 40 years and has facilities throughout the West Coast. Following the discussion, the committee supported staff’s recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. Qualifications of Staff Understanding of Scope, Schedule and Resources Soundness and Viability of Proposed Project Plan INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Proposed Rates* Consultant's Commitment to DBE TOTAL WRITTEN 30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 Poor/Good/ Excellent Dan Martin 23 19 23 65 Brandon 23 20 22 65 Jonathan Chambers 23 19 22 64 Juan Tamayo 25 20 20 65 Kent Payne 24 22 22 68 Dan Martin 29 24 29 82 Brandon 30 24 30 84 Jonathan Chambers 28 24 28 80 Juan Tamayo 28 24 28 80 Kent Payne 28 23 28 79 Firm Fee Score Notes: 1. Review Panel does not see or consider proposed fee when scoring other categories. The proposed fee is scored by Engineering staff, who is not on the Review Panel. 2. The fees were evaluated by comparing rates for five (5) positions. The sum of these rates are noted in the above table. N 82 RATES SCORING CHART Aegis $101.70 15 Murray Smith $147.56 1 MURRAYSMITH Excellent ATTACHMENT B REFERENCES 65 WRITTEN 80 81 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS As-Needed Plan Check Services - Fiscal Years 2020 - 2022 MAXIMUM POINTS 15AEGIS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT Y P:\Public-s\STAFF REPORTS\2019\BD 09-04-19 Plan Checking\Attachment B - Summary of Proposal Rankings.xls STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager W.O./G.F. NO: DIV. NO. APPROVED BY: Susan Cruz, District Secretary Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Board of Directors 2019 Calendar of Meetings GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the Board, the attached Board of Director’s meeting calendar for 2019 is being presented for discussion. PURPOSE: This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 2019 Board of Director’s meeting calendar and amend the schedule as needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: N/A ANALYSIS: The Board requested that this item be presented at each meeting so they may have an opportunity to review the Board meeting calendar schedule and amend it as needed. STRATEGIC GOAL: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: None. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachment: Calendar of Meetings for 2019 G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar 9-04-19.doc AGENDA ITEM 8a Board of Directors, Workshops and Committee Meetings 2019 Regular Board Meetings: Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted) January 2, 2019 February 6, 2019 March 6, 2019 April 3, 2019 May 1, 2019 June 5, 2019 July 3, 2019 August 7, 2019 September 4, 2019 October 2, 2019 November 6, 2019 December 4, 2019 January 16, 2019 February 20, 2019 March 20, 2019 April 17, 2019 May 22, 2019 June 19, 2019 July 24, 2019 August 21, 2019 September 18, 2019 October 23, 2019 November 20, 2019 December 18, 2019 SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGS: October 8, 2019, Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.: Facilities Tour BOARD WORKSHOPS: STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 PROJECT: DIV. NO. ALL SUBMITTED BY:Kelli Williamson Human Resources Manager APPROVED BY: Adolfo Segura, Chief, Administrative Services Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT:Present Results of the 2019 Employee Survey GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: This is an informational item. No action is required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see “Attachment A”. PURPOSE: To present results of the 2019 Employee Survey. ANALYSIS: Via Board direction, staff conducted an employee survey. Employee surveys measure employees’ opinions about compensation, workload, teamwork, employees’ perceptions about management, resources and more. The District conducts these surveys from time to time and the last survey was conducted in 2010. The goal of these surveys is to gather information and use the data to drive strategic initiatives to improve employee engagement, enhance teamwork, and further the District’s mission commitment. Staff and the General Manager reviewed several providers and it was determined to utilize the services of Rea & Parker Research. The District used Rea & Parker Research in 2008 and 2010. Staff utilized most of the same questions from prior surveys, with only minor updates as needed. The survey was administered in May 2019. Employees each received an email AGENDA ITEM 9a from the General Manger with an overview of the survey, followed-up by an email from Rea & Parker Research. Employees entered data directly to a private, secure server only accessible by Rea & Parker Research. Of the 136 employees, 130 completed the survey, or 96% of the employees, which is a very high participation rate. As summarized in the report by Rea & Parker Research “The fundamental conclusion to be drawn from the 2019 Employee Satisfaction Survey is that Otay Water District employees are very satisfied with their employment.” Rea & Parker Research will present highlights of the findings in a presentation format (Attachment B). A summary of the results can be found in the Otay Water District 2019 Employee Satisfaction Survey (Attachment C). The results have been shared with District staff. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Funds were allocated in the budget and the cost to conduct the survey was $13,000. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachment A – Committee Report Attachment B – PowerPoint Presentation Attachment C – Otay Water District 2019 Employee Survey ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT:Present Results of the 2019 Employee Survey COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance & Administration Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 20, 2019 and the following comments were made: •Staff presented the results of the Employee Satifaction Survey. •Staff reviewed information in the staff report and the District’s consultants, Drs. Lou Rea and Richard Parker of Rea & Parker Research, reviewed, in detail, the results of the Employee Satisfaction Survey. •Dr. Parker indicated that Employee Satisfaction Survey contains 99 questions and employees were provided a link to the survey via email. He stated that 90 of the questions were specific to characteristics associated with work and employees were asked to rate statements on a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being highly disagree and 7 being highly agree. The statements included, I have enough resources to do my job, my morale at work is generally good, etc. The employees were also asked to rate how important that statement is on a scale from 1 to 7. There were two open-ended questions at the end of the survey which asked employees to share something that was going well and one thing that can be improved upon. The remainder of the survey was to rate four questions related to the employee’s overall satisfaction; overall, how satisfied are you as an employee of the District; would you recommend the District as a place of employment; etc. •The District’s mean satisfaction result on a 1 to 7 scale was 5.84 (85% satisfaction above the midpoint) which indicates District employees satisfaction is of the highest level. Other public employee satisfaction surveys rated a mean range between 3.7 and 5.7. The Committee inquired how the public sector compared with the private sector. Dr. Parker indicated that he was not certain, but he had the ratings for a few private sector organizations that have tremendous satisfaction (well over 90% satisfaction above the midpoint) which were In and Out Burger, Facebook and St. Jude. Dr. Parker stated he would look into the overall rating for the private sector following the meeting and report his findings at the board meeting. •The survey indicates that the District is fulfilling its responsibility as an employer. It was noted that the results of this Employee Satisfaction Survey is better than the survey performed in 2010. •The Committee read a couple reviews posted on the Indeed website (a website where organizations can post open positions) by a couple of former employees of Otay WD. One of the postings was by a former employee who held the position of Reclamation Plant Operator III. The post indicated, “Operated water reclamation facility on a 4-10 schedule and was on call two days per week. Learned about safety, wastewater treatment, and how to run an efficient water district/public utility. Management was direct, demanding and knowledgeable. Co-workers were hardworking people who took pride in their jobs, but had a hard time enthusiastically accepting the high demands of a well-run utility. Hardest part of the job was being on call and not getting much sleep those nights. Most enjoyable part of the job was working the 4-10 schedue and getting three days off per week.” •In response to an inquiry from the Committee, staff indicated that the District’s senior management team is reviewing the results of the Employee Satisfaction Survey to identify one or two areas that the District can do better or develop new ideas to enhance employee satisfaction. •Staff indicated that they met with the managers to share the outcome of the Employee Satisfaction Survey and will be sharing the results with the supervisors this week. The Department Heads will then review the information with their departments. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee recommended presentation to the full board as an informational item. 2019 Employee Satisfaction Survey Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research September, 2019 Attachment B Methodology Online survey—May 16, 2019 Taken at Otay Water District offices 99 questions 45 agreement/disagreement 45 importance 4 satisfaction 5 general/demographic E-mail notices and reminders from GM on May 14and Rea & Parker Research on May 15 116 out of 136 employees participated by May 20 Additional time (until May 23) was provided forthose away or otherwise unable to participate—two follow up e-mails from Rea & Parker Research Total participants by May 24 = 130/136 (96 percent) 2 Participants 72 percent male Median age = 47.5 Median length of service = 11 years 7 percent 20 or more years 8 percent in first year Department Operations = 39 percent Finance = 23 percent Engineering = 21 percent Administration = 17 percent Position type Non-management = 79 percent Supervisor –Crew Leader = 10 percent Management = 11 percent 3 Overall Satisfaction ▪The level of satisfaction among employees with their being employed by the Otay Water District is superior. ▪Employees rate their satisfaction with being an employee of the Otay Water District at a mean rating of 5.84 on a scale of 1 = Highly Dissatisfied to 7 = Highly Satisfied. 4 70 percent of employees rate their employment at 6 or 7 –85 percent rate it at 5, 6, or 7--(scale 1-7). This is indicative of a great deal ofsatisfaction 5 0%10%20%30%40%50% 1 = Highly Dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 = Highly Satisfied 1% 4% 3% 7% 15% 25% 45% Overall Satisfaction as Employee of Otay Water District Scale: 1 = Highly Dissatisfied...7 = Highly Satisfied (Mean rating = 5.84) Satisfaction Relative to Other Public Sector Satisfaction Surveys ▪Employee satisfaction demonstrated in this survey by Otay Water District employees isat the very highest level (85 percentsatisfaction above the midpoint (5,6,or 7)and 5.84 mean satisfaction on a 1-7 scale— see slide 5). ▪In other public employee satisfaction surveys,45 percent to 85 percent of employees havedemonstrated satisfaction levels above the midpoint on their respective satisfactionscales. ▪Mean satisfaction ratings in these other studieshave ranged between 3.7 and 5.7 (on 1-7scales or scales adjusted to equate to 1-7). 6 A notable percentage of employees (95 percent) stated that they would recommend the Otay Water District as a place of employment. 7 Yes, 95% No, 5% Recommend Otay Water District as Place of Employment Compared to 2010 ▪Overall satisfaction did not change significantly from the 2010 employeesurvey. ▪When the individual substantivequestions and categorical means are examined in greater detail, there are considerably more increases in agreement with the questions than there are decreases, demonstrating, once again, that the District is very well regarded by its employees. 8 Survey Categories The survey contained eight categories of questions as follows: Workplace and Resources Safety emphasis, provision of necessary equipment and resources Opportunities for Professional Growth Training, advancement potential Compensation and Benefits Quality of pay and benefits Management/Supervision Management leadership qualities, supervisor encouragement Employee Interaction Teamwork, employees supportive Feedback and Employee Evaluation Constructive comments from supervisor, fair performance evaluation Morale Contributions valued, job security, rewarding work Communications Supervisor shares information, encouraged to communicate openly, timely responses fromsupervisor 9 The highest rated categories for agreement/satisfaction are Workplace and Resources and Compensation and Benefits. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communications, 5.94 Morale, 5.68 Feedback and Employee Evaluation, 5.97 Employee Interaction, 5.92 Management/Supervision, 5.93 Compensation and Benefits, 6.04 Opportunities for Professional Growth, 5.47 Workplace and Resources, 6.08 Survey Categories: Agreement Means Scale: 1 = Highly Disagree…7 = Highly Agree (Overall Mean = 5.88) The highest rated categories for importance are Compensation and Benefits, Morale and Management/Supervision. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communications, 6.48 Morale, 6.64 Feedback and Employee Evaluation, 6.54 Employee Interaction, 6.62 Management/Supervision, 6.64 Compensation and Benefits, 6.73 Opportunities for Professional Growth, 6.38 Workplace and Resources, 6.60 Survey Categories: Importance Means Scale: 1 = Very Unimportant…7 = Very Important (Overall Mean = 6.58) Key Individual Employment Characteristics Strongest associations (Pearson r correlations) between individual characteristics and overall satisfaction Management Team Provides Effective Leadership (Management/Supervision) I am Optimistic about My Future Success with the District (Morale) Management Team Makes Informed Decisions (Management/Supervision) Employee Evaluation is Fair (Feedback/Employee Evaluation) Department Morale is Good (Morale) I am Fairly Paid for the Work I Do (Compensation and Benefits) Pay is Competitive with Similar Organizations in the Area (Comp and Benefits) My Morale is Good (Morale) Comfortable Sharing Opinion About Work-Related Matters (Communication) My Contributions are Valued (Morale) Job Provides Opportunity to Advance My Skills (Opportunities for Prof. Growth) 12 Key Individual Employment Characteristics The core characteristics that make the OtayWater District an excellent place to work are: Agreement/satisfaction above mean = 5.88 AND importanceabovemean = 6.58 Supervisor Provides Opportunity to Express Concerns Supervisor Treats Me with Respect Department Employees Share Information Department Employees are Accountable for Their Work Performance Evaluation is Fair Understand How My Work Contributes to District Success Department Employees Work as a Team Department Employees Support Each Other 13 Key Individual Employment Characteristics Continued enhancement in the followingareas that already exhibit high levels ofemployee satisfaction can yield even furtherincreases in employee satisfaction: Agreement/satisfaction below mean = 5.88 AND importanceabovemean = 6.58 Department Morale is Good My Morale is Good Have Job Security Optimistic about Future Success with District Supervisor Shares Information with Employees My Contributions are Valued Comfort Sharing Work-Related Opinion with Supervisor. 14 15 0%5%10%15%20% Benefits-Compensation, 19% Teamwork/High Quality Employees, 18% Morale/Employee Recognition, 11% Safety Priority, 7% District's Financial Strength/Job Security, 6% Customer Service/Excellent Reputation, 6% Physical Improvements/Equipment, 6% Communication with Management , 5% Strategic Planning, 4% Nintex/Technology, 4% Open-Ended Question: Example of What Works Well at District n = 98 One Thing That Can Be Improved Employee Benefits and Compensation Interdepartmental Communication Advancement/Promotion from Within Morale/Employee Recognition 16 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 20% 17% 12% 10% 7%6%6%5%5% Open-Ended Question: One Thing That Can Be Improved (n = 81) Compensation and Benefits Interdepartment Communication Advancement/Promote from Within Employee Morale/Recognition Communication with Management/Management Style/Trust Training/Professional Development Better Equipment/Physical Amenities Need More Technological Improvements Human Resources Policies/Discipline Conclusion The Otay Water District is clearly fulfilling its responsibilities to its employees to an outstandingly high degree. 17 Rea & Parker Research July 2019 2019 Otay Water District Employee Satisfaction Survey Report Attachment C Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary iii Introduction 1 Methodology 1 Employee General Information/Demographics 4 Survey Findings 8 Overall Satisfaction 8 Agreement and Importance That the District Exhibits Certain Employment-Related Characteristics 9 Correlations: Characteristics Agreements and Overall Satisfaction 12 Satisfaction/Importance Quadrant Analysis 13 Employee Indications of Things Going Well at District and What Needs Improvement 14 Brief Overview of Differences from 2010 Employee Survey 16 Appendix: Survey Instrument 18 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 iii OTAY WATER DISTRICT: 2019 EMPLOYEE SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The fundamental conclusion to be drawn from the 2019 Employee Satisfaction Survey is that Otay Water District employees are very satisfied with their employment. In fact, the level of satisfaction demonstrated by employees of the District is superior. The Otay Water District is clearly fulfilling its responsibilities as an employer to an outstandingly high degree. Employees rate their satisfaction with being an employee of the Otay WaterDistrict at a mean rating of 5.84 on a scale of 1 = Highly Dissatisfied to 7 = HighlySatisfied. •Seven in ten (70 percent) employees rate their employment at 6 or 7 (indicative ofa great deal of satisfaction). In other public employee satisfaction surveys, a range of 45 percent to 85 percentof employees has demonstrated satisfaction levels above the midpoint on theirrespective satisfaction scales. The percentage above the midpoint for overallsatisfaction among Otay Water District employees is 85 percent. Further, mean satisfaction ratings in these other studies have ranged between 3.7and 5.7 (on 1-7 scales or scales adjusted to equate to 1-7). The mean overallsatisfaction is 5.84 for Otay Water District employees. By all reasonable measures, the employee satisfaction demonstrated in this survey by Otay WaterDistrict employees is at the very highest level. A notable percentage of employees (95 percent) stated that they wouldrecommend the Otay Water District as a place of employment. The survey contained eight subsections that identified and categorized 45employment-related characteristics. Each of the eight category related means isaveraged to produce an overall agreement mean of 5.88. Quadrant Analysis indicates that the core characteristics that make the Otay WaterDistrict an excellent place to work are: The District promotes safety and all necessary resources and equipment are available to do a good job. Employees consider the benefit package to be good as well ascompetitive with other organizations, and they tend to understandbenefit plans. Supervisors and managers are rated highly because they are open towork-related concerns. Moreover, supervisors treat employees withrespect. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 iv Employees understand their work goals and objectives and further understand the relationship between their work and the success of theDistrict. Employees feel that their employee evaluation is fair. In terms of morale, the District provides balance between work andpersonal life. Employees indicate in their open-ended responses that Employee Benefits andCompensation, Teamwork/High Quality Employees, and Morale/EmployeeRecognition are the most positive characteristics of the Otay Water District. Employees also indicate in their open-ended responses that Compensation andBenefits, Interdepartmental Communication, Advancement/Promotion fromWithin, and Morale/Employee Recognition are most in need of improvement. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2019 EMPLOYEE SURVEY INTRODUCTION The Otay Water District requested that a consultant conduct an employee survey to assess various characteristics of job satisfaction among the 136 employees who work for the District. Rea & Parker Research was selected to be the consultant that would draft, conduct, and analyze a web-based Internet survey. The survey (included in the appendix) contains 45 questions requesting employees to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that certain positive employment characteristics were provided and exhibited by the Otay Water District. Another 45 questions inquired as to the importance or lack of importance that the employees attached to each of these characteristics. There are also 4 satisfaction-based questions, and 5 general information questions for a total of 99 questions in total. Methodology Although much of the survey remained as it had been designed in 2008 and 2010, a review was conducted with Otay Water District management staff in order to refine the survey so that it would, even better than in previous surveys, achieve the goals and objectives of finding out key satisfaction and importance opinions of the employees. Three e-mails were sent to each employee—the first from the Otay Water District General Manager on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, as follows: To: All District Employees From: Mark Watton, General Manager Date: May 14, 2019 Subject: Employee Survey In our continuing commitment to create and maintain a professional work environment for employees, the District is asking you to participate in an employee survey. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 2 The survey is designed to provide you with an opportunity to voice your opinions and observations about working at the District. Your participation in this survey is very important in helping the District in its continuing efforts to understand your perspective on work-related issues and to support and improve your experience as an employee of the District. Within a few days, you will receive another e-mail directly from the researchers – Rea & Parker Research. This second e-mail will provide a unique username and password that will enable you to access the survey online. There are no right or wrong answers, so just let us know what you think. All answers will be strictly anonymous, and responses will be summarized when reported. Your individual responses will go directly to the Rea & Parker Research website and not be individually traceable or identifiable. The District will not be able to view individual results. The District will only receive information summarized by Rea and Parker Research. Please look for the survey link in your e-mail. The District has set aside time for you to complete the survey on Thursday, May 16, 2019. The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete and we ask that you complete the survey during the beginning of your work shift on Thursday. The survey can be completed at your workstation, on your laptop/Tough Book or on your cell phone. If you have any questions regarding this employee survey, you may contact Human Resources or Rea and Parker at parker3@sdsu.edu or lrea@mail.sdsu.edu or at 858-279-5070. Thank you in advance for your time and contribution, Mark Watton After working hours in the evening of Wednesday, May 15, 2019, the following e-mail went out to all employees from Rea & Parker Research. This e-mail provided the link that had an embedded unique username and password (for each employee) that would allow them to access the survey. Dear ________________, Earlier in the week, the District notified you by e-mail that it is conducting an employee survey. As an employee of the Otay Water District, your participation in this survey is very important in helping the District in its continuing efforts to understand your perspective on work-related issues and to support and improve your experiences as an employee. When you are ready to begin the survey, which is expected to take approximately 15 minutes, please click on the link below. Each employee has his or her own distinct and unique link. Upon clicking the link, the survey will be accessible to you and you will be able to complete it and submit it to our confidential server. Your individual answers will remain anonymous to the District. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 3 You may complete the survey at your workstation computer or on your laptop or smart cell phone. If you use your cell phone, please be aware of three considerations: 1.Do not use your browser’s back button. That will take you out of thesurvey and you will lose any unsaved responses. To go back, use the arrow provided in the survey instrument.2.If you omit a required question, your cell phone will take you back tothe beginning of the section and you may not see which question you omitted. Please scroll down until you see the red notice answer(s)is/are required.3.Please be aware that the survey includes a rating scale of 1 to 7. If the font size on your phone is set to a larger font, some of the indicatorsmay not appear on the limited space of the screen. Please scroll down,if needed, in the numbers section to click on the desired rating or adjust the font size on your phone. If you need to take a break while completing the survey, a save and continue option is available. If you choose this option at any point during the survey, you will receive an e-mail under my name confirming that you have selected to save and continue the survey at a later time. Survey link: _________________________ If you have any questions, please e-mail me at parker3@sdsu.edu or you can contact Lou Rea at lrea@sdsu.edu. Thank you in advance for your participation. Sincerely, Richard Parker, Ph.D. President, Rea & Parker Research P.O. Box 421079 San Diego, CA 92142-1079 858-279-5070 Each employee was able to use his or her own work computer, the employee’s personal computer, or employee’s cell phone to access the survey link and to complete the survey. By Monday, May 20, 116 out of the 136 employees had completed surveys. Some employees were away on vacation and others did not complete the survey for reasons known only to them. A follow- up e-mail on Monday, May 20 went to those employees who had yet to complete the survey, as follows: Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 4 Otay Water District is conducting an Employee Survey. A link was sent to you on Thursday, May 16th. We are not yet in receipt of your employee survey response. As an employee of the Otay Water District, your participation in this survey is very important in helping the District in its continuing efforts to understand your perspective on work-related issues and to support and improve your experiences as an employee. Therefore, if you could take just a few minutes to complete the survey, it would be very much appreciated. The link is included below. Please respond today, if possible, or no later than Thursday, May 23rd. Thank you. Richard A. Parker, Ph.D. President Rea & Parker Research P.O. Box 421079 San Diego, California 92142 858-279-5070 During that extended period, 14 additional employees submitted their surveys, resulting in 130 completed surveys (96 percent) and leaving 6 not completed. Data was then taken from the website and loaded into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for analysis. The report that follows details the results and findings of this analytical process. The Appendix contains the frequencies for each question and the questionnaire, itself. Employee General Information/Demographics Charts 1-5 depict certain demographic characteristics of Otay Water District employees who responded to the survey (130 out of 136). Responding employees of the District are 72 percent male (Chart 1). The median age of employees is 47.5 (Chart 2), and they have worked for the Otay Water District for a median of 11 years, with 7 percent having worked at the District for 20 or more years and 8 percent presently in their first year of employment (Chart 3). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 5 Female, 28% Male, 72% Chart 1 Employee Gender 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Under 30, 6% 30 and under 40, 13% 40 and under 45, 19% 45 and under 50, 24% 50 and under 55, 18% 55 and over, 20% Chart 2 Employee Age (median age = 47.5) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 6 Operations is the largest department (39 percent) followed by Finance (23 percent)—Chart 4, and almost three-fourths of employees (79 percent) are non-management employees, including crew leaders (Chart 5). 0%10%20%30% 8% 10% 5% 22% 30% 18% 7% Chart 3 Employee Length of Service (median length of service = 11 years) 20 years or more 15 years and under 20 years 10 years and under 15 years 5 years and under 10 years 3 years and under 5 years 1 year and under 3 years Less than 1 year Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 7 Administrative Services, General Manager, 17% Engineering, 21%Finance , 23% Operations, 39% Chart 4 Department of Employment within Otay Water District Non-Management Employee79% Supervisor/Crew Leader10% Management11% Chart 5 Position Type Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 8 SURVEY FINDINGS Overall Satisfaction It is very clear that employees of the Otay Water District are quite satisfied with their employment. Chart 6 shows that employees rate their satisfaction with being an employee of the Otay Water District at a mean rating of 5.84 on a scale of 1 = Highly Dissatisfied to 7 = Highly Satisfied. Seven in ten employees (70 percent) rate their employment at 6 or 7 (a further indication of a great deal of satisfaction). In other public employee satisfaction surveys, a range of 45 percent to 85 percent of employees has demonstrated satisfaction levels above the midpoint on their respective satisfaction scales. The percentage above the midpoint for overall satisfaction among Otay Water District employees is 85 percent. Further, mean satisfaction ratings in these other studies have ranged between 3.7 and 5.7 (on 1-7 scales or scales adjusted to equate to 1-7). The mean overall satisfaction is 5.84 for Otay 0%10%20%30%40%50% 1 = HighlyDissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 = HighlySatisfied 1% 4% 3% 7% 15% 25%45% Chart 6 Overall Satisfaction as Employee of Otay Water District Scale: 1 = Highly Dissatisfied...7 = Highly Satisfied (Mean rating = 5.84) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 9 Water District employees. By all reasonable measures, the employee satisfaction demonstrated in this survey by Otay Water District employees is at the very highest level. In the current survey, employees state overwhelmingly (95 percent) that they would recommend the Otay Water District as a place of employment. This is a remarkably high percentage representing 124 of the 130 respondents to this question on the survey—Chart 7. This report does not delve into the survey results question-by-question—everything is very highly regarded. This report, therefore, will discuss the findings much more broadly. Agreement and Importance That the District Exhibits Certain Employment-Related Characteristics The survey contains several subsections, eight of which identified and categorized 45 positive employment-related characteristics and sought employee indications of the extent to which the employees agreed or disagreed that the Otay Water District exhibited these characteristics and how important these characteristics were to them as employees (totaling 90 questions). Response categories were offered by the employees on a 1-to-7 scale, with 1 being Highly Disagree and 7 Yes, 95% No, 5% Chart 7Recommend Otay Water District as Place of Employment Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 10 being Highly Agree that the Otay Water District demonstrates these beneficial employment characteristics and with 1 being Very Unimportant and 7 being Very Important in terms of rating the importance of these characteristics. These eight categories of questions are as follows, with examples of the individual questions listed below each category: Workplace and Resources o Safety emphasis, provision of necessary equipment and resources) Opportunities for Professional GrowthoTraining, advancement potential Compensation and BenefitsoQuality of pay and benefits Management/Supervision o Management leadership qualities, supervisor encouragement Employee Interaction o Teamwork, employees supportive Feedback and Employee EvaluationoConstructive comments from supervisor, fair performance evaluation Moraleo Contributions valued, job security, rewarding work Communications o Supervisor shares information, encouraged to communicate openly, timelyresponses from supervisor In addition, there were 4 general satisfaction-based questions, and 5 general information/demographic questions. The technical appendix to this report contains the full distribution of responses to all 99 of these questions; however, for purposes of this report’s analytical text, the mean rating on the 1-7 scale will be used to convey the findings. Chart 8 serves as a compilation and summary of the agreement data from the survey. Each of the eight category-related means is averaged to produce an overall agreement mean of 5.88. This chart shows that the categories of Workplace and Resources (mean = 6.08), Compensation and Benefits (mean = 6.04), Feedback and Employee Evaluation (mean = 5.97), and Communication (mean = 5.94) exhibit higher levels of agreement among Otay Water District employees that their jobs possess beneficial work-related characteristics. Opportunities for Professional Growth (mean = 5.47) and Morale (mean = 5.68) demonstrate somewhat lower degrees of agreement. Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 11 Chart 9 portrays the mean ratings for each survey category regarding Importance. In all cases, mean Importance is greater than mean Agreement. The average of the eight category Importance means is an overall mean of 6.58. Compensation and Benefits ranks highest in importance (mean = 6.73) followed by Morale and Management/Supervision (each with a mean of 6.64), Employee Interaction (6.62) and Workplace and Resources (mean = 6.60). On the other hand, employees regard Opportunities for Professional Growth (mean = 6.38) and Communications (mean = 6.48) as less important than the other categories, but obviously still quite important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communications, 5.94 Morale, 5.68 Feedback and Employee Evaluation, 5.97 Employee Interaction, 5.92 Management/Supervision, 5.93 Compensation and Benefits, 6.04 Opportunities for Professional Growth, 5.47 Workplace and Resources, 6.08 Chart 8Survey Categories: Agreement Means Scale: 1 = Highly Disagree…7 = Highly Agree (Overall Mean = 5.88) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 12 Correlations: Characteristic Agreements and Overall Satisfaction Pearson's r measures of association are used here to measure the relationship between the employees’ level of agreement with the various characteristics and their level of overall satisfaction. High values of Pearson’s r are indicative of strong relationships between the variables. In the situation at hand, high values of Pearson’s r represent a greater association between the various levels of agreement and overall satisfaction. The Pearson’s r values for all 45 associations are statistically significant; however, not all of the relationships can be considered to be strong relationships. All relationships are positive in nature, meaning that as agreement increases, satisfaction also increases. Among these relationships between overall satisfaction and the characteristics of agreement, there are 11 such relationships that can be categorized at or very near what is accepted as a strong relationship (r > .6) and they are shown in Table 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communications, 6.48 Morale, 6.64 Feedback and Employee Evaluation, 6.54 Employee Interaction, 6.62 Management/Supervision, 6.64 Compensation and Benefits, 6.73 Opportunities for Professional Growth, 6.38 Workplace and Resources, 6.60 Chart 9 Survey Categories: Importance Means Scale: 1 = Very Unimportant…7 = Very Important (Overall Mean = 6.58) Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 13 The strongest relationships with Overall Satisfaction occur with Management Team Provides Effective Leadership (.716), I am Optimistic about My Future Success with the District (.669), and Management Team Makes Informed Decisions (.637). Enhancement of these characteristics and others in Table 1 (with categories provided parenthetically) can be expected to lead to increases in overall employee satisfaction. Table 1 Strong Associations Between Agreement Characteristics and Overall Satisfaction Characteristic (Category) Pearson’s r Management Team Provides Effective Leadership (Management/Supervision) .716 I am Optimistic about My Future Success with the District (Morale) .669 Management Team Makes Informed Decisions (Management/Supervision) .637 Employee Evaluation is Fair (Feedback/Employee Evaluation) .618 Department Morale is Good (Morale) .601 I am Fairly Paid for the Work I Do (Compensation and Benefits) .601 Pay is Competitive with Similar Organizations in the Area (Compensation and Benefits) .595 My Morale is Good (Morale) .589 Comfortable Sharing Honest Opinion About Work-Related Matters (Communication) .570 Contributions are Valued (Morale) .563 Job Provides Opportunity to Advance My Skills (Opportunities for Professional Growth) .562 Satisfaction/Importance Quadrant Analysis Levels of agreement can be mapped on charts with importance such that agreement is graphically measured against how important an issue tends to be. In Quadrant Analysis, high agreement and high importance represent characteristics that are indicative of what makes the Otay Water District an excellent place of employment. The following core characteristics make the Otay Water District a desirable place to work. Employees are appreciative that the District promotes safety and that all necessary resources, equipment, and information are available to do the job effectively. Employees consider the benefit package good as well as competitive with other organizations. Employees also find the benefit plan to be understandable. Such characteristics represent the strength of Otay Water District as an Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 14 employer. Supervisors and managers who directly supervise employees are rated highly because they provide opportunities for employees to express concerns. Further, supervisors treat employees with respect and enable department employees to share work-related information. Employees feel they are accountable for their work, their performance evaluation is fair, and the District understands how an employee’s work contributes to District success. In the categories of Morale and Communication, employees recognize that the District supports balance of work and personal life and enables employees to understand work goals and objectives. Continued improvement in the following areas may yield further increases in employee satisfaction: improvement in department as well as individual morale, a sense of job security, greater optimism about future success with the District, and more sharing of information between supervisors and employees. Employee Indications of Things Going Well at District and What Needs Improvement The summary of the differences between agreement and importance by category in Chart 8 and Chart 9, the analysis of Pearson’s r correlations, and the Quadrant Analysis provide information about what is working well and what can be improved at the Otay Water District. Besides this information, two open-ended questions were included in the survey that asked employees of the District to provide an example of what is working well and what one thing needs improvement. These open-ended responses were categorized and recorded. Chart 10 shows the categorized responses to what is working well, and Chart 11 depicts those things that employees indicate to need improvement. Chart 10 indicates that 98 of the 130 surveyed employees (75 percent) provided an example of what works well at the Otay Water District. Employee Benefits and Compensation were cited by 19 percent of the respondents. Teamwork /High Quality Employees was cited by 18 percent of the respondents, followed by Morale/Employee Recognition (11 percent). Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 15 Of the 130 total respondents, 81 (62 percent of all surveyed employees) provided a response to what could be improved. Chart 11 reflects the categorized responses and shows that Compensation and Benefits is the most frequently cited characteristic in need of improvement (20 percent), followed by Interdepartmental Communication (17 percent). Advancement/Promote from Within was mentioned by 12 percent. Employee Morale/Recognition was mentioned as needing improvement by 10 percent and Management Communication/Style/Trust by 7 percent. 0%5%10%15%20% Benefits-Compensation, 19% Teamwork/High Quality Employees, 18% Morale/Employee Recognition, 11% Safety Priority, 7% District's Financial Strength/Job Security, 6% Customer Service/Excellent Reputation, 6% Physical Improvements/Equipment, 6% Communication with Management , 5% Strategic Planning, 4% Nintex/Technology, 4% Chart 10Example of What Works Well at District n = 98 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 16 Brief Overview of Differences from 2010 Employee Survey Results Overall satisfaction did not change significantly from the 2010 employee survey. Most questions were answered much the same as they were in 2010; however, when the individual substantive questions and categorical means are examined in greater detail, there are considerably more increases in agreement with the questions than there are declines, demonstrating, once again, that the District is very well regarded by its employees. The Otay Water District is clearly fulfilling its responsibilities as an employer to an outstandingly high degree. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 20% 17% 12% 10% 7%6%6%5%5% Chart 11 One Thing That Can Be Improved(n = 81) Compensation and Benefits Interdepartment Communication Advancement/Promote from Within Employee Morale/Recognition Communication with Management/ManagementStyle/TrustTraining/Professional Development Better Equipment/Physical Amenities Need More Technological Improvements Human Resources Policies/Discipline Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 17 APPENDIX Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 18 OTAY WATER DISTRICT EMPLOYEE SURVEY Section A Employee Work Satisfaction For each statement below, please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is highly disagree and 7 is highly agree. Then, indicate how important each topic is to you. Again, use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is very unimportant and 7 is very important. 1.Workplace and Resources a.The District promotes safety in the workplace. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b.I have all the resources and equipment necessary to perform my job well. c.I have the information to do my job effectively. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d.I have adequate time to complete my work. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e.I have appropriate authority to do my job. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 19 2.Opportunities for Professional Growth a.My job provides opportunities to advance my skills and abilities. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b.I receive the training I need to do my job well. c.I have opportunities to be innovative in carrying out my job. d.I am afforded the opportunity to receive the training I need for potential career advancement. 3.Compensation and Benefits a.I am fairly paid for the work I do. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b.I feel that the pay I receive is competitive with similar jobs in similar organizations in the area. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c.The benefit package provided by the District is good. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 20 d.I feel that the benefit package provided by the District is competitive with benefits provided by similar organizations in the area. . Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e.I understand my benefit plans. 4.Management/Supervision For questions 4a and 4b, the “management team” refers to the team of supervisors, managers and Senior Management. a.I feel that the management team makes informed decisions. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b.The management team demonstrates effective leadership skills. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 For questions 4c through 4g and Sections 6 and 8, please consider your supervisor to be that person to whom you directly report and conducts your performance review. c.My supervisor/manager provides me an opportunity to express my thoughts and concerns. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d. My supervisor/manager treats me with respect. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 21 e. My supervisor/manager encourages me to learn new skills. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f.My supervisor/manager emphasizes practicing good customer service on a regular basis. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.Employee Interaction a.The employees in my department work well as a team. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b.Employees in the District are generally supportive of each other. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c.Employees in my department share relevant work-related information. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d.Employees in my department are held accountable for their work. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e. My ideas and opinions are taken into consideration at work. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 22 6.Feedback and Employee Evaluation NOTE: Question 6b has a “Not Applicable” option for those respondents to this survey who are new to the District and have not received a performance evaluation. a. I receive constructive feedback from my supervisor/manager that helps me improve my performance. b. Overall my employee performance evaluation is fair. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA c I am recognized by my supervisor/manager when I do a good job. d.I understand how my work contributes to the success of the District. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.Morale a. Morale in my department is generally good. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b.My morale at work is generally good. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c.I feel that the contributions I make are valued. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 23 d. The District has practices that are supportive of balancing work and personal life. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e.I feel that I have job security. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f.I am optimistic about my future success with the District. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g.My work is rewarding. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.Communication: NOTE: Question 8h has a “Don’t Know” (“DK”) option for those respondents to this survey who are new to the District and do not know the answer to this question. a. My supervisor/manager does a good job of sharing information with department employees. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b.I understand my work goals and objectives. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c.I am encouraged to provide input regarding work-related matters. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d.I am encouraged to communicate openly. Highly Highly Very Very Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 24 Disagree Agree Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e.I feel comfortable sharing my honest opinion about work-related matters with my supervisor/manager. f. I receive timely responses from my supervisor/manager to issues that are most important to me. g.I am afforded an opportunity to participate in goal setting for my department. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h.Employee information meetings are helpful to keep me informed about District matters. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK i.The District does a good job in sharing information with its employees about the District. Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Section B Overall Employee Satisfaction 9.Overall, how satisfied are you as an employee of the District? Highly Highly Dissatisfied Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly Highly Disagree Agree Very Very Unimportant Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 25 10.What is the best example of something that is going well at the District? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 11.What would be the one thing that could be further improved at the District? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 12.Would you recommend the District as a place of employment? 1.Yes 2.No Section C General Information Please provide the following information as it relates to you. This information is used for data comparison purposes only. 13.Department within the Otay Water District 1.Administrative Services/General Manager 2.Engineering 3.Finance 4. Operations Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2019 Employee Survey Report July 2019 26 14.Length of service with Otay Water District 1.0 to 1 year 2.1 year to 3 years 3.3 years to 5 years 4.5 years to 10 years 5.10 years to 15 years 6.15 years to 20 years 7.20 years or more 15.Position Type 1. Non-supervisory employee, including crew leader 2.Supervisor 3.Manager/Department Chief/ GM 16.Age 1.Under 25 2.25 and under 30 3.30 and under 35 4.35 and under 40 5.40 and under 45 6.45 and under 50 7.50 and under 55 8.55 and over 17.Gender 1.Female 2.Male STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Assistant Chief of Engineering PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Item – Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2019 Capital Improvement Program Report GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To update the Board about the status of all CIP project expenditures and to highlight significant issues, progress, and milestones on major projects. ANALYSIS: To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers' expectations to adequately deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective, and quality water, each year the District staff prepares a Six-Year CIP Plan that identifies the District’s infrastructure needs. The CIP is comprised of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities, replacement/renewal projects, capital purchases, and developer's reimbursement projects. AGENDA ITEM 9b 2 The Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2019 update is intended to provide a detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the allotted time and budget of $24.52 million. Expenditures through the Fourth Quarter totaled approximately $25.72 million. Approximately 105% of the Fiscal Year 2019 expenditure budget was spent (see Attachment B). It is noted that the CIP project expenditures are within the approved CIP project budgets and funds have been redistributed from FY 2020 to FY 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:jf P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q4\Staff Report\BD 09-04-19 Staff Report Fourth Quarter FY 2019 CIP Report (DM-RP).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2019 Fourth Quarter CIP Expenditure Report Attachment C – Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: VARIOUS Informational Item – Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2019 Capital Improvement Program Report COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a Committee Meeting held on August 23, 2019, and the following comments were made: •Staff indicated that the District’s approved FY 2019 CIP budget consisted of 106 projects that total $24.5 million and was divided into four categories: o Capital Facilities= $2.1 million o Replacement/Renewal= $21.5 million o Capital Purchases= $.9 million o Developer Reimbursement= $15.0 thousand •Staff reviewed the PowerPoint presentation with the Committee and indicated that the expenditures through the fourth quarter of FY 2019 totaled $25.7 million, which is approximately 105% of the District’s fiscal year budget. It was noted that within the fourth quarter of FY 2019, most of the expenditures took place with replacement and renewal of projects. •The PowerPoint presentation included the following: o Total Life-to-Date Expenditures o CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures o Annual CIP Expenditures vs. Budget o Major CIP Projects that have been completed, are in design or are in construction o A review of CIP Projects in Construction o Construction Contract Status of projects, contract amount with allowances, net change orders, and percent of project completion o Consultant Contract Status of contract amounts, approved payments to date, change orders, dates when contracts were signed and the end date of contracts •Staff stated that during the fourth quarter of FY 2019 the rate for Change Orders without Allowance Credit equaled to 3.1%. It was noted that Change Order No. 6 for the Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project was not included in this fourth quarter update. •The Committee commented on the approved FY 2019 CIP budget ($24.5 Million) versus actual expenditures that totaled $25.7 million. The Committee shared that slightly going over budget was acceptable as expenditures from the FY 2018 CIP budget carried over to the FY 2019 CIP budget. In addition to the carryover, there were projects reaching construction milestones ahead of schedule and unforeseen expenditures associated with construction change orders in support of completing the District’s CIP projects. Following the discussion, the committee supported presentation to the full board as an informational item. FISCAL YEAR 2019 4TH QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 6/30/2019) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2019 06/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2019 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS - P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Cameron 5$ 64$ (59)$ 1280%3,400$ 597$ 2,803$ 18% Expenditures for this fiscal year are to update the Environmental documents. Expenses are within project budget. P2382 Safety and Security Improvements Payne 224 179 45 80%3,251 3,251 - 100%Project complete. Scheduled for CIP closure. P2405 PL - 624/340 PRS, Paseo Ranchero and Otay Valley Road Cameron 5 - 5 0%650 - 650 0% This project is tied to P2553 and is driven by the City of Chula Vista. Construction is scheduled for FY 2022. P2451 Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Kennedy 10 3 7 30%3,975 3,823 152 96% EIR/EIS complete and Presidential permit issued. Continue meetings with DDW and AdR. P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Marchioro 25 59 (34) 236%4,000 1,913 2,087 48% Schedule driven by Caltrans. Caltrans awarded construction contract FY 2019 Q4. Completion of construction anticipated for FY 2021. Project expenditures within approved project budget. P2460 I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition Beppler 20 5 15 25%600 10 590 2% Environmental surveys proposed to be performed in FY 2020 with demolition proposed for FY 2022. P2485 SCADA - Infrastructure and Communications Replacement Kerr 162 108 54 67%2,428 2,134 294 88% Expenditures on schedule in Q4 FY 2019. LTD balance will cover PLC's (facility-wide) in FY 2020-FY 2022. P2494 Multiple Species Conservation Plan Coburn-Boyd 50 18 32 36%1,000 928 72 93% The project is under review at USFWS and did not have any budget used in the last quarter of FY 2019. P2500 Padre Dam - Otay Interconnection Dehesa Valley Marchioro 5 - 5 0%140 - 140 0% Project is driven by Padre Dam pipeline extension to District boundary. Project closed for FY 2020. P2504 Regulatory Site Access Road and Pipeline Relocation Cameron 5 - 5 0%354 331 23 94%Project is driven by County Fire. P2516 PL - 12-Inch, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage Marchioro - - - 0%900 - 900 0% No expenditures in FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2025. P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program Carey 25 22 3 88%620 328 292 53% Vault retrofits completed for this year, additional vaults will be completed in FY 2020. P2547 District Administration Vehicle Charging Stations Cameron 5 - 5 0%125 73 52 58%The project is complete and will be closed. P2553 Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 80 3 77 4%1,430 29 1,401 2% Project is driven by the City of Chula Vista's schedule for replacement, the City has delayed the design. The City provided design parameters to the District in June 2019. Design will begin in Q1 FY 2020. P2571 Datacenter Network- Data, Storage, and Infrastructure Enhancements Kerr 100 112 (12) 112%200 112 88 56% Remaining balance of $88K will be utilized for additional datacenter hardware in FY 2020. P2572 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Replacement Kerr - - - 0%500 - 500 0%No expenditures budgeted in FY 2019. This work will begin FY 2021. P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marchioro - - - 0%1 - 1 0% No expenditures in FY 2019. These Reservoirs are scheduled to be removed at the end of their useful life. P2608 PL - 8-inch, 850 Zone, Coronado Ave, Chestnut/Apple Cameron 40 22 18 55%450 22 428 5% Work has begun on preliminary design report (PDR). The design consultant is 2 months behind schedule, but is working toward completing the PDR and 60% design in Q1 2020. P2611 Quarry Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 10 38 (28) 380%1,000 50 950 5% Project is driven by County's schedule for replacement. Design has begun in Q4. P2612 PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Pas de Luz/Telegraph Canyon Rd Cameron 10 40 (30) 400%500 41 459 8% Work has begun on preliminary design report (PDR). P2614 485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron - - - 0%895 - 895 0%No expenditures in FY 2019. P2617 Lobby Security Enhancements Payne 145 55 90 38%150 56 94 37% Project is ahead of schedule; completion slated for mid-FY 2020. P2619 PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy Marchioro 200 299 (99) 150%1,800 397 1,403 22% A construction contract award to install redundant trailer completed FY 2019 Q4. Delivery of redundant trailer scheduled for FY 2020 Q3. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2020. P2623 Central Area to Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipelines Combination Air/Vacuum Valve Replacements Marchioro 130 113 17 87%270 213 57 79% Construction completed FY 2019 Q1. Project one year warranty inspection completed in FY 2019 Q4. P2630 624-3 Reservoir Automation of Chemical Feed System Cameron 5 - 5 0%385 - 385 0%Design for this project will begin in FY 2020. P2635 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Tank Replacement Marchioro 10 1 9 10%400 1 399 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019. Project closed for FY 2020 and scope transferred to new CIP P2663 created for FY 2020. P2636 980-2 PS Surge Tank Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 150 6 144 4%175 6 169 3%This project was cancelled and replaced with a new CIP next fiscal year. P2637 Survey Division Field GPS Equipment Replacement O'Donnell 35 35 - 100%35 35 - 100%Equipment purchased in FY 2019 Q1. FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q4\Expenditures\FY19 4th qtr exp-FINAL.xlsx Page 1 of 4 8/13/2019 FISCAL YEAR 2019 4TH QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 6/30/2019) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2019 06/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2019 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 P2638 Buildings and Grounds Refurbishments Payne 57 10 47 18%114 10 104 9% Building exterior delayed to FY 2020 as spec is determined regarding painting vs no-paint existing stucco surfaces. Grounds projects continue. P2639 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 5 - 5 0%175 - 175 0%No expenditures in FY 2019. Planning phase to begin FY 2020. P2640 Portable Trailer Mounted VFD Pumps Marchioro 30 56 (26) 187%400 56 344 14% Board award completed and purchase order issued FY 2019 Q4. Trailer delivery anticipated FY 2020 Q3. P2641 Rancho Jamul Hydropneumatic Tank Replacement Marchioro 1 1 - 100%300 1 299 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019. Commencement of planning and design phase pending coordination with P2040 and P2640. P2642 Rancho Jamul Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 5 - 5 0%2,500 - 2,500 0%No expenditures in FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024. P2643 980-1 Pump Station Surge Tanks Replacement Marchioro - - - 0%350 - 350 0% No expenditures in FY 2019. Project closed for FY 2020 and scope transferred to new CIP P2663 created for FY 2020. P2644 803-1 Pump Station Surge Tank Replacement Marchioro - - - 0%350 - 350 0% No expenditures in FY 2019. Project closed for FY 2020 and scope transferred to new CIP P2663 created for FY 2020. P2645 Rolling Hills Hydropneumatic Tank Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%225 - 225 0%No expenditures in FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024. P2646 North District Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%800 - 800 0%No expenditures in FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024. P2647 Central Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%1,000 - 1,000 0% No expenditures in FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2023. P2648 Otay Mesa Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 40 31 9 78%400 31 369 8% Advanced planning work began FY 2019 Q3. Design scheduled for FY 2020. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2021. P2649 HVAC Equipment Purchase Payne 21 10 11 48%130 10 120 8% Five year schedule; OPS scheduled for calendar 2019. R2110 RecPS - 944-1 Optimization and Pressure Zone Modifications Marchioro 25 10 15 40%200 148 52 74% Pressure reducing station work completed under budget FY 2019 Q1. Project closed out for FY 2020. R2116 RecPL - 14-Inch, 927 Zone, Force Main Improvements Marchioro 24 68 (44) 283%2,191 2,191 - 100% Construction completed FY 2018 Q3. Project one year warranty completed in FY 2019 Q3. Project budget adjusted for FY 2020. R2118 Steele Canyon Sewer PS Large Solids Handling Improvements Beppler 105 140 (35) 133%175 174 1 99% Construction completed in Q3. Screen modification by staff completed in Q4. R2120 RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements Beppler 50 3 47 6%500 32 468 6%Project to be packaged with the coating of another storage tank scheduled for FY 2020. R2123 Repurpose Otay Mesa Recycled Water Lines Beppler 5 8 (3) 160%350 8 342 2% Review of system continued to be performed in FY 2019 Q4. R2125 RecPRS - 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay Lakes Road Marchioro 45 20 25 44%200 23 177 12% Project scope revised as part of FY 2020 budget process. Design phase commenced FY 2019 Q4. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2021. R2146 Recycled Pipeline Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 20 - 20 0%600 - 600 0% Planning phase postponed to begin FY 2020. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2022. R2149 680-1R PS Surge Tank Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%175 - 175 0%This project was cancelled and replaced with a new CIP next fiscal year. R2150 RWCWRF - Secondary Chlorine Analyzer and Feed System Beppler 40 53 (13) 133%55 53 2 96%Construction completed in FY 2019 Q3. S2012 San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement Beppler 50 - 50 0%1,800 1,111 689 62% County invoice received indicates no capital improvement reimbursements for this fiscal year. S2027 Rancho San Diego Pump Station Rehabilitation Beppler 5 1 4 20%3,500 3,050 450 87% Construction completed in 2019 Q1. Expect County to make final budget adjustment after warranty period is over in FY 2020 Q1. S2043 RWCWRF Sludge Handling System Beppler 5 14 (9) 280%51 54 (3) 106% Development of solids handling report began in FY 2019 Q4. Report to be completed in FY 2020 Q1. Budget expenditure reconciled with Board approval of FY 2020 project budget. S2047 Asset Management - Info Master Sewer Implementation Zhao 28 - 28 0%58 38 20 66% No expenditures in FY 2019. Project start has been moved to FY 2020. S2061 RWCWRF Aeration Controls Consolidation & Optimization Upgrades (S)Beppler 10 2 8 20%190 2 188 1% Scope of work and consultant outreach initiated in FY 2019 Q4. S2065 RWCWRF - TOC Monitor Beppler 30 23 7 77%30 23 7 77%Installation completed. S2067 RWCWRF Roofing Replacement and Natural Light Enhancement Payne 20 16 4 80%165 16 149 10% Consultant report is in; is above budget; adjustment to budget is being considered for next fiscal year. Total Capital Facility Projects Total:2,087 1,648 439 79%46,618 21,381 25,237 46% P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q4\Expenditures\FY19 4th qtr exp-FINAL.xlsx Page 2 of 4 8/13/2019 FISCAL YEAR 2019 4TH QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 6/30/2019) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2019 06/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2019 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 REPLACEMENT/RENEWAL PROJECTS P2083 PS - 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 7,900 8,171 (271) 103%18,950 14,529 4,421 77% Construction on track for completion in FY 2020 Q3. P2174 PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Replacement (400 gpm)Beppler 150 30 120 20%2,500 34 2,466 1% Design work performed in FY 2019 Q4. Design will continue through FY 2020 Q2. P2400 PL - 20-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes Road - at Santa Paula Marchioro - - - 0%2,280 - 2,280 0% Project reviewed with hydraulic modeling in Q3 and found to be unnecessary. Project closed for FY 2020. P2507 East Palomar Street Utility Relocation Cameron 5 3 2 60%735 728 7 99% Partial reimbursement received. Caltrans working on final reimbursement payment. P2508 Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Program Marchioro 542 486 56 90%1,250 1,209 41 97% Completion of construction anticipated FY 2020, Q1. P2529 711-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 12 (7) 240%820 815 5 99% Warranty repairs completed. Project will be closed. P2530 711-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 16 (11) 320%980 970 10 99%Warranty repairs completed. Project will be closed. P2531 944-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 9 (4) 180%345 331 14 96%Warranty repairs completed. Project will be closed. P2532 944-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 13 (8) 260%960 952 8 99% Warranty repairs completed. Project will be closed. P2533 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 17 (12) 340%810 24 786 3% Budget for preliminary planning and in coordination with the Portable VFD Pump project (P2640). P2534 978-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 9 (4) 180%650 602 48 93%Construction completed FY 2018. Project is in the two year warranty period. P2535 458-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 5 12 (7) 240%810 793 17 98% Warranty repairs completed. Project will be closed. P2539 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Utility Relocations Cameron 45 25 20 56%1,090 951 139 87% Project is driven by SANDAG. Expenditures within overall project budget. P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 2 3 40%875 9 866 1%Budget for preliminary planning. P2544 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 21 (16) 420%980 841 139 86% Construction completed FY 2018. Project is in the two year warranty period. Project expenditures within approved project budget. P2545 980-1 Reservoir Interior Exterior Coating Cameron 5 20 (15) 400%1,215 1,208 7 99%Warranty repairs completed. Project will be closed. P2546 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 695 340 355 49%1,690 1,686 4 100% More work was completed in FY 2018 Q4 than anticipated. Expenditures within budget. Project accepted in November 2018 and is in the 2 year warranty period. P2555 Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements Cameron 25 279 (254) 1116%985 862 123 88% Phase II construction expenditures were expected to be completed in FY 2018, but the contractor was delayed by an unresponsive sub-contractor. Expenditures for FY 2019 will be over the Fiscal Year budget, but all expenditures will be within the approved CIP budget. P2557 520 Res Recirculation Pipeline Chemical Supply and Analyzer Feed Replacement Project Beppler 60 50 10 83%125 110 15 88%Project substantially completed in FY 2019 Q4. P2561 Res - 711-3 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 2,195 2,037 158 93%2,300 2,089 211 91% Completion of construction anticipated FY 2020, Q1. P2562 Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 170 44 126 26%2,900 2,707 193 93% As part of the larger 870-2 Pump Station project, the 571-1 Reservoir was placed back into service April 2018. P2563 Res - 870-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 1 3 (2) 300%1,000 6 994 1% Replacement scheduled for FY 2022 to coincide with completion of new 870-2 Pump Station. Existing cover/liner materials analyzed by laboratory in FY 2017 suggested sufficient remaining life. P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 755 680 75 90%1,200 680 520 57%Construction is ongoing. Project is within budget. P2566 520-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 10 - 10 0%1,500 - 1,500 0%This project will be closed.P2567 1004-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%905 - 905 0%No expenditures for FY 2019. P2573 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 Zone, Hillsdale Road Beppler 150 242 (92) 161%2,580 2,572 8 100% Construction completed in FY 2019 Q1. Warranty inspection performed in FY 2019 Q4. P2574 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda Beppler 500 744 (244) 149%1,640 1,069 571 65% Construction in progress with completion estimated for FY 2020 Q2. P2578 PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 Replacement and Expansion) - 14,000 gpm Marchioro - - - 0%10,000 - 10,000 0% Replacement scheduled for FY 2023-2024 to coincide with development of Villages 4, 8, 9, & 3. P2593 458-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%840 - 840 0%No expenditures for FY 2019. P2594 Large Meter Replacement Carey 95 111 (16) 117%625 453 172 72%Expenditures within overall budget. P2604 AMR Change Out Carey 1,800 2,201 (401) 122%6,290 4,396 1,894 70%Expenditures within overall budget. P2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave Beppler 75 42 33 56%325 46 279 14% Planning and design on track for completion FY 2020 Q1. Construction scheduled for FY 2020. P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q4\Expenditures\FY19 4th qtr exp-FINAL.xlsx Page 3 of 4 8/13/2019 FISCAL YEAR 2019 4TH QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 6/30/2019) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2019 06/30/19 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2019 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 LIFE-TO-DATE, 06/30/19 P2607 Douglas Ave SWA and OWD Interconnection Upgrade Beppler 37 3 34 8%50 3 47 6% SWA design completion expected in FY 2020 Q1 with construction in FY 2020. P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus St, Coronado/Date/La Mesa Cameron 10 40 (30) 400%540 40 500 7%Work has begun on preliminary design report. P2610 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 Cameron 95 2 93 2%275 22 253 8%Operations is taking the lead on this project. P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ, Vista Grande Beppler 20 20 - 100%1,200 20 1,180 2%PDR in progress during FY 2019 Q4. P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Pence Dr/Vista Sierra Dr Beppler 180 51 129 28%2,500 66 2,434 3%PDR in progress during FY 2019 Q4. P2625 PL - 12-inch, 978 Zone, Hidden Mesa Road Beppler 1,000 1,926 (926) 193%2,210 2,061 149 93% Construction in progress with completion estimated for FY 2020 Q2. P2627 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1505 Oleander Ave Beppler 75 66 9 88%325 66 259 20% Planning and design on track for completion FY 2020 Q1. Construction scheduled for FY 2020. P2631 1485-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%55 - 55 0%No expenditures in FY 2019. P2633 Otay Mesa Rd and Alta Rd Water Appurtenances Relocations Beppler 10 2 8 20%500 2 498 0% The District has shifted the required relocation to developers. This project will be closed. P2634 Rolling Hills Hydropneumatic Pump Station Jockey Pump Replacement Anderson 35 35 - 100%35 35 - 100%Project completed in FY 2019 Q2. P2651 Automatic Data Processing Koeppen 20 - 20 0%20 - 20 0%The project has been postponed indefinitely as ADP was not able to meet our requirements. R2121 Res - 944-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 1 1 - 100%1,400 19 1,381 1% Replacement scheduled for FY 2021 since dive inspection completed in FY 2016 suggested five years remaining life. R2139 RWCWRF - Filter Troughs Replacement Beppler 15 34 (19) 227%40 34 6 85%Construction completed during FY 2019 Q2. R2143 AMR Change Out Carey 165 145 20 88%525 250 275 48% All change-outs completed this year, additional change-outs will be done in FY 2020. R2145 RWCWRF - Filter Media and Nozzles Replacement Beppler 130 117 13 90%130 117 13 90%Construction completed in FY 2019 Q3. R2147 RWCWRF Fuel Lines Replacement Marchioro 150 186 (36) 124%225 186 39 83% Completion of construction anticipated FY 2020, Q1. R2148 Large Meter Replacement - Recycled Carey 8 - 8 0%58 - 58 0% Large meter change-outs completed for FY 2020, with the removal of Salt Creek's meter, recycle change-outs were not required, but expenditures will carry over to next year for other planned retrofits. R2151 RWCWRF - Bulk Chlorine Vapor Scrubber System Refurbishment Lintner 35 39 (4) 111%40 39 1 98%Project completed in FY 2019 Q3. S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Beppler 4,000 4,587 (587) 115%10,530 9,631 899 91% Construction expected to be substantially complete in FY 2020 Q2. S2044 Trenchless Sewer Rehabilitation Beppler 5 - 5 0%550 476 74 87%One year warranty was over in FY 2019 Q1. CIP to be closed. S2045 Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation Beppler 10 18 (8) 180%370 278 92 75%Construction completed in FY 2019 Q1.S2046 RWCWRF - Aeration Panels Replacement Beppler 100 157 (57) 157%450 250 200 56%Construction completed in FY 2019 Q3. S2048 Hillsdale Road Sewer Repairs Beppler 10 78 (68) 780%720 692 28 96% Construction completed in FY 2019 Q1. Invoicing carried over from FY 2018. Warranty work performed in FY 2019 Q4. S2049 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 20 31 (11) 155%1,000 38 962 4%Planning work performed in FY 2019 Q4. S2050 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 20 7 13 35%1,300 7 1,293 1%Planning work performed in FY 2019 Q4. S2051 RWCWRF - Headworks Improvements Beppler 165 172 (7) 104%250 246 4 98%Construction completed in FY 2019 Q3.S2053 RWCWRF - Sedimentation Basins Weirs Replacement Beppler 5 51 (46) 1020%60 53 7 88%Construction completed during FY 2019 Q2. S2054 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%1,300 - 1,300 0%No action planned for this fiscal year. S2060 Steele Canyon Pump Station Replacement Beppler - - - 0%200 - 200 0%No action planned for this fiscal year. S2066 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%290 - 290 0%No action planned for this fiscal year. Total Replacement/Renewal Projects Total:21,544 23,387 (1,843) 109%97,303 55,303 42,000 57% CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Rahders 520 334 186 64%5,928 4,479 1,449 76% $115K moved to FY 2020 Q1. Two outstanding vehicles scheduled to be delivered in May are at winning bidders truck up fitters shop waiting completion. P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 363 347 16 96%2,250 1,817 433 81%All purchases completed in FY 2019. Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:883 681 202 77%8,178 6,296 1,882 77% DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS P2595 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way Beppler 1 - 1 0%150 - 150 0%Project under construction. R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media Beppler 14 - 14 0%365 1 364 0%Project under construction. Total Developer Reimbursement Projects Total:15 - 15 0%515 1 514 0% 122 GRAND TOTAL 24,529$ 25,716$ (1,187)$ 105%152,614$ 82,981$ 69,633$ 54% P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q4\Expenditures\FY19 4th qtr exp-FINAL.xlsx Page 4 of 4 8/13/2019 Otay Water District Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2019 Fourth Quarter (through June 30, 2019) ATTACHMENT C 870-2 Pump Station – Engine No. 1 Delivery 6/19/2019 Background The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 consists of 106 projects that total $24.5 million. These projects are broken down into four categories. 1.Capital Facilities $ 2.1 million 2.Replacement/Renewal $21.5 million 3.Capital Purchases $ 0.9 million 4.Developer Reimbursement $ 15.0 thousand Overall expenditures through the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019 totaled $25.7 million, which is approximately 105% of the Fiscal Year budget. 2 Fiscal Year 2019 Fourth Quarter Update ($000) CIP CAT Description FY 2019 Budget FY 2019 Expenditures % FY 2019 Budget Spent Total Life-to-Date Budget Total Life-to-Date Expenditures % Life-to-Date Budget Spent 1 Capital Facilities $2,087 $1,648 79% $46,618 $21,381 46% 2 Replacement/ Renewal $21,544 $23,387 109% $97,303 $55,303 57% 3 Capital Purchases $883 $681 77% $8,178 $6,296 77% 4 Developer Reimbursement $15 $0 0% $515 $1 0% Total: $24,529 $25,716 105% $152,641 $82,981 54% 3 Fiscal Year 2019 Fourth Quarter CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures 4 $25,716,000 $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FISCAL YEAR PERIOD IN MONTHS Budget Forecast Total Expenditures $24,529,000 5 CIP Projects in Construction 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Project (P2083/P2562) Replacement of existing 870 High Head and Low Head Pump Stations. Remove and Replace the existing 571-1 Reservoir liner and cover. $21.65M Budget Start: July 2017 Completion: December 2019 870-2 Pump Station Interior – Pump Room Division No. 2 Location: North East corner of Otay Mesa. Existing 571-1 Reservoir and High Head/Low Head Pump Station site. 6 6/06/2019 CIP Projects in Construction 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Project (P2565) Remove and replace existing interior and exterior coatings. Construct structural upgrades to increase the service life. $1.20M Budget Start: December 2018 Completion: August 2019 803-2 (2.0 MG) – Completed Floor Coating Division No. 5 Location: 803-2 Reservoir is located adjacent to Willow Glen Drive. 7 6/06/2019 CIP Projects in Construction 711-3 Floating Cover and Liner Replacement (P2561) Remove and replace existing floating cover and liner with new reinforced Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene (CSPE) geomembrane cover and liner. $2.3M Budget Start: August 2018 Completion: August 2019 711-3 (16.0 MG) – Reservoir Cover Inflated for Interior Cleaning Division No. 5 Location: 711-3 is located at the north end of Hunte Parkway in Chula Vista. 8 6/10/2019 CIP Projects in Construction Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project (S2024) Replace existing 10- inch sewer with 7,420 linear feet of new 15- inch sewer. Reconnection of sewer laterals. Night work. $10.10M Budget Start: July 2017 Estimated Completion: December 2019 Campo Road - Manhole 7 Sewer Main Excavation Division No. 5 Location: Campo Road (SR 94) between Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center and Rancho San Diego Towne Center. 9 6/13/2019 CIP Projects in Construction Pipeline Cathodic Protection Improvements Phase II (P2508) Installation of pipeline cathodic protection improvements at Willow Glen, Sweetwater Bridge, Proctor Valley Road, Salt Creek, and Interconnect Pipeline. $1.25M Budget Start: October 2018 Estimated Completion: August 2019 Sweetwater River Bridge Location – Drilling for Installation of New Anodes Division Nos. 1 - 3, & 5 Location: Various locations. 10 5/15/2019 CIP Projects in Construction RWCWRF Fuel System Improvements (R2147) Replace existing underground and building interior emergency generator diesel fuel piping. Replace return tank. $0.23M Budget Start: February 2019 Estimated Completion: August 2019 RWCWRF Fuel Lines – Installed and Painted Interior Fuel Lines Division No. 3 Location: RWCWRF - Singer Lane, Spring Valley. 11 4/30/2019 CIP Projects in Construction Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement (P2574/P2625) Replace existing waterlines. Construct 3,700 LF of new 12-inch waterline. Construct 400 LF of new 8-inch waterline. $3.17M Budget Start: December 2018 Estimated Completion: September 2019 Hidden Mesa Road – Final Trench Paving Division No. 5 Location: Hidden Mesa Road and Vista Vereda in El Cajon. 12 6/20/2019 Construction Contract Status 13 PROJECT TOTAL % S2045 Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation Burtech Pipeline, Inc. $169,490 $193,690 $4,082 2.4% $179,572 $179,572 -7.3% 100.0%July 2018 P2573 S2048 Hillsdale Road 12-inch Waterline Replacement and Sewer Repairs *** TC Construction Company, Inc.$2,245,060 $2,396,060 $332,569 14.8% $2,591,949 $2,591,949 8.2%100.0%July 2018 P2623 Interconnect AirVac Valve Replacement M-Rae Engineering Inc. $78,000 $83,000 $0 0.0%$79,310 $79,310 -4.4% 100.0%August 2018 P2555 OWD Administration & Operations Parking Lot Improvements Ph. II - Pavement Restoration Frank and Son Paving, Inc.$152,646 $165,046 $11,448 7.5%$169,094 $169,094 2.5%100.0%December 2018 P2546 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Simpson Sandblasting & Special Coating, Inc.$998,452 $1,146,327 $229,249 23.0% $1,375,576 $1,375,576 20.0% 100.0% September 2018 P2508 Pipeline CP Improvements - Phase II M-Rae Engineering Inc. $329,500 $347,000 $17,542 5.3%$350,661 $340,736 1.1%97.2%August 2019 S2051/ R2118 RWCWRF Headworks Improvements and Steele Bridge Sewage PS Wet Well Improvements Tharsos Inc.$201,665 $223,490 $7,579 3.8%$217,685 $217,685 -2.6% 100.0%April 2019 CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL EARNED TO DATE CIP NO. PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT W/ ALLOWANCES % CHANGE ORDERS W/ ALLOWANCE CREDIT** % COMPLETE EST. COMP. DATE NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD* Construction Contract Status 14 PROJECT TOTAL % FY 2019 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL EARNED TO DATE CIP NO. PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT W/ ALLOWANCES % CHANGE ORDERS W/ ALLOWANCE CREDIT** % COMPLETE EST. COMP. DATE NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD* P2561 Reservoir 711-3 Floating Cover and Liner Replacement Layfield USA Corporation $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $0 0.0% $1,957,000 $1,822,250 -2.0% 93.1%August 2019 P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Advanced Industrial Services Inc.$737,690 $951,690 $0 0.0%$807,440 $503,740 -15.2%62.4%August 2019 P2574/ P2625 Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road Water Line Replacement Cass-Arrieta Construction $2,718,239 $2,848,364 $0 0.0% $2,724,694 $2,355,513 -4.3%86.5%September 2019 R2147 RWCWRF Fuel System Improvements Jauregui & Culver, Inc. $153,092 $158,092 $3,832 2.5%$156,924 $117,071 -0.7%74.6%August 2019 S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project Wier Construction Corporation $7,623,146 $7,816,646 $301,428 4.0% $8,038,574 $7,263,674 2.8%90.4%December 2019 P2083 P2562 870-2 Pump Station Replacement/ 571-1 Reservoir Liner and Cover Replacement Pacific Hydrotech Corporation $16,500,900 $16,925,900 $139,832 0.8% $16,714,153 $13,184,673 -1.3%78.9%December 2019 TOTALS:$33,854,880 $35,252,305 $1,047,561 3.1%$35,362,632 $30,200,842 0.3% ***PROJECT DOES NOT INCLUDE $149,280 OF ADDITIONAL SCOPE FOR SDRMA FUNDED PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPAIRS ON HILLDALE ROAD **THIS CHANGE ORDER RATE INCLUDES THE CREDIT FOR UNUSED ALLOWANCES *NET CHANGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE ALLOWANCE ITEM CREDITS. IT'S A TRUE CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGE FOR THE PROJECT Consultant Contract Status 15 Consultant Contract Status 16 Consultant Contract Status 17 QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS? 18 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Tenille M. Otero PROJECT: Various DIV. NO.All APPROVED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Update on the District’s Social Media and Website Analytics GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: To provide the Board with an update on the District’s social media and website analytics. ANALYSIS: It is important that the District manages and monitors its online presence, which includes both social media and the web. Managing online content is a constant, evolving and creative process. Technologies are changing rapidly on a daily basis, and the public has more options readily available to choose from. Historically, traditional media has allowed organizations, public agencies, media, and others to select the communications channels to distribute content to the public. Today, the public has the option to choose which communications channels they prefer to receive their news from, which include social media platforms. Social media assists District staff to assure immediacy and transparency for those customers in the District who choose to use these platforms. Although social media is not the only form of communications, it does complement traditional communications methods. Social networking improves interactivity between public agencies and the public, and it reaches demographics or populations that do not regularly consume traditional media. One of staff’s goals is to increase the District’s online audience and customer and key stakeholder engagement by using social media channels to extend the reach of the District’s programs and projects, AGENDA ITEM 9c including water education, conservation, Capital Improvement Programs, and more. Social media platforms are leveraged to listen to and participate in public dialogue of the District’s customers. These platforms also help staff to provide controlled content to the public about the District’s goals, programs, and projects. Staff has increased the number of followers and engagement using its social media platforms by creating visual content, posts, and hashtags on a frequent basis. Staff also includes Spanish-language messages in its posts. The District currently uses the following platforms: •YouTube – Joined November 2010 •Twitter – Joined February 2011 •Facebook – Joined November 2011 •Nextdoor – Joined July 2016 •LinkedIn Company Page – Joined August 2017 •Instagram – Joined November 2018 (Launched January 2019) Included in Attachment B are the latest social media and otaywater.gov web analytics. The last update staff provided to the Board was in September 2018. Communications staff began tracking social media analytics in 2016. Twitter’s analytics allowed tracking since 2014. From July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019, the number of the District’s Twitter followers has increased by 339 percent, from 432 to 1,897. From fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2019, Twitter followers increased 11 percent, from 1,713 to 1,897. Unfortunately, Facebook limits tracking analytics only as far back as July 1, 2016. Since July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2019, the number of the District’s Facebook “likes” has increased by 77 percent, from 155 to 274.From fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2019, the District’s Facebook followers increased by 14 percent, from 241 to 274. Since June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2019, the total cumulative video views for the District’s YouTube channel have increased by 82 percent from 47,696 to 86,862. From fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2019, the District’s video views increased by 22 percent, from 13,622 to 16,633. Nextdoor has also seen an increase in residents’ participation within the District’s service area. Since the last time staff reported to the Board in September 2018, the number of Nextdoor accounts in the District’s service area has increased from 28,084 to 38,213, which increases the District’s Nextdoor reach by about 36 percent. That is an overall increase of 61 percent, from 23,768 accounts, since staff first reported the Nextdoor statistics to the Board in April 2018. Nextdoor has allowed the District to communicate with verified residents who live in its service area and post relevant messages. It also has allowed staff to geo-target specific neighborhoods within its service area. Staff has used it to post content related to water- use efficiency rebates, the WaterSmart Landscape Contest, the “Water is Life” Student Poster Contest, the Consumer Confidence Report, turning off irrigation systems during rainfall, water theft, the District’s Instagram launch, and more. The District uses LinkedIn to post content mainly about job opportunities, but also includes other District and water-related content. The District’s LinkedIn page followers have increased by approximately 30 percent since the last time staff reported to the Board in September 2018, from 251 to 327 followers. Staff also launched the District’s Instagram page in late January 2019. To gain followers early, in November 2018, staff posted a teaser Boomerang video, and in December 2018, posted another teaser video presenting an overview of the District’s service area. In addition to posting to social media platforms, staff has also taken proactive measures to gain followers and “likes” by adding social media icons to the header of all District web pages and a Twitter feed to the home page. Social media links and icons are visually displayed in publications including the Pipeline newsletter, the mobile app, public PowerPoint presentations, and more. Staff plans to update the mobile app to add the most recent social media icons. Also, cross promoting social media platforms is key to owning, maintaining, and cultivating an integrated social media marketing strategy. As an example, staff cross promoted the District’s social media platforms by adding the Instagram launch teaser video to YouTube and using that link to post the video on all the District’s social media channels. Staff continues to explore best practices of social media cross promotion and to post new content to social media platforms, including videos, photos, updated headers and others as necessary depending on the topic, resources available, and value added to the content. Staff also plans to implement a social media photo contest, but because there were too many other competing contests hosted by the San Diego County Water Authority, Helix Water District, Sweetwater Authority, and other agencies during the spring and summer, staff plans to launch something in the fall or winter. The District will continue to assess its current social media platforms and their effectiveness, including paid social media advertising. Staff held off on paid advertising this last fiscal year to achieve cost savings requested by the Finance department. Staff has incorporated paid social media and online advertising in the fiscal year 2020 budget. To effectively disseminate and extend the District’s message, enhance its brand, and increase social media/website users and engagement, staff monitors trends in the social media and technology environment through research, training, and collaboration with others in the industry. Research data has shown that although Facebook may be the most popular social media channel based on user accounts, the overall usage of Facebook is decreasing. Facebook usage by age groups 12-34 and 35-54 has decreased since 2017 and holds a small percentage of usage compared to the 55+ age group. Facebook and Pinterest have the highest composition of U.S. users age 55+. SnapChat, Instagram, and Twitter have the highest composition of U.S. users age 12-34 and LinkedIn claims to have the highest percentage of users age 35-54. Attachment C shows the data from The 2019 Social Habit Study. Also, according to research, Instagram is one of the fastest-growing social network platforms. In addition, the size of a social media site by the number of users it hosts does not yield that it may be the perfect platform for an agency or organization. There are many variables to consider when deciding whether a social media platform is a good fit for an organization, including target audience, brand, message, content, product, resources, what the social media platform offers, and much more. To reach the District’s diverse customer base demographic, staff continues to use a diversified communications strategy, using traditional media and various social media platforms. Staff also manages and maintains the District’s website, otaywater.gov. The goal is to enhance its web presence so that its website communicates the most current information, is user friendly to better serve customers, and visually conveys that the District is using state-of-the-art technologies and is a forward-thinking agency. Attachment B also includes website analytics. During fiscal year 2019 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019), the top 20 most viewed pages on the District’s website were the following: 1)Home Page 2)About Otay 3)Payment Options 4)Job Opportunities 5)Employment 6)Engineering Services 7)For Customers (Customer Service Page) 8)Billing Information 9)Contact Us 10)Start or Terminate Service 11)Start or Terminate Service Form 12)Update Your Account 13)Engineering Bids 14)Rebates 15)Public Services 16)Water Agency Search Result 17)Job Descriptions 18)Water Services 19)Bid Opportunities 20)Board Agenda and Minutes Another data point to highlight for the website during that same time period is that 88 percent of the District’s users were new users and 13 percent were returning users. Attachment B also shows how users arrive to the District’s site and which URLs are considered the top 20 referral sources. To address the Spanish-language need in the District’s service area, communications staff worked with IT to develop a functionality that displays duplicate web pages in Spanish. Staff however works with a translation consultant to have English content translated into Spanish, but the new functionality streamlines the process to publish and display the District’s website Spanish content. To make it easier for the public to find information on current construction projects, staff created a “Construction Projects” button on the home page. Staff also updated the Capital Improvement Program, Education, Working to Keep Rates Low, and other pages. Staff generates new and repurposed content to the District’s website to keep content interesting and appealing, resulting in the public’s continued visits to the site for the latest information. Attachment B also includes a variety of other analytics, including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, the website, demographics, engagement, highlights, comparisons to other agencies, and more. Staff would like to highlight that compared to other water agencies in the San Diego region, the District is listed in the top two for its number of Twitter followers. The San Diego County Water Authority ranks as number one, and is a wholesale agency, covering all of the San Diego region. Compared to the District, the Water Authority has more staff, a larger budget, and additional resources. Subsequently, when compared to other retail agencies in the county, the District is ranked as number one for its total number of Twitter followers. District staff implements particular strategies to improve its online web presence, which include ongoing assessment of the site by making it more functional through: reorganizing navigational structure; crafting website content that aligns with key messages, while also succinctly conveying the information being searched for by visitors; posting content more frequently to keep the pages attractive and engaging; incorporating enhanced visuals with a higher frequency of images per page to appeal to visitors, while reinforcing the agency's connection to the communities it serves; and creating content in Spanish language. The website is also another communications tool that the District continues to assess and enhance as part of the strategic plan. Staff will continue to monitor social media and website trends to effectively reach the District’s customers. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. STRATEGIC GOAL: Execute and deliver services that meet or exceed customer expectations, and increase customer engagement in order to improve District Services. LEGAL IMPACT: None. General Manager Attachments: A)Committee Action B)Presentation: Social Media and Website Analytics C)Presentation: 2019 Social Habit Study D)Sample: Nextdoor Post on “Water is Life” Photo Contest ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Informational Item: Social Media and Website Analytics Update COMMITTEE ACTION: The Conservation, Public Relations, Legal and Legislative Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 19, 2019 and the following comments were made: •An update was provided on the District’s social media and website analytics. •Staff reviewed information in the staff report and the presentations attached to the staff report. •It was indicated that staff is planning on launching the District’s first Instagram photo contest in the fall or winter of 2019. The goal is to increase the number of followers/engagements through posting more creative content. The District had planned on launching the contest earlier in the year. However, the District’s contest would have competed with other water agencies’ contests which were hosted in the spring and summer. Staff is working out the details of the contest and is currently exploring themes related to water conservation, wise water use, or why water is important to users, etc. Staff will share the finalized theme once it has been determined. •In response to an inquiry from the Committee, staff indicated that they have contacted LinkedIn regarding former District employees LinkedIn profiles that still state that their employer is the Otay Water District. Because the accounts are the personal accounts of former employees and are not related to the District’s LinkedIn company page, the District must write LinkedIn and they will handle communications with the District’s former employees. •The Committee discussed slide number 19 of attachment B to the staff report which discusses website analytics for browsers and mobile operating systems that were used to visit the District’s website during fiscal year 2019. It was indicated that the pie charts presented on the slides should be amended so the segments of the charts added together equals 100%. Following the meeting, staff reviewed the data and has updated the pie charts which is reflected in the revised attachment B. Staff also updated the analytics for slides 15 and 17 of attachment B. In addition, staff updated the metrics on page 5 of the staff report regarding new visitors versus returning visitors to the District’s website. The metric for returning visitors was updated from 13% to 12% and the new visitors remained at 88%. •The Committee felt that the District’s staff is doing a good job on posting information on Facebook, but felt that the District should do a promotion on Facebook as well because a good portion of the public gets their information on Facebook. It was indicated that staff had budgeted funds for ads to be placed on the various social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) in the past fiscal year. However, the District was looking for areas where monies could be saved and staff decided that the funding for social media ads could be moved into the next fiscal year (FY 2020). •In discussions regarding video content for the social media platforms, staff indicated that they have plans to engage a consultant to develop short videos for the various social media platforms. •There was also discussion concerning the District’s public facing website, which has a new backend functionality that can display web pages easier for staff in Spanish. Staff indicated that not all the pages have been translated in Spanish, but the functionality is available. Staff also indicated they are working with the District’s consultant to translate mostly all web pages. The committee asked if “Google Translate” could be used to translate the remaining web pages so they would be available in Spanish. Staff indicated that “Google Translate” is not the best translation service as it is a direct English to Spanish translation, which does not always make sense to the Spanish-speaking community. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee recommended presentation to the full board as an informational item. Social Media and Website Analytics Conservation, Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative Committee August 19, 2019 Otay Water District Attachment B Twitter Followers 432 1,713 1,897 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 FOLLOWERS July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019 +11% July 1, 2014 339% increase (since July 1, 2014) Twitter Highlights *48 July 1, 2016 –June 30, 2017 July 1, 2017 –June 30, 2018 July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 * Total number of times a user has interacted with a Tweet including retweets, replies, follows, likes, hashtags, links, profile picture, username, and Tweet expansion. *56 *63 Highest Engagement Twitter Comparison Water Agency Followers San Diego County Water Authority 4,786 Otay Water District 1,932 Sweetwater Authority 1,919 Olivenhain MWD 1,722 Helix Water District 1,639 Santa Fe Irrigation District 1,312 California American Water (CalAm)1,208 Vallecitos Water District 1,143 Padre Dam MWD 1,100 SD Waste No Water 522 Rainbow MWD 210 Fallbrook Public Utility District 41 Valley Center MWD 37 No Twitter Account: •Carlsbad MWD •Lakeside Water District •Ramona MWD•Rincon del Diablo MWD•San Dieguito Water District •Vista ID •Yuima MWD City or Other Followers Camp Pendleton 23, 633 City of Oceanside 16,679 City of Carlsbad 15,137 City of San Diego 14,307 City of Escondido 4,621 City of Vista 4,314 City of Poway 3,298 City of Del Mar 1,249 As of Aug. 6, 2019 Facebook Likes 155 241 274 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 LIKES July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019 +14% 77% increase (since July 1, 2016) July 1, 2016 Facebook Highlights 1,830 July 1, 2016 –June 30, 2017 July 1, 2017 –June 30, 2018 July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 1,378 809 Highest Number of People Reached YouTube Video Views 13,622 16,633 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 VIDEO VIEWS July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019 * Number of videos published (*3) (*4) +22% YouTube Channel Growth (Joined in November 2010) *June 30, 2016 (*7) *June 30, 2017 (*3) *June 30, 2018 (*3) *June 30, 2019 (*4) *Total Growth Since June 30, 2016 Video Views:47,696 56,607 70,229 86,862 82% Watch Time (minutes):93,378 110,922 134,910 160,139 72% Video Likes:51 62 84 112 120% Video Dislikes:10 12 19 27 170% Video Shares:31 70 137 246 694% Subscribers:42 50 72 88 110% *Cumulative since November 2010 *Number of videos published 82% increase (since June 30, 2016) YouTube Highlights Most Viewed Video Published on Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010 Views: 25,822 Likes: 23 Dislikes: 2 Shares: 33 Instagram Highlights *36 *Most liked as of Aug. 6, 2019 *35 *34 MEDIA 62 COMMENTSLIKES 1,406 320 66 129 FOLLOWINGFOLLOWERS Instagram Engagement 23 13 45 263 208 376 205 62 211 0 1 0 8 5 20 11 6 15 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Nov 2018 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Likes Received Comments Received Official Launch Nextdoor 23,768 28,084 38,213 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 MEMBERS Apr '18 Board Report Sept '18 Board Report Current Aug '19 +18% +36% 61% increase since Apr ‘18 Board Report LinkedIn 251 327 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 FOLLOWERS Sept '18 Board Report Current Aug '19 30% increase since Sept ‘18 Board Report +30% Website Analytics Period: July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 MOST VIEWED PAGES: TOP 20 (percentage of total page views) Total Page Views: 449,179 1.Home Page 47.81%11. Start or Terminate Service Form 1.02% 2.About Otay 7.19%12. Update Your Account 1.00% 3. Payment Options 4.87%13. Engineering Bids 0.94% 4. Job Opportunities 3.96%14. Rebates 0.78% 5. Employment 3.26%15. Public Services 0.68% 6. Engineering Services 2.59%16. Water Agency Search Result 0.60% 7. For Customers 2.58%17. Job Descriptions 0.57% 8. Billing Information 2.06%18. Water Services 0.55% 9. Contact Us 1.73%19. Bid Opportunities 0.55% 10. Start or Terminate Service 1.34%20. Board Agenda and Minutes 0.54% Website Analytics SEARCH: HOW USERS ARRIVED TO OTAYWATER.GOV (percentage of total users) Total Users: 163,942 Direct 73.34% Organic Search 24.54% Referral 1.85% Social Media 0.23% Other 0.04% Period: July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 Website Analytics REFERRAL SOURCES Total Referrals: 3,482 1.com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox 2.sharepoint2016.otay.local 3.sdcwa.org 4.m.facebook.com 5.governmentjobs.com 6.duckduckgo.com 7.springvalleyca.com 8.com.google.android.gm 9. t.co 10.facebook.com Period: July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 Website Analytics NEW VISITORS VS. RETURNING VISITORS Total Users: 163,942 New Vistors, 87.86% Returning Visitors, 12.14% Period: July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 Website Analytics TOP 10 CITIES Total Users: 163,942 Percentage of users Spring Valley 45.67% San Diego 17.11% Chula Vista 14.96% Fallbrook 4.46% Los Angeles 4.06% El Cajon 2.17% La Mesa 0.75% Santee 0.69% Rancho San Diego 0.53% National City 0.33% Period: July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 Website Analytics TOP 5 MOBILE OPERATING SYSTEMSTOP 5 COMPUTER BROWSERS iOS 71.24% Android 26.43% 2.25%0.05%0.02% iOS 71.24%Android 26.43%Windows 2.25%Windows Phone 0.05%BlackBerry 0.02% Internet Explorer 56.7% Chrome 21.22% 15.91% 2.60%2.12% Internet Explorer 56.7% Chrome 21.22% Safari 15.91% Edge 2.60% Firefox 2.12% (percentage of users) Period: July 1, 2018 –June 30, 2019 Total Users: 163,942 Questions? Otay Water District www.otaywater.gov (619)670-2222 Email: info@otaywater.gov Social Media 2019 Social Habit Study Conservation, Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative Committee August 19, 2019 Otay Water District Attachment C Social Habit Study What is the Social Habit Study? The Social Habit 2019 is a study from Edison Research designed to dig deeper after a finding from The Infinite Dial®2019 (from Edison Research and Triton Digital®) showed that Facebook has 15 million fewer users overall in the U.S. in 2019 than 2017. 194 250 260 287 300 300 303 320 326 330 446 500 531 803 1,000 1,083 1,300 1,500 1,900 2,271 SOCIAL NETWORK MESSENGER / VOIP BAIDU TIEBA SKYPE VIBER SNAPCHAT PINTEREST LINE TIKTOK SINA WEIBO TWITTER REDDIT DOUBAN LINKEDIN WHATSAPP FB MESSENGER INSTAGRAM WECHAT QQ QZONE YOUTUBE FACEBOOK Social Platforms: Active User Accounts Based on Monthly Active Users, User Accounts, or Unique Visitors to Each Platform, in Millions Source: Hootesuite We Are Social Social Habit Study Who was surveyed? Social Habit 2019 is an in-depth look at social media users in the U.S. with data from the following studies: •National Telephone Survey: The Infinite Dial®2019 from Edison Research and Triton Digital o January/February 2019 –Edison Research conducted a national telephone survey of 1,500 people aged 12 and older, using random digit dialing techniques to cell phones and landlines (U.S. Population 12+). Telephone data weighted to national 12+ U.S. population figures. •National Online Survey: Social Habit Survey from Edison Research o May 2019 –Edison Research conducted a national online survey of 850 people aged 13+. Data has been weighted to match The Infinite Dial. •In-person In-depth-Interviews: The Social Habit Interviews from Edison Research o April 2019 –Edison Research interviewed twelve social media users age 18-29 who report using Facebook less recently or have stopped altogether. Composition of Social Media Brand Users Base: Persons Saying they Use that Brand % OF USE BY AGE GROUP Source: The Infinte Dial ©2019 Edison Research and Triton Digital These are users that have “ever” used social media platforms. Composition of Social Media Brand ‘Core’ Users Base: Persons Saying they Use that Brand the Most % OF USE BY AGE GROUP •Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter have the highest composition of U.S. users age 12-34. •Facebook and Pinterest have the highest composition of U.S. users age 55+. •LinkedIn claims the highest percentage of those age 35-54 “Core users” are those who use that one ‘most often’ Facebook Usage Decrease •The Social Habit 2019 study showed that Facebook has 15 million fewer users overall in the U.S. in 2019 than 2017. •Approximately one-third of Facebook users are using the platform less often than when they joined, regardless of age, but the reasons for using Facebook less vary widely with age. •13-34 age group say they are using Facebook less because they enjoy other social media sites more, their friends don’t post much on Facebook, and because they are trying to avoid parents and relatives on the site. •35+ age group say they are using Facebook less because they don’t like rants and have privacy concerns. •Overall –For the District, Facebook is not going away, but the usage is decreasing and other social media platforms’ usage are increasing more rapidly. •As a result, the District will continue to use Facebook, but also analyze all platforms to effectively disseminate the District’s message to its customers. Social Media Brand Usage Total U.S. Population 12+ % USING SOCIAL MEDIA BRAND Source: The Infinte Dial ©2019 Edison Research and Triton Digital “Not only have millions of Americans stopped using Facebook entirely, nearly a third of Facebook users tell us they are using the service less. While Facebook remains the leading social media brand in America, it is being wounded on multiple fronts, as every demographic has their own reasons for spending less time there,” said Tom Webster, Senior Vice President at Edison Research. Facebook Usage Facebook Usage Total U.S. Population 12+ % USING FACEBOOK Source: The Infinte Dial ©2019 Edison Research and Triton Digital Facebook Usage U.S. Population % USING FACEBOOK Source: The Infinte Dial ©2019 Edison Research and Triton Digital Questions? Otay Water District www.otaywater.gov (619) 670-2222 Email: info@otaywater.gov Social Media Attachment D 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019 PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL SUBMITTED BY: Adolfo Segura, Chief of Administrative Services APPROVED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: FY19 YEAR-END REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT’S FY19-22 STRATEGIC PLAN GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see “Attachment A”. PURPOSE: To provide a year-end report on the District’s FY19-22 Strategic Performance Plan for FY19. ANALYSIS: Summary The current Otay Water District Strategic Plan is a four-year plan ranging from the start of FY19 through the end of FY22. This report details the year-end results for the first year of our four-year plan. Objectives – Target 90% Strategic Plan objectives are designed to ensure the District is executing mission designed objectives and making the appropriate high- level changes necessary to guide the agency, meet new challenges, and positively adapt to change. FY19 year-end results are on target at 94%, with 34 of 36 active items completed or on schedule. One (1) objective is not on target, and one (1) objective is on hold. AGENDA ITEM 9d One (1) Objective Not on Target: 1.Customer Electronic Communication and Outreach - Due the previous supervisor retiring, the new supervisor and staff have not completed the following items: a. Evaluating process of recorded customer service calls b. Evaluating exit surveys c. Options for expanding text messages to customers Staff anticipates being back on track at the beginning of FY21. One (1) Objective on Hold: 1.Evaluate feasibility of incorporating electronic and hybrid vehicles into District fleet - Electric vehicle technology is advancing but has not yet achieved the economies necessary to make it feasible for District adoption. Staff will continue to monitor the sector. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) – Target 75% KPI’s are designed to track the District’s day-to-day performance. These items measure the effectiveness and efficiency of essential operational services. The overall goal is that at least 75% of these KPI’s be rated “on target”. FY19 year-end results are above target at 83%, with 34 of 41 items achieving the desired level or better. KPI’s are based on established AWWA performance benchmarks. Six (6) measures are reported at year’s end: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ON SCHEDULE BEHIND ON HOLD NOT STARTED 34 1 1 13 On Schedule Behind On Hold Not Started 34 of 36 Active Objectives are On Target (94%) 3 •Water Debt Coverage •Reserve Level •Accounts Per FTE •Leak Detection Program •Injury Incident Rate •Enterprise Technology Services KPI’s Not on Target 1.CIP Project Expenditures vs. Budget: Year-to-date CIP expenditures amounted to $25,716,000 vs. the budgeted amount of $24,529,000. More progress was made in FY19 than anticipated on the following projects: a. 870-2 Pump Station b. Campo Road Sewer Replacement c. Hidden Mesa Water Main Replacement d. Vista Vereda Water Main Replacement 2.Overtime Percentage: Year-to-date expenditures amounted to $193,746 vs. the budgeted amount $149,900. Fourth quarter results were below target ($41,573 actuals vs. $42,300 budgeted); however, the year-to- date overtime variance was primarily driven by after-hour service calls between December 21st and December 31st. 3.Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD: The year-to-date result is $1,071.66 vs. the year-to-date target of $1,050.00. The target was not met due to the Treatment Plant shutdown for scheduled CIP maintenance on the Steele Canyon Lift Station and headworks 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ON TARGET NOT ON TARGET 34 7 On Target Not on Target 34 of 41 Key Performance Indicators are On Target (83%) 4 improvements. This resulted in lower effluent production. In addition, there were also unscheduled repairs to the large drum screen during the 4th quarter. 4.Mark-out Accuracy: Year-to-date staff completed 4,175 mark-outs with 2 hits resulting in a 99.96% accuracy rate. In the 1st quarter, the District’s as-needed consultant missed marking a 2” water service lateral, and in the 4th quarter Man General Engineering Inc., hit an unmarked 2” air and vacuum valve lateral on Willow Glen. Both incidents resulted in no water loss and zero customers were impacted. 5.Sewer Overflow Rate: There were zero (0) overflows in the 4th quarter, however, the year-to-date target was not met due to one (1) sewer overflow in the 3rd quarter. This was caused by a contractor dropping pipe debris in a manhole. 6.Emergency Facility Power Testing: Year-to-date 34 out of 36 sites were tested. The last two portable pump tests were halted by Engineering due to structural concerns. Pumps will be retrofitted in the 1st quarter of FY20 and testing will resume for the locations missed. 7.Potable Tank Inspection and Cleaning: Year-to-date 7 out of 8 sites were inspected and cleaned. There was an unexpected delay with the 711-3 cover and liner replacement. It is expected to be back on track by the 1st quarter in FY20. Next Steps Staff will continue to execute the plan’s objectives and key performance indicators and track emerging trends. Committee Reports – Slideshow The Strategic Plan results are presented to both the Finance & Administration, and the Engineering, Operations, & Water Resources Committee with a specific focus on the most relevant information for each Committee (see “Attachment B”). Strategic Plan is available on the Board VPN All of the Strategic Plan results and associated details are provided in a real-time, interactive web-based application available to the Board via secured remote access, VPN. The District Secretary can facilitate any password or access issues. 5 FISCAL IMPACT:Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer 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. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Committee Action Report Attachment B – PowerPoint Presentation 6 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: FY19 YEAR-END REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT’S FY19-22 STRATEGIC PLAN COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance & Administration, and Engineering, Operations & Water Resources Committees reviewed this item at a meeting held on August 20 and 23, 2019, respectively and the following comments were made: •Staff presented the year-end results of the District’s fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019) Strategic Plan. •Staff reviewed information from the staff report and presented a powerpoint that provided the year-end results of each of the objectives and key performance indicators for FY 2019. •Staff stated that the District utilizes the Balanced Scorecard Performance Management System which is in its 4th generation. Along with the Balance Scorecard framework, the District also uses the AWWA business drivers to develop the District’s Strategic Plan. •Staff noted that the powerpoint presentation was modified to show the results of objectives and key performance indicators through a dashboard layout. The Committee requested that the title in the dashboard for “Target” on the bottom lefthand corner be modified from “Target” to “Goal” to make it clearer. •In response to an inquiry from the committee of why the objective, Customer Electronic Communications and Outreach, was not on target, staff indicated that the goal of the objective is to explore various ways that the District can enhance communications with its customers. Staff stated that the District’s Customer Service Supervisor had retired at the end of last year and a new Supervisor was hired earlier this year. The new supervisor had no water experience and she has been immersed in training. She has completed a good amount of her training and will be able to start focusing on this objective. Staff would like to explore enhancing outreach methods to customers that may include additional web service forms. Currently, customers can submit web service forms to start services 7 and terminate services and staff would like to implement web service forms for possibly leak adjustments which is currently handled through email. Also, text messages are currently used for late payment notifications and staff would like to implement text messaging to advise customers that their payment has been received and their water service has been unlocked/restored. This objective would explore these and other such enhancements. •Staff explained with regard to the objective, Evaluate Feasibility of Incorporating Electronic and Hybrid Vehicles into the District’s Fleet, that the District did evaluate hybrid vehicles a couple years ago, but they did not make sense economically as the District does not receive the tax advantage associated with purchasing such vehicles because it is a public (not-for-profit) utility. It was further discussed with regard to possibly adding natural gas vehicles to the District’s fleet, that it would require a large number of fleet vehicles where the District could have its own natural gas compression station for fueling to make it economical. Staff also noted with regard to leasing versus owning vehicles, that the interest charged for leased vehicles does not compare with the District’s cost of funds. Staff indicated that this objective provides for the District to continue to monitor these areas should it become cost effective sometime in the future. •Staff noted that on the bottom righthand side of the dashboards for both the objectives and key performance indicators, it provides for the results of the District’s year-end Strategic Plan by fiscal year. The District met or exceeded the District objective target goals in fiscal years 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019. It was slightly under in fiscal year 2016. Concerning, key performance indicators, the District exceeded its goals in fiscal years 2015 to 2019. •It was noted that the objective for Easement Evaluation and Field Inspection was added at Director Smith’s suggestion. There are 2300 easements throughout the District and the target is to inspect 100 easements to determine if there are any encroachments (fences, walls, trees, driveways, etc.) over the District’s easements This year, 129 easements were reviewed and approximately six (6) were identified with encroachments. The District is working to resolve the six (6) encroachments. Staff explained that there is currently no benchmark for this objective as it is the first year of implementation. The goal of this objective is to put in place the inspection of easements on a programmatic basis. •Staff indicated in response to an inquiry from the Committee that staff communicates the District’s efforts to enhance operating efficiencies through the District’s website which is promoted through social media campaigns and the customer newsletter. The 8 District also displays the information in the District’s booth when staff is out in the community and staff is looking to work with its consultant to create factsheets with this information. •It was indicated that the objective, Overtime Percentage, did not meet its target due to several pipeline breaks which required Operations crews to work after-hours to complete repairs. •In response to an inquiry from the Committee, staff indicated with regard to the objective, Recycled Water Shutdown Testing, that the District has met the goal this year (100% in FY 2019 versus 86% in FY 2018) much likely due to better organization. Staff developed a plan and instituted violations for customers who delayed inspections. For those customers who chronically delayed inspections, the District pulled their meters to encourage compliance with the testing requirements. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee recommended presentation to the full board as an informational item. FY19 Year-End Report Otay Water District Strategic Plan Attachment B Strategies and objectives are actionable steps or plans designed to achieve the vision/mission of the organization. The Regulatory Site in Rancho San Diego includes four reservoirs, two pump stations, and disinfection facilities. 94% 34 Objectives TRENDS ON TARGET/COMPLETED TARGET 90% TOTAL OBJECTIVES 49 NOT ON TARGET OBJECTIVES ON HOLD 3% 1 Objective 3% 1 Objective 75% 85% 95% FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 COMPLETED10NOT STARTED 13 RESULT TARGET ACTIVE 36 ON TARGET| 24 Objectives 1. C01.1 Continue implementation of and enhance the District’s community and business outreach, media, and government relations programs. 2. C01.2 Ensure consistency of branding and representation across the District, using consistent logos, colors, messaging, communications tools, and other collaterals through enhancement of internal and external marketing materials. 3. C01.3 Evaluate and enhance the District’s water conservation programs. 4. C02.1 Assess communications tools. 5. F01.1 Recycled water long-term business plan. 6. F01.2 South District Potable Water Supply Alternatives to San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) Pipeline 4 Supply Interruption (catastrophic event). 7. F01.3 Treatment Plant long-term business plan (sewer portion). 8. F03.2 Evaluate, and if beneficial, implement Cloud payroll service. 9. F04.2 Enhancement of the AM Program. 10. F04.3 Financial activity-based cost cross-training. 11. F06.2 Review Deferred Compensation Program for reduced fees and streamlined approach and ensure program offerings are fully utilized. 12. I01.2 Explore web-based options for meter reading and backflow test entry. ON TARGET| 24 Objectives 13. I03.2 Implement Human Resource Information System (HRIS) in coordination with payroll conversion. 14. I05.1 Prioritize fourteen strategic project/initiatives, recently developed. 15. I06.2 Evaluate the use of Drone2Map technology for asset, field inspections, and condition assessment. 16. I07.1 Analyze electric energy-saving programs as they become available. 17. I07.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of various methods to reduce nitrification events. 18. I07.3 Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the District’s valve exercise preventative maintenance including proposed recommendations. 19. I07.4 Evaluate the impacts as a result of recent and upcoming regulatory changes including, but not limited to, Air Pollution Control District (APCD), State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), etc. 20. I07.5 Establish an access and defensible space vegetation mitigation program with maintenance schedules for District remote facilities, access roads, and off-road appurtenances. 21. I08.1 Enhance Customer and Public Service security in public lobby areas. 22. I09.1 Automate confined space regulatory and work forms (electronic conversion), add confined space data layer in the District’s enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS) and use data to electronically automate the District’s confined space inventory. 23. I10.1 Certify at Industry State Level and under the Incident Command System, streamline chlorine gas and confined space rescue training, operations, response and areas of responsibility and convert to inventory lists and equipment logs to electronic form. 24. L01.1 Continue development of leadership and District-wide training programs. ON TARGET | 24 Objectives COMPLETED| 10 Objectives 1. F02.1 Conduct desalination (Rosarito) financial analysis. 2. F04.1 Enhancement of the framework for systematic development, validation, and implementation of new CIPs. 3. F04.4 In support of the Engineering Department, enhance financial impact forecasting and analysis of future CIPs. 4. F05.1 Optimize funding and liability schedule. 5. F06.1 Negotiate and implement new labor agreement. 6. I04.1 Adopt National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cyber security framework and enhance disaster recovery planning. 7. I04.2 Advance business processes and operational efficiencies through effective implementation of information technology. 8. I04.3 Create framework to evaluate cost efficiency of new technology services and cloud vs. on-premise selection. 9. I04.4 Deploy next generation storage services and communication architecture. 10. I08.3 Streamline contract and purchase order (contract) management and lifecycle. 1.I02.1 Customer electronic communication and outreach. NOT ON TARGET | 1 Objectives 1.I08.2 Evaluate feasibility of incorporating electric and hybrid vehicles into District fleet. ON HOLD | 1 ACTIVE| 36 Objectives 1. C01.1 Continue implementation of and enhance the District’s community and business outreach, media, and government relations programs. 2. C01.2 Ensure consistency of branding and representation across the District, using consistent logos, colors, messaging, communications tools, and other collaterals through enhancement of internal and external marketing materials. 3. C01.3 Evaluate and enhance the District’s water conservation programs. 4. C02.1 Assess communications tools. 5. F01.1 Recycled water long-term business plan. 6. F01.2 South District Potable Water Supply Alternatives to San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) Pipeline 4 Supply Interruption (catastrophic event). 7. F01.3 Treatment Plant long-term business plan (sewer portion). 8. F02.1 Conduct desalination (Rosarito) financial analysis. 9. F03.2 Evaluate, and if beneficial, implement Cloud payroll service. 10. F04.1 Enhancement of the framework for systematic development, validation, and implementation of new CIPs. 11. F04.2 Enhancement of the AM Program. 12. F04.3 Financial activity-based cost cross-training. ACTIVE| 36 Objectives 13. F04.4 In support of the Engineering Department, enhance financial impact forecasting and analysis of future CIPs. 14. F05.1 Optimize funding and liability schedule. 15. F06.1 Negotiate and implement new labor agreement. 16. F06.2 Review Deferred Compensation Program for reduced fees and streamlined approach and ensure program offerings are fully utilized. 17. I01.2 Explore web-based options for meter reading and backflow test entry. 18. I02.1 Customer electronic communication and outreach. 19. I03.2 Implement Human Resource Information System (HRIS) in coordination with payroll conversion. 20. I04.1 Adopt National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cyber security framework and enhance disaster recovery planning. 21. I04.2 Advance business processes and operational efficiencies through effective implementation of information technology. 22. I04.3 Create framework to evaluate cost efficiency of new technology services and cloud vs. on-premise selection. 23. I04.4 Deploy next generation storage services and communication architecture. ACTIVE | 36 Objectives 24. I05.1 Prioritize fourteen strategic project/initiatives, recently developed. 25. I06.2 Evaluate the use of Drone2Map technology for asset, field inspections, and condition assessment. 26. I07.1 Analyze electric energy-saving programs as they become available. 27. I07.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of various methods to reduce nitrification events. 28. I07.3 Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the District’s valve exercise preventative maintenance including proposed recommendations. 29. I07.4 Evaluate the impacts as a result of recent and upcoming regulatory changes including, but not limited to, Air Pollution Control District (APCD), State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), etc. 30. I07.5 Establish an access and defensible space vegetation mitigation program with maintenance schedules for District remote facilities, access roads, and off-road appurtenances. 31. I08.1 Enhance Customer and Public Service security in public lobby areas. 32. I08.2 Evaluate feasibility of incorporating electric and hybrid vehicles into District fleet. 33. I08.3 Streamline contract and purchase order (contract) management and lifecycle. ACTIVE | 36 Objectives 34. I09.1 Automate confined space regulatory and work forms (electronic conversion), add confined space data layer in the District’s enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS) and use data to electronically automate the District’s confined space inventory. 35. I10.1 Certify at Industry State Level and under the Incident Command System, streamline chlorine gas and confined space rescue training, operations, response and areas of responsibility and convert to inventory lists and equipment logs to electronic form. 36. L01.1 Continue development of leadership and District-wide training programs. NOT STARTED | 13 Objectives 1. F02.2 In support of the Engineering Department, conduct recycled water and sewer business financial analysis. (FY20 Q1) 2. F03.1 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)/Customer Information System (CIS)/Customer Relationship Management (CRM) validation and replacement evaluation. (ERP -FY21 Q1) 3. F03.03 Evaluate enhancements to, or replacement, of the rate model program. (FY20 Q1) 4. F03.4 Implement Paperless Account Payable (AP) solution. (FY20 Q1) 5. I01.1Evaluation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) technology. (FY21 Q1) 6. I01.3 Optimize Global Positioning System (GPS) fleet assignment and routing operation. (FY20 Q1) 7. I02.2 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)/Customer Information System (CIS)/Customer Relationship Management (CRM) validation and replacement evaluation. (CIS/CRM -FY21 Q1) 8. I03.1 Evaluate on-boarding programs and implement, if determined necessary. (FY21 Q1) 9. I03.3 Pilot cloud-based human capital performance management system and implement, if determined necessary. (FY21 Q1) 10. I06.1 Deploy ArcGIS Pro for 3D Analysis. (FY21 Q1) 11. I06.3 Migrate Geographic Information System (GIS) data structure from geometric network to utility network. (FY21 Q1) 12. I06.4 Standardization of District asset data and collection process. (FY20 Q1) 13. L01.2 Review and enhance knowledge transfer process to ensure retention of District knowledge. (FY22 Q1) Key Performance Indicators show progress toward a desirable outcome and monitor operational performance 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 LEARNING AND GROWTH CUSTOMERTRENDS ON TARGET KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FINANCIAL TARGET INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESSES 75% TOTAL KPIs 41 REPORTED QUARTERLY35 REPORTED ANNUALLY6 17% 7 KPIs NOT ON TARGET 83% 34 KPIs RESULT TARGET KPI’s Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Plant. 1. C1.01 Answer Rate 2. C1.02 Technical Quality Complaint 3. C1.03 Potable Water Compliance Rate 4. F1.02 Construction Change Order Incidence 5. F1.03 O&M Cost Per Account 6. F1.04 Billing Accuracy 7. F1.06 Sewer Rate Ranking 8. F1.07 Water Rate Ranking 9. F1.08 Water Debt Coverage Ratio 10. F1.10 Reserve Level 11. F1.11 Accounts per Full-Time Employee (FTE) 12. F1.12 Percent of Customers Paying Bills Electronically ON TARGET | 34 13. F1.13 Distribution System Loss 14. F1.14 Planned Potable Water Maintenance Ratio in $ 15. F1.15 Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $ 16. F1.16 Planned Wastewater Maintenance Ratio in $ 17. F1.18 Leak Detection Program 18. F1.19 Injury Incidence Rate 19. I1.01 Enterprise Technology Services Availability 20. I1.03 Project Closeout Time 21. I1.04 Annual Recycled Water Site Inspections 22. I1.05 Recycled Water Shutdown Testing 23. I1.06 Easement Evaluation and Field Inspection 24. I1.07 Percent of Preventative Maintenance Completed –Fleet Maintenance 25. I1.08 Percent of Preventative Maintenance Completed –Reclamation Plant KPI’s Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Plant. 26. I1.09 Percent of Preventative Maintenance Completed –Pump/Electric Section 27. I1.10 System Valve Exercising Program 28. I1.11 Potable Water Distribution System Integrity 29. I1.12 Recycled Water System Integrity 30. I1.16 Main Flushing and Hydrant Maintenance 31. I1.17 Critical Valve Exercising 32. L1.01 Employee Voluntary Turnover Rate 33. L1.02 Training Hours per Employee 34. L1.03 Safety Training Program ON TARGET | 34 1.F1.01 CIP Project Expenditures vs. Budget 2.F1.01 Overtime Percentage 3.F1.17 Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD 4.I1.02 Mark-out Accuracy 5.I1.13 Sewer Overflow Rate 6.I1.14 Emergency Facility Power Testing 7.I1.15 Potable Tank Inspection and Cleaning NOT ON TARGET | 7 KPI’s Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Plant. KPI’s Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Plant. 1. C1.01 Answer Rate 2. C1.02 Technical Quality Complaint 3. C1.03 Potable Water Compliance Rate 4. F1.01 CIP Project Expenditures vs. Budget 5. F1.02 Construction Change Order Incidence 6. F1.03 O&M Cost Per Account 7. F1.04 Billing Accuracy 8. F1.05 Overtime Percentage 9. F1.06 Sewer Rate Ranking 10. F1.07 Water Rate Ranking 11. F1.12 Percent of Customers Paying Bills Electronically 12. F1.13 Distribution System Loss QUARTERLY | 35 13. F1.14 Planned Potable Water Maintenance Ratio in $ 14. F1.15 Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $ 15. F1.16 Planned Wastewater Maintenance Ratio in $ 16. F1.17 Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD 17. I1.02 Mark-out Accuracy 18. I1.03 Project Closeout Time 29. I1.04 Annual Recycled Water Site Inspections 20. I1.05 Recycled Water Shutdown Testing 21. I1.06 Easement Evaluation and Field Inspection 22. I1.07 Percent of Preventative Maintenance Completed –Fleet Maintenance 23. I1.08 Percent of Preventative Maintenance Completed –Reclamation Plant 24. I1.09 Percent of Preventative Maintenance Completed –Pump/Electric Section KPI’s Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Plant. 25. I1.10 System Valve Exercising Program 26. I1.11 Potable Water Distribution System Integrity 27. I1.12 Recycled Water System Integrity 28. I1.13 Sewer Overflow Rate 29. I1.14 Emergency Facility Power Testing 30. I1.15 Potable Tank Inspection and Cleaning 31. I1.16 Main Flushing and Hydrant Maintenance 32. I1.17 Critical Valve Exercising 33. L1.01 Employee Voluntary Turnover Rate 34. L1.02 Training Hours per Employee 35. L1.03 Safety Training Program QUARTERLY | 35 1.F1.08 Water Debt Coverage 2.F1.10 Reserve Level 3.F1.11 Accounts Per FTE 4.F1.18 Leak Detection Program 5.F1.19 Injury Incidence Rate 6.I1.01 Enterprise Technology Services Availability ANNUAL | 6 KPI’s Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Plant. 98.12%98.00% 98.38% 96% 97% 97% 98% 98% 99% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T C1.01 Answer Rate Target: 97% average answer rate per quarter annually. TARGET Calculation: YTD number of all calls answered/ YTD number of all calls received C1.02 Technical Quality Complaint (AWWA) Target & AWWA: No more than 7.1 complaints per 1000 customer accounts annually. 3.94 4.20 3.55 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET & AWWA BENCHMARK 75th Percentile for population served between 100,0001-500,000 (combined utilities). Calculation: YTD number of technical quality complaints per year/ YTD number of active customer accounts per reporting period) C1.03 Potable Water Compliance Rate (AWWA) Target & AWWA: 100% of all health related drinking water standards per quarter annually. 100%100%100% 90% 95% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET & AWWA BENCHMARK 75th Percentile for population served between 100,0001-500,000 (water). Calculation: Number of days the primary health regulations are met/Number of days in the reporting period F1.01 CIP Project Expenditures vs. Budget Target: 95% of budget but not to exceed 100% annually. 109.1% 97.4% 104.8% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: YTD expenditures/Annual budget 870-2 Pump Station. F1.02 Construction Change Order Incidence Target: No more than 5% annually. 1.5%1.3% 3.1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: Total cost of Change Orders (not including allowances)/Total original construction contract amount (not including allowances) The District’s contractor, Pacific Hydrotech Corporation, working on the 870- 2 Pump Station Gallery concrete pour. F1.03 O&M Cost Per Account Target: Less than $571.00 per account annually. $517.00 $549.00 $548.00 $480 $500 $520 $540 $560 $580 $600 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T Target is based on Operating Budget. Calculation: YTD total operations O&M costs/Number of accounts District Staff performing maintenance work in Rancho San Diego Community F1.04 Billing Accuracy Target: 99.8% billing accuracy per quarter annually. 99.99%99.98%99.94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 101% 2017 2018 2019 TARGET YE A R -EN D R E S U L T Calculation: YTD number of correct bills/YTD number of total of accurate bills F1.05 Overtime Percentage Target: Less than 100% of budgeted overtime per quarter annually. Target is based on Operating Budget and historical trends; FY19 Overtime Budget is $149,900. Calculation: YTD actual overtime costs (including comp time)/YTD budgeted overtime costs 118% 100% 129% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125% 130% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET F1.06 Sewer Rate Ranking Target: Bottom 50th percentile for the 28 sewer service providers in San Diego. Otay ranks 3 out of 28 sewer service providers. Calculation: Ranking for the average monthly sewer bill. 5 6 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET F1.07 Water Rate Ranking Target: Bottom 50th percentile for the 22 member agencies in San Diego. Otay ranks 3 out of 22 member agencies. Calculation: Ranking for the average monthly water bill among CWA member agencies.11 3 3 0 5 10 15 20 2017 2018 2019 YT D R E S U L T TARGET 200%200% 165% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% 170% 180% 190% 200% 210% 220% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T F1.08 Water Debt Coverage Ratio Target: 150% excluding growth revenue annually. Calculation: Qualified net operating revenues/Debt service requirements TARGET FY18 Target –168% F1.10 Reserve Level Target: No less than 85% annually. There are 7 reserve funds. Calculation: Number of reserve funds that meet or exceed fund target levels/Total number of reserve funds 85% 100%100% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET F1.11 Account Per Full-Time Employee (FTE) Target: 409 accounts per FTE annually. 406 426 410 400 405 410 415 420 425 430 435 440 445 450 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: Potable + Recycled + Sewer Accounts/Number of FTEs District Staff performing meter maintenance. F1.12 Percent of Customers Paying Bills Electronically Target: No less than 75% per quarter annually. 75.64%77.05%78.50% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: YTD number of customers paying bills electronically/Total number of customers F1.13 Distribution System Loss Target: Less than 5%of unaccounted water annually. Calculation: Volume purchased from CWA, City of San Diego & RWCTP Production –volume sold to customers + volume used by District/Volume purchased from CWA, City of San Diego & RWCTP Production 4.1% 3.3%3.6% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET F1.14 Planned Potable Water Maintenance Ratio in $ Target: 66% of all labor costs spent on preventative maintenance per quarter annually. Calculation: YTD PM + Daily Cost/YTD Total Potable Labor Cost 70%72%74% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET F1.15 Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $ Target: 70% of all labor costs spent on preventative maintenance per quarter annually. Calculation: YTD PM + Daily Cost/YTD Total Potable Labor Cost 91% 74%74% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET F1.16 Planned Wastewater Maintenance Ratio in $ Target: 77% of all labor costs spent on preventative maintenance per quarter annually. 91% 82%84% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: YTD PM + Daily Cost/YTD Total Potable Labor Cost F1.17 Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD Target: No more than $1050 per MGD spent on wastewater treatment annually. $1,095.70 $1,165.82 $1,071.66 $950 $1,000 $1,050 $1,100 $1,150 $1,200 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: Total O&M costs directly attributable to sewer treatment/Total volume in MG for one quarter District staff checking the clarity and particulates of a final effluent sample. F1.18 Leak Detection Program Target: 20% of system surveyed for leaks annually. 20%20%20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: Miles of potable pipe surveyed/Total miles of potable pipe The District’s contractor lowering a See Snake to begin assessment on a 14” main above Sweetwater Lake. F1.19 Injury Incident Rate Target: No more than 6.8 injury incidents per 200,000 hours worked annually. Standard is based on Department of Labor average for like-size agencies. Calculation: Number of Injuries & illnesses x 200,000/Number of Employees x 2,000 hours worked 4.4 4.4 4.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.01 Enterprise Technology Services Availability Target: No less than 99.5% availability annually. 99.5%99.5%99.5% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: 3.6 hours of downtime per month/1.83 days downtime in a year I1.02 Mark-out Accuracy Target: 100% mark-out accuracy per quarter annually. 100.00%100.00%99.96% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: YTD number of mark-outs performed without an at-fault hit, which is damage to a District facility that results from a missing or erroneous mark-out/YTD total number of mark-outs District staff conducting a mark-out. I1.03 Project Closeout Time Target: 45 day average annually. 71.2 70.3 37.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: YTD number of days between NOSC and NOC for all construction projects within the quarter/YTD number of construction projects within the quarter Board Members at the 870-2 Pump Station project. I1.04 Annual Recycled Water Site Inspections Target: 100% of recycled sites inspected annually. 100.00%100.00%100.00% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 101% 102% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET There are 102 recycled water use sites scheduled for FY19. Calculation: Cumulative percentage of recycled water sites inspected per quarter of those required by DEH Developer Contractors installing a recycled main line for Solstice Park in the Millenia Development. I1.05 Recycled Water Shutdown Testing Target: 90% of recycled site shut down tests performed annually. There are 50 recycled water use sites scheduled for shutdown in FY19. Calculation: Cumulative percentage of recycled site shut down tests performed per year compared to those scheduled 90% 86% 100% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.06 Easement Evaluation and Field Inspection Target: 100% assigned easements, evaluated via desktop tools, and inspected annually. 100 easements were assigned for FY19. New KPI in FY19. Calculation: Number of easements evaluated and inspected/Total easements assigned for the period 129.00% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125% 130% 135% 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.07 Percent of PM’s Completed –Fleet Maintenance Target: 90% of scheduled preventative maintenance completed per quarter annually. Calculation: Number of PM’s completed for the quarter/Number of PM’s scheduled to be completed for the quarter. 100%100%99% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.08 Percent of PM’s Completed –Reclamation Plant 99%98%98% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Target: 90% of scheduled preventative maintenance completed each quarter annually. Calculation: Number of PM’s completed for the quarter/Number of PM’s scheduled to be completed for the quarter. Aerial view of the Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Plant. I1.09 Percent of PM’s Completed –Pump/Electric Section Target: 90% of scheduled preventative maintenance completed per quarter annually. 100%100%100% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: Number of PM’s completed for the quarter/Number of PM’s scheduled to be completed for the quarter. District Vehicle towing a genset. I1.10 System Valve Exercising Program Target: 3080 valves exercised annually. 3228 3405 3298 3,000 3,050 3,100 3,150 3,200 3,250 3,300 3,350 3,400 3,450 3,500 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: Total number of valves exercised per year. District Staff performing a valve exercise. I1.11 Potable Water Distribution System Integrity Target: No more than 16 leaks or breaks per 100 miles of distribution system annually. AWWA: 16.1 leaks and breaks per 100 miles of distribution system (50th percentile Potable Water System Integrity: Leaks and Breaks for population served between 100,001-500,000). Calculation: Annual total number of leaks + annual number of breaks/Total miles of distribution piping 10.28 9.50 8.44 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2017 2018 2019 AWWA BENCHMARK YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.12 Recycled Water System Integrity Target: No more than 6.6 leaks or breaks per 100 miles of recycled distribution system annually. Calculation: Number of leaks and breaks/Number of miles of recycled distribution system 0.90 2.67 4.45 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.13 Sewer Overflow Rate (AWWA) Target & AWWA: 0 overflows per quarter. 75th Percentile for Sewer Overflow rate for population served between 0-50,000 Calculation: Total number of sewer overflows during the reporting period/Total miles of pipe in the sewage collection system 0 0 1 0 1 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET & AWWA BENCHMARK I1.14 Emergency Facility Power Testing Target: Test 100% of all facilities scheduled per quarter to have all emergency facilities tested annually. There are 36 powered ready facilities. Calculation: Number of facilities tested/Total number of facilities 105%106% 94% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.15 Potable Tank Inspection and Cleaning Target: 8 potable water storage tanks and/or reservoirs cleaned annually. Calculation: Total number of tanks cleaned and inspected annually. 8 8 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.16 Main Flushing and Hydrant Maintenance Target: 215 mains flushed and fire hydrants maintained annually. Calculation: Total number of mains flushed and fire hydrants maintained per year. 355 443 216 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET I1.17 Critical Valve Exercising Target: 631 critical valves exercised annually. Calculation: Total number of critical valves exercised in a year. 631 633 631 5 105 205 305 405 505 605 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET L1.01 Employee Voluntary Turnover Rate Target: Less than 5% turnover annually. Calculation: YTD Number of voluntary terminations (not including retirements)/Average number of employees. 0.08% 1.50% 3.77% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET L1.02 Training Hours per Employee Target: 12 hours per employee annually. 22.89 18.11 26.84 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: YTD Total qualified training hours for all employees/Average number of FTEs. L1.03 Safety Training Program Target: 24 hours per field employee annually. 30.83 30.38 35.44 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2017 2018 2019 YE A R -EN D R E S U L T TARGET Calculation: YTD Total qualified safety training hours for field employees/Average number of field employees. District Staff entering an excavation to complete a service replacement. Questions? 2019 Issues Facing the Water Sector 1.Renewal and replacement of aging water and wastewater infrastructure 2.Financing for capital improvements 3. Long-term water supply availability 4.Public understanding of the value of water systems and services 5.Watershed/source water protection 6.Public understanding of the value of water sources 7.Groundwater management and overuse 8.Aging workforce/anticipated retirements 9.Emergency preparedness 10.Cost recovery (pricing water to accurately reflect the cost of service) 11.Governing board acceptance of future water and wastewater rate increases 12. Compliance with current regulations 13.Compliance with future regulations 14.Talent attraction and retention 16.Public acceptance of future water and wastewater rate increases 17.Water conservation/efficiency 18.Cybersecurity issues 19.Asset Management 20.Drought or periodic water shortages 21.Improving customer, constituent, and community relationships 22.Data management 23.Water loss control 24. Certification and training 25.Energy use/efficiency and cost 26.Water rights 27.Water quality issues from premise plumbing systems 28.Expanding water reuse/reclamation 29.Financing for water research 30. Physical security issues 31.Climate risk and resiliency STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING:Regular Board MEETING DATE:September 4, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Mark Watton General Manager W.O./G.F. NO: N/A DIV. NO. N/A APPROVED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT:General Manager’s Report ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: Human Resources: •Health Plan Renewal - SDRMA continues to do an excellent job of maintaining low-rate increases for the District’s health insurance plans. The District recently received the renewal for 2020 and the rates include a minimal increase of 3.3% for all four plans. •Employee Appreciation Luncheon - Mark your calendars to attend the District’s Appreciation BBQ Luncheon scheduled for Thursday, October 17th at 11:30 A.M. at the Operations Center. •Promotions/Recruitments: o Recently, there were three internal promotions: Executive Assistant (Finance), Executive Assistant (Water Operations), and Lead Meter Maintenance/Cross Connection Worker. o The District is recruiting for a Department Assistant, Laboratory Analyst, and Recycled Water Specialist. These positions are critical to District operations. IT Operations: •District Technology Upgrade - Staff completed the second phase of the Audio/Video design in preparation for the District’s Board Room technology upgrade. In preparation for the Request For Proposal (RFP) solicitation process, a cross-functional group was assembled to finalize the technology requirements and additional enhancements. The RFP will be released in a few weeks with a deadline to submit proposals to the District by an October timeframe. Pending final approval from the Board, it is anticipated that the project will begin at the end of the calendar year. AGENDA ITEM 10 2 •Monthly Board Audio Streaming - During the District’s August Board meeting, 7 customers engaged in the listening of the live monthly meeting. The live audio broadcast was aired for 1 hour and 33 minutes. Purchasing & Facilities: •Fire Alarm Annual Test and Inspection - Albireo Energy, the District’s fire alarm monitoring and service provider, completed the annual inspection at Administration, Operations and Warehouse locations. Each system, consisting of sirens, strobes, detectors, pull stations and communications to a central station, was tested and verified to be in working order. Two backup batteries were found to be out of date and subsequently replaced. •Public Services (PS), Customer Service (CS), and Lobby Enhancement Update – PS Conference Room – Solicitation “FY20-2231-022- PublicService Conference Room Expansion” closed on July 24, 2019. The scope of work includes the demolition and replacement of two conference room walls and the removal of two lobby architectural features. Of the five firms who attended the mandatory job walk, one submitted an incomplete bid that was deemed nonresponsive and also not responsible based on a search (Public Works California Department of Industrial Relations Website) and other public information. Two firms indicated that the job was too small, and a third firm indicated that they would not be bidding based on the specifications. Staff is considering a negotiated contract with a responsible contractor using CUPCCAA provisions. The provisions will allow for direct contracting of public works under $60,000. •BidSync Solicitations - During the last period, there were two (2) solicitations advertised on BidSync: o “As-Needed Hydraulic Modeling FY2020-2021” – For the services of hydraulic modeling consulting firm(s) to provide professional hydraulic modeling services in support of the District’s Capital Improvement Program for a period of two Fiscal Years (FY 2020 – FY 2021) on an as-needed basis, in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000. The solicitation closed on August 13, 2019 at 4:00 P.M. o “Phone Payment Processing Services” – For services to process customer payments over the phone via credit card or bank account via secure connection. The proposed contract is for 2 years with 3 one-year renewals. The total budgeted amount is $250,000. The solicitation closed on August 20, 2019 at 4:00 P.M. Safety & Security: •Update on America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA 2018) Staff continues to work on drafting a response to the AWIA 3 requirements for District internal review, evaluation and approval. In addition, staff completed EPA’s instructional webinar on the updated tools and resources available to aid in the completion of the Risk, Resilience and Vulnerabilities Assessment and the Emergency Response Plan requirements. There is a consorted initiative via CWA to find consultants to help with the assessment and response plan in relationship to the AWIA 2018 requirements: o As of August 15, 2019, 33 firms have opened the consorted RFP and 6 firms have requested the supporting information. RFP Addendum 1 was released on the same day. Proposals are due on or before 2:00 P.M. on Monday, August 26, 2019. Proposals will be shared electronically with interested water agencies. o Meeting to review responses and rank firms is scheduled for Wednesday, September 4, 2019, at the SDCWA Escondido facility. The deadlines for compliance with the act remain the same: Risk and Resilience Assessment due by March 31, 2020, and Emergency Response Plan due by September 30, 2020. •Cal/OSHA Emergency Regulation Update – On July 18, 2019, Cal/OSHA adopted an emergency regulation to “Protect Outdoor Workers from Wildfires” with an implementation time of mid-August 2019. The regulation requires that anytime the quality of particulates in the air exceeds 151 ppm, employers need to take protective measures to protect exposed employees. The District is in full compliance with these new regulatory requirements and has exceeded the mid-August Cal/OSHA imposed deadline for awareness training compliance. All affected staff has received the required training. As of now, we have on hand over 300 N95 respirator masks for protection use, as the need arises. Monthly WebEOC Emergency Preparedness & Tabletop Exercise - District EOC staff successfully completed an internal “Cyber Security Breach” emergency response tabletop exercise. Staff’s responses, interactions and contributions, resulted in the sharing of known emergency response steps and in the learning of additional applicable knowledge. This will be evaluated to further enhance the District’s Emergency Response Plan and maintain staff’s emergency response readiness. The goal of these exercises is to assist in keeping skills sharp, reinforce training, and lead to a more efficient and effective response during an emergency. Finance: •2019 Annual Fiscal Year-End – Staff completed the closing of the FY 2019 Financial Ledgers and are ready for the external auditors who began their final fieldwork on August 26th. The audited 4 financial statements are scheduled to be presented to the board at the November 6th board meeting. •2019 Sewer Debt Update – At the August 2019 meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board directed staff to proceed with issuing Sewer Debt. On August 8th, an RFP for a bond underwriter/placement agent was issued. A recommendation of a bond underwriter/placement agent is expected to be made on September 3rd. Concurrently, staff is compiling financial data and other statistical data in anticipation of preparing financial reports required by the underwriter/placement agent and our municipal advisor. The District’s municipal advisor is projecting a December 2019 closing date for issuing the debt. •FY 2020 Budget – Staff is preparing the 2020 budget books, and anticipate completion by the September/October timeframe. The budget books are an excellent communication tool to share with our customers and other interested parties. Staff will also submit the books to the Government Finance Officers Association and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers award programs. The deadline for submission to the award programs is October 31, 2019. •AMR Change Outs - Staff is preparing for the last round of AMR change outs. Tentatively, they are scheduled to begin in November and more than 5,500 registers and 500 meters will be changed. •FY 2020 Rate Notices- Rate increase notices, effective January 1, 2020, were mailed with customers’ bills in July and August. As of August 22nd, staff received a total of ten phone calls. Of these, three were commercial customers asking about information for their upcoming budget, five customers mentioned they had received the notice when they inquired about their account, and two complained about the rate increases. Financial Reporting: •The financial reporting for July 31, 2019 is as follows: o For the first month ending July 31, 2019, there are total revenues of $9,836,045 and total expenses of $9,476,785. The revenues exceeded expenses by $359,260. •The financial reporting for investments for July 31, 2019 is as follows: o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the Investment Portfolio Details as of July 31, 2019 total 5 $69,746,723 with an average yield to maturity of 1.951%. The total earnings year-to-date are $118,965. ENGINEERING AND WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS: Engineering: •870-2 Pump Station Replacement: This project consists of a new Pump Station to replace the existing Low Head 571-1 and High Head 870-1 Pump Stations. The project also includes the replacement of the existing liner and cover for the 571-1 Reservoir (36.7 MG). In August 2019, the Station’s contractor Pacific Hydrotech continued to install equipment within the Station including lighting and plumbing appurtenances. In addition, installation of the platform located within the Station’s galley area has begun. Environmental compliance during construction continues to be monitored by Helix Environmental. Noise blankets to mitigate construction noise from impacting nesting birds are being maintained on the existing property fence with approval granted by the County of San Diego. The project is within budget and scheduled to be completed in December 2019. (P2083 & P2562) •Campo Road Sewer Replacement: The existing sanitary sewer from Avocado Road to Singer Lane is undersized and located in environmentally sensitive areas that are difficult to access. The Campo Road Sewer Replacement project will install approximately 7,420 linear feet of new 15-inch gravity sewer pipe and includes abandonment of the existing sewer main. The project’s construction is guided by traffic lane closure permits that limit the hours of work within the traveled way. The project’s environmental permit also limits work adjacent to the environmentally sensitive area during the months of February through September. During the month of August 2019, Wier Construction, the contractor for the project completed installation of the sewer main westerly across Via Mercado. The contractor continues to encounter rock within sewer construction limits. Although the project is currently in budget, a change order and corresponding budget increase request will be required for these unforeseen conditions. It is anticipated that the overall project, which includes the abandonment of the existing sewer located in the environmentally sensitive area along Campo Road, will be completed in December 2019. (S2024) •Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Water Pipelines Replacement: The existing 1950’s steel water line along Vista Vereda between Vista Grande Road and Hidden Mesa Trail in the Hillsdale area has experienced leaks and is nearing the end of its useful life. The existing water main is located primarily within easements, many of 6 which have had significant improvements performed over the years since the water line was constructed. This project will replace the existing water lines with new water lines in both Vista Vereda and Hidden Mesa Road. During August 2019, the District’s construction contractor Cass Arietta Construction, Inc. continued the installation of the new water main in Vista Vereda. Overall, this project is within budget and completion of the construction is scheduled for September 2019. (P2574 & P2625) •Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy: This project will add a second pump to the District’s existing Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station (TLOPS) to provide redundancy. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) of San Diego County issued an Authority to Construct on July 18, 2019. The redundant trailer vendor’s (Hawthorne) purchase agreement was revised on August 5, 2019 to include a Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) emissions control system, and a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) to supplement the DPF prepackaged with the CAT engine, to facilitate permitting with APCD. At the July 2019 meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board awarded a construction contract to Tharsos, Inc. The construction contract includes grading, mechanical, structural, electrical, instrumentation and control, and installation of the trailer. It is anticipated that work on the project will begin in August 2019 and be completed in May 2020. This project is within budget. (P2619) •Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Program: This project includes repairs to existing cathodic protection systems, such as anode replacement, cathodic test station repairs, retrofit/repair of isolation kits, and repair of existing impressed current systems and anode beds. The first phase was completed on the District’s 1980 era RWCWRF 14-inch force main in 2017. A portion of the second phase was bid and awarded with the District’s 870-2 Pump Station project. The remainder of the second phase was awarded to M-Rae Engineering, Inc. During July and August 2019, M-Rae worked on the completion of punch list items needed for contract acceptance. This project is within budget and anticipated to complete by early September 2019. (P2508) •711-3 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement: The existing cover/liner at the 711-3 Reservoir was installed in 2002 and shows substantial deterioration that has necessitated its replacement. During August 2019, the construction contractor Layfield continued testing required to place the Reservoir into service. It is anticipated that the Reservoir will be placed into service by early September 2019. The project is within budget and scheduled to be completed in September 2019. (P2561) •803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating and Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior 7 coatings of the 803-2 (2.0 MG) Reservoir, along with providing structural upgrades, to ensure the tank complies with both state and federal OSHA standards as well as the American Water Works Association and the County Health Department standards. During August 2019, the construction contractor Advanced Industrial Services completed the installation of the Reservoir’s exterior coating. The contractor also completed work to clean and disinfect the Reservoir interior. Testing of the Reservoir has begun. The project is within budget and scheduled to be completed in early September 2019. (P2565) •RWCWRF Fuel Lines Replacement: Existing below grade fuel oil piping, which was partially installed with the original treatment plant, will be replaced to gain compliance with a 2017 County of San Diego inspection report and current codes. The existing piping will be replaced, rather than retrofitted with a cathodic protection system, because the piping has reached the end of its useful life. The contractor, Jauregui & Culver, Inc., completed the installation of the new below grade fuel lines and placed the lines into service on April 29, 2019. The County inspected the new below grade fuel lines as part of their routine annual inspection on July 22, 2019 and had no comments. The contractor received the project’s fuel return tank and is scheduled to remobilize and install the new return tank in August 2019. The project is within budget and scheduled to be completed in early September 2019. (R2147) •Portable Trailer Mounted VFD Pumps: This project consists of procurement of a portable trailer mounted hydropneumatic pump station designed for deployment at up to seven (7) existing sites including four (4) hydropneumatic pump stations and three (3) small pressure zones each fed by a single gravity reservoir. At the July 2019 meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board awarded procurement of a single trailer to Cortech Engineering. The District issued a purchase order on July 23, 2019. Delivery of the trailer is anticipated before the end of the calendar year. This project is within budget and on schedule. (P2640) •1485-2 Pump Station Diesel Fuel Leak: On June 5, 2019, a property owner of the land adjacent to the Pump Station noticed small staining on the retaining wall and what appeared to be some type of fuel oil (due to the odor). It was brought to the attention of District water system operators at the site. District staff closed the valve from the storage tank, evacuated the fuel from the lines, and potholed the pavement along the line to try to determine the location of the leak. The District’s fleet shop supervisor estimates that the quantity of fuel that leaked was about 100 gallons and that it was a slow leak, probably occurring over a year or longer. Although the majority of the fuel was contained on 8 District property, and out of an abundance of caution, the County of San Diego (County) Department of Environmental Health and the Office of Emergency Services were notified of the leak on June 6, 2019. District staff are working with Geocon to prepare a work plan to remediate the impact of the leak on the District’s property and the adjacent property owner’s site. Staff will be seeking the assistance of County staff in the review and approval of the work plan that will be developed for remediation of the spill and for guidance on any additional work that might be needed to ensure that the remediation work will meet all County requirements. During the week of August 12, 2019, Operations staff removed additional soil in the most contaminated area. A meeting on site with the County representative was held August 22, 2019 to discuss if any other remediation or other actions are needed. As a result of the meeting, the County Representative stated that the source of the leak was diesel fuel collecting in the drain pipe of the retaining wall. It should be noted that staff was already in the process of drafting a work plan to relocate and replace the fuel lines at this site based on the recommendation from the consultant. The District’s Pump Station has a standby diesel fuel generator to provide power in case of an emergency with a 500-gallon diesel fuel tank that provides fuel to the generator through black iron pipe. The plan is currently under review from the District’s Structural Engineering Consultant, and upon approval it will be submitted to the County. Once approved by the County, the plan will be executed. (P1210) •US Bureau of Reclamation Grant R06AC35182: The District is in the process of closing out the US Bureau of Reclamation Grant R06AC35182, which was awarded in 2006 to assist in financing the expansion of the District’s recycled water system. The grant covered 25% of eligible costs spent under this program, with the District receiving this month the last $185,000 of the total $12.4 million dollars furnished under this program. Final paperwork is expected to be completed in September 2019. •For the month of July 2019, the District sold 33 meters (100 EDUs), generating $804,408 in revenue. Projection for this period was 51.3 meters (61 EDUs), with a budgeted revenue of $536,772. Total revenue for Fiscal Year 2020 is $804,408 against the annual budget of $6,441,264. Water System Operations (reporting for July): •On Wednesday, July 3rd, staff performed a planned shutdown at the 1200-1 Pump Station to repair the pressure relief pipe. A water 9 trailer was provided for three affected residential customers. The shutdown lasted from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. •On Wednesday, July 10th, staff performed a planned shutdown at the 2500 block of Sweetwater Springs Boulevard to replace a defective 6-inch fire hydrant valve. A water trailer was provided for three affected commercial meters. The shutdown lasted from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. •Under the terms and agreement between the District and Mexico, water deliveries (from July 17th to July 31st) to Tijuana, Mexico were met at the rate of 8.0 CFS or 3560 GPM and a target delivery of 217.41 AF. •The following events occurred on Monday, July 22nd: The City of San Diego South Bay Water Reclamation Plant notified the District of a planned recycled water interruption for Tuesday, July 23rd, for electrical maintenance. The County of San Diego (COSD) Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Hazardous Material Division conducted a facility inspection at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility for compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and the San Diego County Safety Code. The inspection was a success with no violations noted. •On Tuesday, July 23rd, the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Material Division conducted a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures inspection at the Lower Otay Pump Station. The inspection was a success with no violations noted. •On Thursday, July 25th, staff performed a planned shutdown at 11513 Fury Lane to replace two defective 8-inch fire service valves. Three water trailers were provided for two master meters and two residential meters affected by the shutdown. The shutdown lasted from 8:00 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. •On Wednesday, July 31st, staff met with D&H and Cilo Electric at the 944-2 Reservoir for a final walk-through before the installation of the pilot rental PAX/RCS system. 10 Purchases and Change Orders: •The following table summarizes purchases and Change Orders issued during the period of July 11 through August 19, 2019 that were within staff signatory authority: Date Acti on Amount Contractor/ Consultant Project 7/11/2019 P.O. $43,750.00 A Glasco, Inc. Bullet-Resistant Glass Barrier (Customer Service Desk) 7/22/2019 P.O. $3,071.20 GHA Technologies, Inc. Veritas Data Backup License and Support 7/25/2019 P.O. $10,265.13 Industrial Scientific Corporation Gas Detection Program 7/29/2019 P.O. $1,982.60 Dezurik, Inc. Heritage Road Interconnection Improvements (P2654) 7/30/2019 P.O. $10,000.00 WORKTERRA Employee Benefits 8/6/2019 P.O. $1,500.00 San Diego County Assessor County Assessor Data (Monthly) 8/14/2019 P.O. $1,000.00 Fitness Tech Gym Equipment Maintenance 8/19/2019 C.O.$1,500.00 Sealright Paving, Inc. Fuerte Estates Dr. (S2049) 11 Water Conservation and Sales: •Water Conservation - July 2019 usage was 6% lower than July 2013. Since July 2018, customers have saved an average of 14% over 2013 levels. •The July potable water purchases were 2,933.5 acre-feet which is 3.4% above the budget of 2,838.3 acre-feet. 12 •The July recycled water purchases and production were 517.3 acre- feet which is 2.1% above the budget of 506.5 acre-feet. Potable, Recycled, and Sewer (Reporting up to the month of July): •Total number of potable water meters: 50,798. •Total number of sewer connections: 4,738. •Recycled water consumption for the month of July: o Total consumption: 446.6 acre-feet or 145,467,300 gallons. o Average daily consumption: 4,692,494 gallons per day. o Total cumulative recycled water consumption since July 1, 2019: 446.6 acre-feet. o Total number of recycled water meters: 726. •Wastewater flows for the month of July: o Total basin flow: 1,571,765 gallons per day. This is an increase of 5.41% from July 2018. o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro: 521,516 gallons per day. o Total Otay flow: 1,049,968 gallons per day. o Flow processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility: 862,742 gallons per day. o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District: 187,442 gallons per day. •By the end of July there were 6,749 wastewater EDUs. $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 -$200,000 -$400,000 -$600,000 -$800,000 -$1,000,000 -$1,200,000 COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY NET REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE ONE MONTH ENDED JULY 31, 2019 The year-to-date actual net revenues through July show a positive variance of $77,360. -YTD Actual Net Revenues -YTD Budget Net Revenues --YTD Variance In Net Revenues Check Total 17,760.20 10,230.86 4,272.00 7,250.00 2052823 07/31/19 14462 ALYSON CONSULTING CM201941 07/05/19 CMIS (JUNE 2019)2,940.00 33.15 33.15 2052896 08/14/19 14256 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 1124077 07/09/19 INSURANCE CONSULTING (7/1/19-7/1/21)7,250.00 AS-NEEDED UTILITY LOCATING (JULY 2019)16,390.00 16,390.00 2052933 08/21/19 19734 AJX HOMES LLC Ref002562268 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000252377 2052822 07/31/19 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 1706302019 07/02/19 131606146 07/17/19 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA 990.50 131606144 07/17/19 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA 592.00 313.50 2052895 08/14/19 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131606145 07/17/19 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA 2,689.50 1,013.64 1,013.64 2052863 08/07/19 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131561116 09/13/18 AS-NEEDED AQUA AMMONIA 313.50 SHAREPOINT & INTRANET SUPPORT SVCS 225.00 225.00 2052932 08/21/19 18122 ACC BUSINESS 191969325 07/27/19 INTERNET CIRCUIT SERVICES (6/11/19-7/10/19) 1045127 07/11/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 327.98 2052894 08/14/19 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 8702 08/05/19 1045235 07/15/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,063.75 1045126 07/11/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 874.62 1045236 07/15/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,202.60 1044703 07/03/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,076.87 1044694 07/03/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,355.66 1045125 07/11/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,268.20 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,530.59 1044935 07/08/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,530.59 2052821 07/31/19 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1045078 07/10/19 1045484 07/17/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 765.29 1045925 07/25/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 109.33 1045506 07/18/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 841.82 1045922 07/25/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 787.16 1046112 07/29/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,142.47 1045923 07/25/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 929.28 1045679 07/22/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,279.13 1046114 07/29/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,240.86 1045483 07/17/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,421.25 1045505 07/18/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,361.12 1045924 07/25/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 3,203.29 1045678 07/22/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,454.05 Amount 2052893 08/14/19 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1046113 07/29/19 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 3,225.15 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Page 1 of 8 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 7,985.00 10,597.22 2,068.00 1,199.00 6,006.03 06/12/19 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 150.00 150.00 5,583.07 DPW2018-WWDAB003408/06/19 OWD PUMP STA SEWER SERVICE (2018/2019)422.96 2052833 07/31/19 00693 CSDA - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 20-28 AGENCY FEE LAFCO FY 2019-2020 60,217.39 60,217.39 2052903 08/14/19 07494 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 08062019 08/06/19 SEWER SERVICE (2019/2020) 2052832 07/31/19 03086 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO LC19-28 06/12/19 PERMIT FEES # 05714 (SEPT 2019-SEPT 2020)694.00 057742005RI2019 06/27/19 PERMIT FEES # 05774 (SEPT 2019-SEPT 2020)505.00 2137061719 06/17/19 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (8/31/19-8/31/20)565.00 2052902 08/14/19 02122 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 057142005RI2019 06/27/19 5,987.20 2052901 08/14/19 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 3584061719 06/17/19 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (8/31/19-8/31/20)1,503.00 3,080.00 3,080.00 2052831 07/31/19 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD061907/09/19 EXCAVATION PERMITS (JUNE 2019)5,987.20 1" METER BODY 10,834.05 10,834.05 2052935 08/21/19 05622 CORRPRO COMPANIES INC 564558 07/29/19 CORROSION SERVICES (JULY 2019) K877953 07/19/19 INVENTORY 630.34 2052830 07/31/19 18943 CORE & MAIN LP 595 K659444 07/25/19 241.00 2052900 08/14/19 18331 CORE & MAIN LP K884835 07/19/19 INVENTORY 9,966.88 7,515.00 7,515.00 2052829 07/31/19 13390 CHRISTENSEN, MICHAEL MC072419 07/24/19 MEAL ADVANCEMENT 241.00 OTHER AGENCY FEES 45.00 45.00 2052828 07/31/19 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 0178820 07/12/19 DESIGN/CONSTRUCT FOR 870-2 PS(JUNE 2019) 2052899 08/14/19 04071 CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC 29900 07/31/19 104.00 2052954 08/21/19 08388 CALTRANS 081419 08/14/19 ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION 492.00 492.00 525.00 525.00 2052827 07/31/19 00192 CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT 19152107252019 07/25/19 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 104.00 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY CONSULT SERVICE 10,259.74 10,259.74 2052898 08/14/19 02989 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL 19072502 07/25/19 DEBT STATEMENT 2052826 07/31/19 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 761647 06/06/19 174.00 2052934 08/21/19 19724 BENJAMIN TRIPP & MOLLY TRIPP 8607081519 08/15/19 CUSTOMER REFUND 247.13 247.13 39,050.00 39,050.00 2052897 08/14/19 06970 BATTIKHA, SAM 080619SB 08/12/19 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 174.00 PLOTTER SERV & SUPPORT (6/28/19-6/28/23)5,815.00 5,815.00 2052825 07/31/19 18195 ARCHIVE DATA SOLUTIONS LLC 145194 07/23/19 SMARTNET RENEWAL CM201940 07/05/19 MGMT/INSP (JUNE 2019)475.00 2052824 07/31/19 13174 ARC IMAGING RESOURCES A63931 07/11/19 CM201944 07/05/19 CMIS (JUNE 2019)480.00 CM201945 07/05/19 CMIS (JUNE 2019)480.00 CM201943 07/05/19 CMIS (JUNE 2019)2,490.00 CM201942 07/05/19 CMIS (JUNE 2019)1,120.00 Page 2 of 8 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 1,691.20 537.54 9,309.00 7,844.09 40,172.80 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (ENDING 4/21/19)8,954.14 8,954.14 07/10/19 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (ENDING 6/30/19)5,400.95 5,400.95 2052869 08/07/19 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL 71460 04/29/19 38,430.30 2009400016 07/17/19 HYDRAULIC MODELING (JUNE 2019)1,742.50 2052836 07/31/19 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL 72578 UB Refund Cst #0000233235 1,804.74 1,804.74 2052911 08/14/19 18436 HAZEN AND SAWYER DPC 200940025 07/16/19 POTABLE PIPE REPLACEMENTS (JUNE 2019) 2052939 08/21/19 19730 HAMANN CONSTRUCTION Ref002562264 08/19/19 07/17/19 HACH SL1000 ANALYZER 7,156.64 11554154 07/18/19 HACH SL1000 ANALYZER 687.45 9,144.00 18446 07/24/19 LANDSCAPING SERVICES 165.00 2052910 08/14/19 00174 HACH COMPANY 11552036 VERITAS DATA BACKUP LICENSE & SUPPORT 3,071.20 3,071.20 2052909 08/14/19 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 18412 07/24/19 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (JULY 2019) 2052908 08/14/19 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 100986402 07/23/19 87.61 2052868 08/07/19 19697 GABRIELA MILGAREJO Ref002559490 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000193669 305.11 305.11 75.00 75.00 2052867 08/07/19 19702 FRANK SOURGOSE Ref002559495 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000216223 87.61 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 75.00 75.00 2052866 08/07/19 19640 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2561570 08/08/19 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 07/05/19 FLEET WASH SERVICES 370.16 370.16 2052938 08/21/19 19640 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2562288 08/22/19 326.39 1654838 07/19/19 FLEET WASH SERVICES 211.15 2052865 08/07/19 11962 FLEETWASH INC x-1642333 INVENTORY 4,167.12 4,167.12 2052937 08/21/19 11962 FLEETWASH INC 1656743 07/26/19 FLEET WASH SERVICES 0681777 07/18/19 INVENTORY 762.87 2052835 07/31/19 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0681776 07/12/19 50,000.00 2052907 08/14/19 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0681968 07/26/19 DOMESTIC 6" FLG BASE 90 BEND 928.33 666.86 666.86 2052906 08/14/19 03725 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 93674482 07/26/19 ESRI LIC AGRMNT (JULY 2019-JULY 2020)50,000.00 UB Refund Cst #0000053855 42.97 42.97 2052936 08/21/19 19736 EASTLAKE PARK PLACE INC Ref002562270 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000253399 2052864 08/07/19 19694 DOROTHY HOWE Ref002559487 08/05/19 28.39 2052905 08/14/19 15084 DLT SOLUTIONS LLC SI439563 07/23/19 DESK SFTWR SUBSCRIPTION (7/9/19-7/8/20)11,074.00 11,074.00 11,190.00 11,190.00 2052923 08/21/19 19728 CYNTHIA SANTOS Ref002562262 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000222923 28.39 BUSINESS MEETING 60.00 60.00 2052834 07/31/19 04443 CSI SERVICES INC 9155 07/07/19 COATING INSPECTION SVCS (6/25/19-6/26/19) 06/12/19 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 150.00 150.00 2052904 08/14/19 00693 CSDA - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 08152019 08/12/19 2052833 07/31/19 00693 CSDA - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 20-28 Page 3 of 8 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 36,760.86 16.09 48.08 48.08 2052877 08/07/19 19703 MARINA RIVERA Ref002559496 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000239262 16.09 UB Refund Cst #0000252784 58.93 58.93 2052929 08/21/19 19733 MARIA PARRA Ref002562267 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000250538 2052876 08/07/19 19707 MARIA NOWAK Ref002559500 08/05/19 125.13 2052928 08/21/19 19725 MAGDALENA NEVAREZ Ref002562258 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000008720 45.94 45.94 236.00 236.00 2052927 08/21/19 19678 LINDA CHEN Ref002562259 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000038331 125.13 UB Refund Cst #0000249948 75.00 75.00 2052914 08/14/19 02063 LA MESA - SPRING VALLEY 4447 08/11/19 WATER CONSERVATION BUS TRANSPORT 2052926 08/21/19 19732 KYLE WISENBAKER Ref002562266 08/19/19 285.00 2052875 08/07/19 19698 KOUMBE DIOP Ref002559491 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000195377 15.16 15.16 75.00 75.00 2052874 08/07/19 14808 KOEPPEN, KEVIN 070119 07/01/19 AICPA ANNUAL DUES 285.00 UB Refund Cst #0000208469 92.61 92.61 2052873 08/07/19 19705 KIMBERLEE BROWN Ref002559498 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000244261 2052872 08/07/19 19700 JOSHUA MAJOMUT Ref002559493 08/05/19 75.00 2052925 08/21/19 19731 JERRY SULLIVAN Ref002562265 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000242645 174.16 174.16 5,450.40 5,450.40 2052924 08/21/19 19729 JENA SNOOK Ref002562263 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000223107 75.00 UB Refund Cst #0000188376 150.00 150.00 2052913 08/14/19 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 795028 07/23/19 AS-NEEDED CHLORINE GAS 2052871 08/07/19 19696 JASON GIRE Ref002559489 08/05/19 182.64 2052841 07/31/19 17106 IWG TOWERS ASSETS II LLC 499268 08/01/19 ANTENNA SUBLEASE (AUGUST 2019)1,845.00 1,845.00 2,404.45 2,404.45 2052870 08/07/19 19693 IRMA FLETES Ref002559485 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000036496 182.64 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM (6/12/19-7/11/19)316.93 316.93 2052840 07/31/19 08969 INFOSEND INC 156510 07/02/19 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES (JUNE 2019) 0139702 07/09/19 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (JUNE 2019)360.00 2052839 07/31/19 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2230911 07/12/19 0139703 07/08/19 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (JUNE 2019)1,489.81 0139701 07/08/19 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (JUNE 2019)525.00 0139714 07/08/19 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (JUNE 2019)3,388.75 0139700 07/08/19 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (JUNE 2019)1,982.09 11,700.00 2052838 07/31/19 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0139713 07/08/19 SAN MIGUEL HMA (JUNE 2019)29,015.21 222.69 222.69 2052837 07/31/19 13349 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 2019060001 07/03/19 LAND SURVEYING SERVICES (6/1/19-6/28/19)11,700.00 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (ENDING 4/21/19)8,954.14 8,954.14 2052912 08/14/19 19708 HERBERT PHILLIPS 3111080819 08/08/19 CUSTOMER REFUND 2052869 08/07/19 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL 71460 04/29/19 Page 4 of 8 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 6,141.50 1,650.00 53,578.28 ASSESSOR DATA (MONTHLY)125.00 125.00 D0930-090199M 06/10/19 BOND/CASH RELEASE MAINTENANCE 21,431.31 2052918 08/14/19 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 201900600 08/01/19 28,461.97 28,461.97 2052917 08/14/19 06286 SANDAG D0930-090199P 06/10/19 BOND/CASH RELEASE PERFORMANCE 32,146.97 UB Refund Cst #0000038124 95.00 95.00 2052943 08/21/19 19633 SAMSARA NETWORKS INC.149247 07/01/19 GPS FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 07/31/19 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (JULY 2019)78.30 78.30 2052884 08/07/19 19641 ROSEMARY CANNON Ref002559486 08/05/19 1,050.00 12320 07/10/19 WELDING @ 1200 PUMP STATION 600.00 2052942 08/21/19 04542 ROBAK, MARK 070119073119 WELDING SERVICES 2,700.00 2,700.00 2052848 07/31/19 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 12316 07/10/19 WELDING SERVICES 0068643 07/02/19 CAMPO RD SUPP SVCS (JUNE 2019)1,631.50 2052941 08/21/19 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 12306 06/21/19 125.27 125.27 2052847 07/31/19 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 17829D17 07/02/19 DESIGN SERVICES (JUNE 2019)4,510.00 CONSORTIUM TRAINING FEE (FY 2019 - 2020)1,795.00 1,795.00 2052930 08/21/19 19726 RICHARD RHODES Ref002562260 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000193794 2052883 08/07/19 01196 REGIONAL TRAINING CENTER 15348 07/29/19 9,100.00 2052882 08/07/19 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 5875 08/01/19 OUTSIDE SERVICES 42.50 42.50 946.22 946.22 2052916 08/14/19 13122 PINNACLE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 39215 07/25/19 VEEAM BACKUP & REPLICATION ENTERPRISE 9,100.00 ENGINEERING DESIGN (5/7/19-6//28/19)21,722.50 21,722.50 2052915 08/14/19 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 081219 08/12/19 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT (AUG 2019) 2052846 07/31/19 18332 NV5 INC 129757 07/09/19 2,860.00 2052845 07/31/19 00761 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 229341 07/09/19 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (JUNE 2019)8,966.75 8,966.75 10,223.12 10,223.12 2052844 07/31/19 18172 NIGHTCODERS 179 07/25/19 WEBSITE SUPPORT SERVICES 2,860.00 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 10,223.12 10,223.12 2052881 08/07/19 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2561560 08/08/19 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 2052940 08/21/19 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2562278 08/22/19 230.90 2052880 08/07/19 19701 MICHAEL DONSCHESKI Ref002559494 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000215656 51.99 51.99 27,045.00 27,045.00 2052843 07/31/19 19691 MICHAEL BATES 6806072919 07/29/19 CUSTOMER REFUND 230.90 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 1,259.52 1,259.52 2052842 07/31/19 16608 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 4054339 07/15/19 870-2 PS INSPECT SERVICES (ENDING 6/30/19) 2052879 08/07/19 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0032521IN 07/24/19 16.09 2052878 08/07/19 19706 MASAKO MIYAI Ref002559499 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000250241 75.00 75.00 2052877 08/07/19 19703 MARINA RIVERA Ref002559496 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000239262 16.09 Page 5 of 8 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 57,811.85 127,237.39 101,863.84 55.42 9,695.27 2052854 07/31/19 19692 SUSAN HERMAN 942072919 07/29/19 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT 676.26 676.26 42,400.00 42,400.00 2052920 08/14/19 15974 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 38166070119 08/12/19 LIFE INSURANCE AND STD/LTD 9,695.27 UB Refund Cst #0000243963 9.50 9.50 2052853 07/31/19 18193 SUMMIT EROSION CONTROL 2019-11663 07/22/19 VEGETATION MITIGATION 2052889 08/07/19 19704 STUART SIMPSON Ref002559497 08/05/19 35.00 2052931 08/21/19 19727 STEVEN GONZALEZ Ref002562261 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000199267 197.64 197.64 115.00 115.00 2052852 07/31/19 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 3430407252019 07/25/19 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 35.00 MS SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 55,864.17 55,864.17 2052947 08/21/19 00274 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 46974081519 08/15/19 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 050119073119 07/31/19 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (5/1/19-7/31/19)19.46 2052888 08/07/19 17643 SOFTWARE ONE INC US-PSI-812707 07/18/19 9,956.04 9,956.04 2052946 08/21/19 16229 SMITH, TIMOTHY 070119073119 07/31/19 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (JULY 2019)35.96 UB Refund Cst #0000256703 1,506.26 1,506.26 2052851 07/31/19 00258 SLOAN ELECTRIC COMPANY 570956 07/10/19 CLARIFER HAB ASSEMBLY INSTALL 2052945 08/21/19 19737 SKYLINE CHURCH Ref002562271 08/19/19 75.00 2052887 08/07/19 19695 SHARON FINDLEY Ref002559488 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000060644 246.42 246.42 661.68 661.68 2052944 08/21/19 19735 SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC Ref002562269 08/19/19 UB Refund Cst #0000252967 75.00 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 714.10 714.10 2052886 08/07/19 19699 SCOTT KENDALL Ref002559492 08/05/19 UB Refund Cst #0000203704 2052850 07/31/19 16744 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 4863552070919 07/09/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)101,382.26 080219 08/02/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)481.58 072919 07/29/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)95.55 2052919 08/14/19 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 080619 08/06/19 072619-17 07/26/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)20,846.84 072919a 07/29/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)16,087.38 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)65,488.26 080119 08/01/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)24,719.36 072519A 07/25/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)765.48 2052885 08/07/19 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 072919-18 07/29/19 072619A 07/26/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)4,533.16 072519 07/25/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)3,679.27 30,696.07 072219 07/22/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)11,913.69 072619 07/26/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)6,224.18 2052849 07/31/19 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 072219A 07/26/19 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) Page 6 of 8 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 156.20 5,738.00 578.33 658.29 3,649.88 375.00 109,793.10 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (JULY 2019)780.00 780.00 770007032019 07/03/19 CUSTOMER REFUND 2,046.00 2052953 08/21/19 08023 WORKTERRA 0094170 08/13/19 5,670.90 2052861 07/31/19 18101 WIER CONSTRUCTION CORP 2406302019 07/09/19 SEWER REPLACEMENT (JUNE 2019)107,747.10 15,700.00 15,700.00 2052860 07/31/19 18173 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 2406302019 07/09/19 RETENTION/WEIR ACCT#2222 (JUNE 2019)5,670.90 AS-NEEDED BEE REMOVAL SVCS 125.00 125.00 2052859 07/31/19 19523 WESTCOAST ROOF CONSULTING 17767 07/15/19 ROOF EVALUATION SURVEY 24651 07/08/19 AS-NEEDED BEE REMOVAL SVCS 125.00 2052921 08/14/19 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 24836 07/26/19 07/11/19 AS-NEEDED BEE REMOVAL SVCS 125.00 24704 07/11/19 AS-NEEDED BEE REMOVAL SVCS 125.00 2,472.92 634382 07/09/19 SECURITY EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION 1,176.96 2052858 07/31/19 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 24709 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 629.27 629.27 2052857 07/31/19 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 633188 07/15/19 SECURITY ALARM MONITORING (AUG 2019) 2052892 08/07/19 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2561566 08/08/19 17,327.92 2052952 08/21/19 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2562284 08/22/19 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 629.27 629.27 17,292.41 17,292.41 2052951 08/21/19 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2562286 08/22/19 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 17,327.92 PREPAID POSTAGE MACHINE 6,000.00 6,000.00 2052891 08/07/19 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2561568 08/08/19 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 2052950 08/21/19 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 3951082019 08/20/19 114-8894955 07/31/19 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50 114-8888095 07/30/19 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 79.96 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 392.58 114-8894957 07/31/19 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25 114-8771482 07/09/19 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50 2052949 08/21/19 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 114-8895258 07/31/19 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 392.58 114-8771489 07/09/19 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25 1164990 07/19/19 ADM FEES FOR ID 27 (7/1/19-6/30/20)635.00 2052856 07/31/19 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 114-8771717 07/08/19 07/19/19 ADM FEES 2010 BOND (7/1/19-6/30/20)3,090.00 1165097 07/19/19 ADM FEES FOR 2013 BOND (7/1/19-6/30/20)2,013.00 81.20 070119073119 07/31/19 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (JULY 2019)75.00 2052855 07/31/19 13047 UNION BANK NA 1165071 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 199.00 199.00 2052948 08/21/19 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 07011973119 07/31/19 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (JULY 2019) 2052890 08/07/19 14576 SWIATKOWSKI, KEITH 073119 08/06/19 2052854 07/31/19 19692 SUSAN HERMAN 942072919 07/29/19 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT 676.26 676.26 Page 7 of 8 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 7/25/2019 - 8/21/2019 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 2,117.20 Amount Pd Total:1,232,180.61 Check Grand Total:1,232,180.61 780.00 780.00 2052922 08/14/19 18215 ZAYO GROUP LLC 2019080024566 08/01/19 COLOCATION SERVICES (AUGUST 2019)2,117.20 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (JULY 2019)780.00 780.00 2052862 07/31/19 08023 WORKTERRA 0093787 06/30/19 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (JUNE 2019) 2052953 08/21/19 08023 WORKTERRA 0094170 08/13/19 Page 8 of 8