HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-02-19 Board Packet 1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT,
OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION AND
OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
January 2, 2019
3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. OATH OF OFFICE CEREMONY
GARY CROUCHER
TIMOTHY SMITH
4. PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION PLAQUE TO BOARD PRESIDENT
5. RECESS FOR RECEPTION
6. RECONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
7. ELECTION OF BOARD PRESIDENT
As per Chapter 2, Section 1.03.B, Procedure for Election, of the District’s Code of
Ordinances, the General Manager shall chair the proceedings for election of the
President. The newly-elected President shall assume office immediately and
shall chair the proceedings for the election of the Vice President and Treasurer.
8. ELECTION OF BOARD VICE PRESIDENT
9. ELECTION OF BOARD TREASURER
10. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
11. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS OF AU-
GUST 1, 2018 AND SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 2018
2
12. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
13. RECESS OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
14. CONVENE OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING
15. ROLL CALL
16. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
a) PRESIDENT
b) VICE-PRESIDENT
c) TREASURER
17. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
a) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
b) CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
c) SECRETARY
18. ADJOURN OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING
19. CONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEET-
ING
20. ROLL CALL
21. APPOINT OFFICERS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AU-
THORITY
a) PRESIDENT
b) VICE-PRESIDENT
c) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
d) TREASURER/AUDITOR
e) SECRETARY
22. ADJOURN OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEET-
ING
23. RECONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
CONSENT CALENDAR
24. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST
IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
3
a) APPROVE A $50,000 (FROM $175,000 TO $225,000) INCREASE TO
THE CIP R2147 BUDGET AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CON-
TRACT TO JAUREGUI AND CULVER, INC. FOR THE RALPH W. CHAP-
MAN WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY FUEL SYSTEM IMPROVE-
MENTS PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $158,091.58
b) APPROVE CLOSE OUT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO THE EXISTING
CONTRACT WITH SIMPSON SANDBLASTING AND SPECIAL COAT-
INGS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $97.23 FOR THE 980-2 RESERVOIR
INTERIOR/EXTERIOR COATINGS AND UPGRADES PROJECT
c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4355 DECLARING THE HILLSIDE DRIVE
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN 597-041-66), A PORTION OF
THE BUENA VISTA AVENUE PARCEL (A PORTION OF APN 579-364-
17), THE JAMACHA BOULEVARD PARCELS (APN 505-672-20 AND A
PORTION OF APN 505-672-19) AND THE LA PRESA AVENUE PAR-
CELS (APN 579-031-16 AND APN 579-031-18) COMPRISING A TOTAL
OF APPROXIMATELY NINE (9) ACRES OF LAND AS SURPLUS, AND
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF THE SUR-
PLUS PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATUTES
AND LAWS, AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DISTRICT
ACTION ITEMS
25. ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS
a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4356 TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AND
RESTATED REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AGREEMENT BE-
TWEEN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PARTICIPATING AGEN-
CIES IN THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE SYSTEM. THE UPDATED
AGREEMENT INCORPORATES THE PURE WATER SAN DIEGO PRO-
GRAM (BEPPLER)
26. BOARD
a) DISCUSSION OF THE 2019 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
27. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMA-
TIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING
AGENDA ITEMS:
a) FIRST QUARTER UPDATE ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 CAPITAL IM-
PROVEMENT PROGRAM (MARTIN)
b) INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS DIS-
CUSSED AT THE AUGUST 22, 2018 PUBLIC RELATIONS, LEGAL AND
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING (OTERO)
4
REPORTS
28. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
29. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
30. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
31. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS
32. ADJOURNMENT
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
participate 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 December 28, 2018, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda
near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said
time being at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors
(Government Code Section §54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley, California on December 28, 2018.
/s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary
1
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
AND
OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY
August 1, 2018
1. The meeting was called to order by President Smith at 3:33 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Croucher (arrived at 3:55 p.m.), Gastelum, Robak, Smith and
Thompson
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, General Counsel Dan
Shinoff, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief Financial
Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura,
Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, Asst. Chief of Finance
Kevin Koeppen, Asst. Chief of Operations Jose Martinez,
District Secretary Susan Cruz and others per attached list.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Director Robak, and seconded by Director Gastelum and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Director Croucher
to approve the agenda.
5. DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION TO FOUNDATION FOR GROSSMONT AND
CUYAMACA COLLEGES’ CENTER FOR WATER STUDIES
President Smith indicated that the District is proud to make a contribution to
Cuyamaca College’s Center for Water Studies. Cuyamaca College is working on a
state-of-the-art training facility and curriculum for water studies to assist in attracting
and training the next generation of water industry professionals. In conjunction with
their recently completed field operations skill yard, the soon to be completed
building for the Center for Water Studies will help students interested in the water
industry gain hands-on experience while taking water related courses. He stated
the District is looking forward to continuing and building this partnership into the
future and presented a check in the amount of $5,000 to Cuyamaca College
President, Dr. Julianna Barnes; Executive Director for the Grossmont/Cuyamaca
2
College Foundation, Ms. Sally Cox; and Lead Coordinator for the Center for Water
Studies Project, Mr. Donald Jones.
Dr. Barnes thanked the District and the board for their continued support. She
stated that they are very grateful for that support which allows the College to
provide a very strong water and wastewater program. She indicated that they are
committed to providing the skilled workers that are needed in the water/wastewater
industry and they have invested $2 million into the new facilities for the program.
She stated they look forward to their continued partnership with the District and the
industry.
Dr. Barnes responded to questions and comments from the board. The board
requested if the College could reach out to the Sweetwater Union High School
District to make their students aware of the program as well. President Smith
thanked Dr. Julianna Barnes, Ms. Cox and Mr. Jones for attending the District’s
meeting.
6. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF MAY 2,
2018
A motion was made by Director Thompson, and seconded by Director Gastelum
and carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Director Croucher
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 2, 2018.
7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
No one wished to be heard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS
MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
A motion was made by Director Robak, and seconded by Director Thompson and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Director Croucher
3
to approve the following consent calendar item:
a) APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO HAWTHORNE
POWER SYSTEMS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A TRAILER MOUNTED
ENGINE AND PUMP IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $764,000 FOR
THE TEMPORARY LOWER OTAY PUMP STATION REDUNDANCY
PROJECT
ACTION ITEMS
9. GENERAL MANAGER
a) CALIFORNIA WATER FIX UPDATE
General Manager Watton indicated that the San Diego County Water Authority
(CWA) board had originally planned to approve some principles for the Bay Delta
(California Water Fix), however, they instead decided at their last board meeting to
not make a decision for another month. Ms. Amy Chen, CWA’s Metropolitan Water
District (MWD) Program Director, was scheduled to provide a presentation on the
principles at today’s meeting. Since CWA did not adopt principles, the District
decided to invite her back when CWA’s board acts on this issue.
Mr. Watton presented the presentation Ms. Chen would have presented. Please
reference the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) attached to the staff report for
the details of Mr. Watton’s report.
It was discussed that Olivenhain MWD is the only retail agency in San Diego
County, at this time, that has voted to support the Water Fix project. There was
further discussion on the impact of the cost of the Water Fix project to San Diego
County ratepayers and that the District’s CWA representatives do what they can to
protect it’s ratepayers from paying more than their fair share of the project or to
even push the project into the future if it is not required now.
10. ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS
a) CONSIDER THE AMENDED AND RESTATED REGIONAL WASTEWATER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO (CITY) AND
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES (PA) IN THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
SYSTEM (AGREEMENT) AS PART OF A LONG-RANGE REGIONAL
WATER REUSE PLAN WITH THE GOAL OF REALIZING A SECONDARY
EQUIVALENT POINT LOMA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(PLWTP) AND A NEW LOCAL SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY
Engineering Manager Bob Kennedy indicated that the Board’s last action related to
this item was in October 1, 2014 when the board voted to support the City of San
Diego’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit as part of the Pure
Water Reuse Plan with the goal of realizing a secondary equivalency at the Point
Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP). A copy of the latest redline version of
4
the proposed Restated Regional Wastewater Agreement between the City of San
Diego (City) and Participating Agencies (PA) in the Metropolitan Sewerage System
(Agreement) was distributed to the Board. The Metro Commission will be
considering the Agreement at their meeting tomorrow, August 2, 2018. Please
reference the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) attached to the staff report for
the details of Mr. Kennedy’s report.
Director Robak stepped off the dias at 4:32 p.m. and returned at 4:34 p.m.
Mr. Kennedy introduced Mr. Dexter Wilson of Dexter Wilson Engineering. Mr.
Wilson represents the City of Lemon Grove and has been hired by the Metro
Commission JPA (JPA) to assist in the technical presentations and to prepare some
of the documentation for the Agreement. Mr. Wilson indicated that the proposed
Agreement is not expected to be in its final form until approximately September
2018 as the City of San Diego is still completing two attachments to the Agreement,
which is the reason the JPA is requesting a conceptual level approval of the
Agreement.
Mr. Wilson indicated that he felt the Agreement was good for all the PA’s of the
JPA. He stated that the reason the Agreement is being renegotiated is the City
approved their Pure Water Plan with the capacity doubled over the objections of the
PA’s. The City is offering this renegotiation process of the Agreement as an
overture. The negotiations started with the sharing of costs, which then moved to
capping exposure costs for the PA’s and making necessary amendments to the
Agreement. It is hoped that they will work out the amendments over the next year.
Today’s request is for the District’s Board to conceptually approve the agreement.
When the City approves the amendments in October 2018, the agreement will come
back to the District in its final form for consideration by the District’s Board.
Director Croucher stepped off the dias at 4:53 p.m. and returned at 4:57 p.m.
Mr. Wilson presented the details of the proposed amendments to the agreement
and the projected schedule for phase one of the Pure Water Project (please see
attached copy of Mr. Wilson’s presentation). He responded to comments and
questions from the members of the board. President Smith thanked Mr. Wilson for
his presentation and his efforts and work in the development of the Agreement.
11. BOARD
b) DISCUSSION OF 2017 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
There were no changes to the calendar.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
12. THIS ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM.
5
a) INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON THE DISTRICT’S EFFORTS TO EXPAND
THE USE OF RECYCLED WATER
Engineering Manager Bob Kennedy presented an update on the District’s efforts to
expand the use of recycled water. Please reference the Committee Action notes
(Attachment A) attached to the staff report for the details of Mr. Kennedy’s report.
There was discussion regarding staff’s effort to expand the use of recycled water
and the City of San Diego’s opposition to the use of recycled water north of Otay
Lakes. It was noted that the District’s current permit does not allow the use of
recycled water upstream of Otay Lakes. To change the permit, it would require
action by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Staff indicated that it would be
very difficult to get this approval. Staff noted that it would also require modifications
to the City of San Diego’s Basin Plan for the operation of Otay Lakes, which would
require long term testing to assure there are no impacts.
REPORTS
13. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
General Manager’s Report
General Manager Watton reviewed handouts that were provided on the dias for
each member of the board (see attached). He also presented information from his
report which included an update on the upcoming employee recognition luncheon,
the Salt Creek gate security and access control, the release of the lease agreement
with Salt Creek, the water rate increase and sewer 2018 notices, the Vista Vereda
and Hidden Mesa water pipelines replacement, and water sales and purchases.
Staff responded to comments and questions from the board.
CWA Report
Director Croucher indicated that MWD’s board operates under Chairs Rules, which
means whatever the Chair wishes, is what is done. There are other partner
agencies that are concerned about MWD’s use of Chairs Rules and the concern is
being shared with MWD. He stated that CWA is focused on issues concerning the
funding of the proposed California Water Fix plan and there are discussions
whether CWA should be paying for someone else to benefit from the plan. He also
shared that the Sycuan Indian Reservation had been considering annexing into
either the Otay WD or Padre Dam MWD service areas and they have decided to
move forward with annexing into Padre Dam MWD. He also reported that CWA
voted to support Proposition 3, Water Supply/Water Quality Bond, and will continue
to oppose the water tax. He lastly reported that President Smith will be formally
seated as CWA’s representative on MWD’s board at their (MWD’s) August 20 and
21 meetings.
President Smith further reported on the Carlsbad desalination intake system. He
stated due to a change in the law, CWA’s staff needed to redesign the intake
structure. CWA’s staff will be presenting at a future board meeting an estimate of
6
the cost for the new intake structure and its impact on water rates. A preliminary
estimate indicates that the redesign would increase CWA’s water rate by
approximately 6% to 7% (the agreement allows for an up to 30% increase).
14. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS
Director Thompson indicated that he is attending a San Diego County Taxpayers
Association online class regarding pensions through the Point Loma Nazarene
College. He stated that the class is very informative and that he had passed along
some information from the class to President Smith.
Director Gastelum thanked Director Thompson for passing along the information on
pensions.
Director Robak shared that there was a very good article published in the Wall
Street Journal on pensions. He stated that it indicates that the State and City
pension deficits across the United States is the size of Japan’s economy. He
indicated that pension liability is a problem being addressed throughout the Country.
He also reported that the Mesa Water and Costa Mesa Sanitary District had an
opportunity to merge, but their boards did not approve merging the two agencies.
This is similar to the Rainbow Water District and the Fallbrook Municipal Water
District boards who did not approve their agencies’ merger. He stated that he had
filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission regarding
Rainbow Water District and Fallbrook Municipal Water District failure to merge and
he was made aware that they are just now reviewing his complaint. He lastly
shared that Mr. Fred Hanson is pictured on page 6 of the District’s Strategic Plan
pamphlet for FY 2019 to 2022 (see attached copy). He indicated Mr. Hanson was a
large avocado grower along highway 94 and was one of the founders of the Otay
Water District. He also donated millions of dollars through his Foundation for an
Institute of Peace for Leadership and International Cooperation which is housed on
the University of San Diego campus. Director Robak suggested that the District
name a tank after Mr. Fred Hanson who is a founder of the District.
Director Thompson added that he has calculated the City of San Diego’s unfunded
pension obligation from information he received from the pension class he is taking
through the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and the obligation is
approximately $7,000 per family living in the City of San Diego.
15. PRESIDENT’S REPORT
President Smith’s report is attached.
16. CLOSED SESSION
The board recessed to closed session at 6:20 p.m. to discuss the following matter:
a) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION [GOVERNMENT
CODE §54957.6]
7
TITLE: GENERAL MANAGER
Director Gastelum left at 7:15 p.m.
The board reconvened at 8:05 p.m. and General Counsel Shinoff presented the
General Manager’s contract for the board’s approval. A motion was made by
Director Robak, and seconded by Director Croucher and carried with the following
vote:
Ayes: Directors, Croucher, Robak, Smith and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Director Gastelum
to approve extending the General Manager’s contract an additional year and to
provide a compensation increase effective July 1, 2018 consistent with the increase
provided to employees on July 1, 2018.
17. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board, President Smith adjourned the
meeting at 8:08 p.m.
___________________________________
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
8
President’s Report
Tim Smith
August 1, 2018
Board Meeting
# Date Meeting Purpose
1 2-Jul Board Agenda Briefing
Met with General Manager Watton and
General Counsel Shinoff to review items
that will be presented at the July Board
Meeting
2 11-Jul OWD Regular Board Meeting Monthly board meeting
3 13-Jul Committee Agenda Briefing
Met with General Manager Watton to
review items that will be presented at the
July committee meetings
4 16-Jul OWD EO&WR Committee Reviewed items that will be presented at
the August board meeting
5 18-Jul OWD F&A Committee Reviewed items that will be presented at
the August board meeting
6 19-Jul Special Mtg of the Metro
Commission Monthly Commission Meeting
7 19-Jul OWD PRL&L Committee Reviewed items that will be presented at
the August board meeting
8 20-Jul CWA Matters Meeting Met with Director Croucher and General
Manager Watton to discuss CWA matters
9 23-Jul Ad Hoc General Manager
Evaluation Committee
Discussed the General Manager's
Evaluation
10 25-Jul East County Caucus Discuss CWA issues
11 27-Jul Board Agenda Briefing
Met with General Manager Watton and
Attorney Blumenfeld to review items that
will be presented at the August Board
Meeting
9
12 30-Jul OWD Special Board Meeting Special Board Meeting for a Tour of the
Layfield Group Facilities
1
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
August 6, 2018
1. The meeting was called to order by President Smith at 8:29 a.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Directors Present: Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson
Directors Absent: Director Croucher (Out-of-town on Business)
Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, General Counsel Dan
Shinoff, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Engineering
Manager Bob Kennedy, Associate Civil Engineer Kevin
Cameron, District Secretary Susan Cruz and others per
attached list.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Director Robak, seconded by Director Thompson and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Directors Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Director Croucher
to approve the agenda.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
No one wished to be heard.
6. DISCUSSION AND TOUR OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO’S SOUTH BAY
WATER RECLAMATION PLANT AND THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY
WATER COMMISSION’S WATER TREATMENT PLANT
President Smith indicated that the board and staff would be leaving the District to
tour the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) and
2
the International Boundary Water Commission’s Water Treatment Plant
(IBWCWTP). The board and staff left the boardroom at 8:30 a.m.
The tour group arrived at the City of San Diego’s SBWRP at 9:17 a.m. Mr. Juan
Guerreiro, Deputy Director of the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department,
lead the tour along with Mr. Ernesto Molas, City of San Diego Wastewater
Treatment Plant Superintendent. Also, in attendance from the City of San Diego
was Cathleen Pieroni, Government Affairs Water Policy Manager.
The SBWRP was built in 2001 and treats raw wastewater collected from the
southern portion of the City of San Diego, the City of Imperial Beach, the City of
Chula Vista, and the unincorporated portions of south and east San Diego
County. The plant is rated to treat 15 million gallons a day (MGD) to secondary
and/or tertiary reclaimed water standards. It produces approximately 4 to 6 MGD
and any excess of reclaimed water demands is discharged to the Pacific Ocean
through the South Bay Ocean Outfall (SBOO). The use of SBOO is shared with
the IBWCWTP, operated by the International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC), which the board and staff will be touring later in the morning.
The SBWRP tour started with a visit to the Treatment Plant Control Room. The
group was then led though the water treatment plant facilities where they viewed
the sewer water treatment process. Messrs. Guerreiro and Molas responded to
inquiries and the board and staff left at 10:49 a.m. to travel to the IBWCWTP
which is located a short distance from the SBWRP.
The board and staff arrived at the IBWCWTP at 11:02 a.m. Mr. Robert
Nienhuis0. of Veolia, Consultant to the IBWC and the Plant Superintendent, lead
the tour. Also attending from Veolia were Mr. David Scheneider, Vice President
of Business Development, and Mr. Scheil Sadighi, Regional Contracts Manager.
The tour began with an overview of the IBWCWTP. The IBWCWTP was built to
provide treatment of sewer water from Tijuana to reduce the flow of raw sewage
into the United States. The plant can provide secondary treatment for 25 MGD of
excess sewage from Tijuana’s sewer system and can be expanded to treat up to
100 MGD. Sewage water treated at the plant is flowed to the Pacific Ocean
through the SBOO. Maintenance and operating costs of the plant is shared by
the United States and Mexico. The board and staff toured the treatment plant
facilities to view the sewer water treatment process. Mr. Nienhuis responded to
questions and the group left the IBWCWTP to return to the District’s office at
12:30 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Board members and staff returned to the District’s boardroom at 12:59 p.m. and
with no further business to come before the Board, President Smith adjourned
the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
3
___________________________________
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: January 2, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:
Jeff Marchioro
Senior Civil Engineer
PROJECT: R2147-
001103
DIV. NO. 3
APPROVED BY:
Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager
Dan Martin, Assistant Chief of Engineering
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Approval to Increase the CIP R2147 Budget in an Amount of
$50,000 and Award of a Construction Contract to Jauregui &
Culver, Inc. for the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation
Facility Fuel System Improvements Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board):
1. Increase the budget by $50,000 (from $175,000 to $225,000);
2. Award a construction contract to Jauregui & Culver, Inc.
(Jauregui) and to authorize the General Manager to execute a
construction contract with Jauregui for the Ralph W. Chapman
Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) Fuel System Improvements
Project in an amount not-to-exceed $158,091.58 (see Exhibit A
for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To increase the overall CIP R2147 budget in the amount of $50,000
(from $175,000 to $225,000) and to obtain Board authorization for the
General Manager to enter into a construction contract with Jauregui
for the RWCWRF Fuel System Improvements Project(Project) in an amount
not-to-exceed $158,091.58.
2
ANALYSIS:
On July 25, 2017, the County of San Diego inspected the RWCWRF under
the authority of the California Health and Safety Code (H&SC), to
determine compliance with applicable provisions of the H&SC, the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), and the San Diego County Code
of Regulatory Ordinances (SDCC). The County Compliance Inspection
Report contained a violation related to the existing below grade,
single-walled diesel fuel piping between the existing 12,000 gallon
bulk tank and two (2) 65 gallon day tanks serving the RWCWRF
generator and Pump 1 engine.
The existing below grade fuel oil piping, partially installed
together with the original treatment plant in 1979, must be replaced
to gain compliance with the County of San Diego inspection report and
current codes. The existing below grade fuel oil piping will be
replaced with a mix of below grade and above grade piping to minimize
the below grade piping length. A late 1980’s/early 1990’s era return
tank located within the bulk storage area will also be replaced. The
return tank has reached the end of its useful life.
Staff prepared the contract documents in-house. The District’s as-
needed engineering design consultant (Michael Baker) provided
guidance and peer review.
On October 17, 2018, the Project was formally advertised for bid
using BidSync, an online bid solicitation website. The Project was
also advertised in the Daily Transcript. BidSync provided electronic
distribution of the Bid Documents, including specifications, plans,
and addendums. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on October 24, 2018, which
was attended by two (2) contractors that specialize in fuel systems
work. Two (2) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses
to address questions and clarifications to the contract documents
during the bidding period.
Bids were publicly opened on November 8, 2018, with the following
results:
CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
AMOUNT
CORRECTED
BID AMOUNT
1 Jauregui & Culver, Inc.
(Escondido, CA) $163,418.74 $158,091.58
2 GEMS Environmental Management
Services, Inc.
(Concord, CA) $250,197.82 $221,056.40
The Engineer’s Estimate is $120,000, which includes below grade
conduits estimated at $5,000 for CIP R2150-RWCWRF Secondary Chlorine
Analyzer and Feed System. District staff added additional scope via
3
addendum, which included an allowance item for additional below grade
conduits estimated at $5,000 for CIP P2485-SCADA-Infrastructure and
Communications Replacement. The corrected bid amounts listed in the
table above do not include the two (2) below grade conduit bid items
for separate CIP’s R2150 and P2485. The below grade conduit work
will be completed under separate contracts.
Because only two (2) bids were received, staff contacted several
general contractors to inquire as to why they did not bid the
Project. A variety of reasons were given and they are shown in the
table below:
CONTRACTOR REASON
1 Jenal Engineering Corp
(Lemon Grove, CA) Too busy.
2 Western Pump
(San Diego, CA)
Too busy. They can be selective with
bids because there are more bids to
choose from. Sealed formal public bids
are typically less attractive compared
to simpler contracts.
3
Bonsall Petroleum
Construction, Inc.
(Bonsall, CA)
Too busy.
4
PK Mechanical Systems,
Inc.
(Wildomar, CA)
Too busy.
A review of the bids was performed by District staff for conformance
with the contract requirements and determined that Jauregui was the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Jauregui holds a Class A,
General Engineering, Contractor’s License in the State of California,
which meets the contract document’s requirements, and is valid
through June 30, 2019. Jauregui also holds a specialty Service
Station Equipment and Maintenance (C-61/D40) contractor license. The
reference checks indicated a very good to excellent performance
record on similar projects. An internet background search of the
company was performed and revealed no outstanding issues with this
company.
Staff verified that the bid bond provided by Jauregui is valid.
Staff will also verify that Jauregui’s Performance Bond and Labor and
Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total budget for CIP R2147, as approved in the FY 2019 budget, is
$175,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast including this contract, are $222,352. See Attachment B for
budget detail.
4
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that with a budget increase of $50,000,
CIP R2147 will be completed within the new budget amount of $225,000.
The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate
model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund.
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:
Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found
none available for this Project.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
JM/BK:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP R2147 RWCWRF Fuel Lines Replacement\Staff Reports\Revised2 - BD 01-02-19 Staff Report
RWCWRF Fuel Lines Award to Jauregui.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Location Map
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
R2147-001103
Approval to Increase the CIP R2147 Budget in an Amount of
$50,000 and Award of a Construction Contract to Jauregui &
Culver, Inc. for the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation
Facility Fuel System Improvements Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 4, 2018,
and the following comments were made:
Staff discussed the purpose, background, and selection process
of this project and noted that the approval of this project
would increase the CIP R2147 Budget from $175,000 to $225,000.
Staff indicated that bids were publicly opened on November 8,
2018, and the bid analysis concluded that Jauregui of Escondido,
CA submitted the lowest bid, which totaled $158,091.48. The
$158,091.48 amount is a corrected amount that does not include
two (2) below grade conduit bid items for separate CIP’s R2150
and P2485. Staff noted that the below grade conduit work will
be completed under separate contracts.
In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that
the County did not assess a fine when the County inspected the
RWCWRF in July 2017 and issued a violation related to the
existing below grade fuel piping. In response to the violation,
District staff worked with the County inspector to develop a
plan and set the current schedule to replace the piping by the
end of this fiscal year (June 30, 2019).
The Committee questioned if the existing below grade fuel oil
piping, which was partially installed together with the original
treatment plant in 1979, would be grandfathered (i.e., not
subject to current codes). Code of Federal Regulations Part 40
- Protection of Environment, Chapter I - Environmental
Protection Agency, Subchapter D - Water Programs, Paragraph
112.8(d)(1) - Facility transfer operations, pumping, and
facility process states: “…must also cathodically protect such
buried piping installations or otherwise satisfy the corrosion
protection standards for piping…”. The County violation was
related to lack of cathodic protection only. District staff
decided to replace, rather than retrofit, the existing 39-year
old single-wall copper piping with a cathodic protection system
because the piping has reached the end of its useful life.
The Committee inquired about similar issues with below grade
fuel oil piping at other District sites. In follow up to the
meeting, staff are assessing below grade fuel oil piping at
other sites and will be performing regulatory review, integrity
testing, and corrosion engineering assessments to recommend
improvements, if needed.
The Committee commended staff for their efforts to reach out to
several general contractors as to why they did not bid the
Project. See Page 3 of the staff report for details.
Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’
recommendation and presentation of this item to the full board as a
Consent Item.
ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
R2147-001103
Approval to Increase the CIP R2147 Budget in an Amount of
$50,000 and Award of a Construction Contract to Jauregui &
Culver, Inc. for the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation
Facility Fuel System Improvements Project
11/9/2018
Budget
175,000
Planning
Standard Salaries 2,995 2,995 1,000 3,995
Total Planning 2,995 2,995 1,000 3,995
Design 001102
Consultant Contracts 6,600 3,178 3,423 6,600 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC
1,080 - 1,080 1,080 RFYEAGER
Standard Salaries 26,332 26,332 1,000 27,332
- - 150 150 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION
- - 1,200 1,200 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC
Total Design 34,012 29,509 6,853 36,362
Construction
- - 158,092 158,092 Jauregui & Culver, lnc.
- - 8,000 8,000 Construction Manager
- - 8,000 8,000 Staff Time
- - 7,905 7,905 Construction Contract Contingency @5%
Total Construction - - 181,996 181,996
Grand Total 37,006 32,504 189,849 222,352
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
r2147-RWCWRF Fuel Lines Replacement
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
OTAY WATER DISTRICTRALPH W. CHAPMAN RECLAMATION FACILITY (RWCWRF)FUEL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A
CIP R2147F
P:
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
C
I
P
R
2
1
4
7
F
u
e
l
L
i
n
e
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
(
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
)
SR-94/CAMPO RD
JAM
A
C
H
A
B
L
V
D
F
U
R
Y
L
N
SR-9
4
/
C
A
M
P
O
R
D
JAMA
C
H
A
R
D
!\
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTSDIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
?ò
Aä%&s
?p
?Ë
F
0 1,000500
Feet
RWCWRFFUEL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTSSITE
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: January 2, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin
Assistant Chief of
Engineering
PROJECT: P2546-001103
DIV. NO. 5
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Approve Close Out Change Order No. 2 to the Contract with
Simpson Sandblasting and Special Coatings, Inc. for the 980-2
Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
approve close out Change Order No. 2 to the existing contract with
Simpson Sandblasting and Special Coatings, Inc. (Simpson) in the
amount of $97.23 for the 980-2 Reservoir Interior/ Exterior Coatings
& Upgrades Project (see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute
close out Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $97.23 to the
construction contract with Simpson for the 980-2 Reservoir
Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project.
2
ANALYSIS:
The 980-2 Reservoir is one of two 5.0 million gallon potable water
storage facilities in the 980 pressure zone that serve the central
area of the District. The 980-2 Reservoir was originally constructed
in 1988. The 980-2 Reservoir was last recoated on the interior
surface in 2001, and the coating on the exterior is original to the
tank.
At the October 4, 2017 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a
construction contract in an amount of $1,146,327.00 to Simpson to
replace the existing interior and exterior coatings for the 980-2
Reservoir. In addition to replacing the reservoir coating, the
Project includes structural upgrades to comply with the current
American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration standards at both Federal (OSHA) and State
(Cal-OSHA) levels.
Since the award of the construction contract, one change order has
been issued. Change Order No. 1 removed and replaced the reservoir’s
rafters and girders. The cost associated with Change Order No. 1 was
$229,152.00. Change Order No. 1 also included contract time as a
result of the added structural work at the 980-2 Reservoir. Time
impacts associated with this change added ninety-six (96) days.
Close out Change Order No. 2 (Exhibit B), which is the subject of
this staff report, addresses the following items and serves to close
out the construction contract:
Steel patch plate and puddle weld repairs for the reservoir
interior floor;
Preparation and coating application to multiple bollards and
site appurtenances;
A credit for additional inspection performed outside specified
contract working hours;
A credit for damaged asphalt;
Addition of contract time due to weather impacts per the
contract.
In total, the fifty-six (56) additional days added to the contract
will result in a revised total contract duration of 329 calendar
days, as shown in close out Change Order No. 2.
3
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total budget for CIP P2546, as approved in the FY 2019 budget, is
$1,690,000.00. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $1,689,913.00. See Attachment B for the budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that the budget for CIP P2546 is sufficient to support
the Project.
The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate
model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund.
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:\WORKING\CIP P2546 - 980-2 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Staff Reports\BD 01-02-2019\BD 01-02-2019, Staff
Report 980-2 Reservoir Coating Change Order No 2_REV1.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Project Location for 980-2
Exhibit B – Close out Change Order No. 2
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2546-001103
Approve Close Out Change Order No. 2 to the Contract with
Simpson Sandblasting and Special Coatings, Inc. for the
980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades
Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 4, 2018, and the
following comments were made:
Staff provided a background of the Project which included the
discussion of Change Order No. 1. See Page 2 of the staff report
for details.
Staff also discussed Change Order No. 2 (Exhibit B) that serves
to close out the construction contract with Simpson. In total,
Change Order No. 2 is for $97.23 and added fifty-six (56) days of
contract time due for changes including weather impacts per the
contract.
Staff indicated that Change Order No. 1 was a substantial change
in the Project’s Scope of Work, which included the replacement of
the reservoir’s steel rafters and girders. This change moved
contract work from a spring environment to a summer environment
where coating application conditions were more to achieve.
Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’
recommendation and presentation of this item to the full board as a
Consent Item.
ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2546-001103
Approve Close Out Change Order No. 2 to the Contract with
Simpson Sandblasting and Special Coatings, Inc. for the
980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades
Project
11/19/2018
Budget
1,690,000
Planning
Standard Salaries 4,042 4,042 - 4,042
Consultant Contracts - - - -
Service Contracts 2,310 2,310 - 2,310 HDR ENGINEERING INC
Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Total Planning 6,402 6,402 - 6,402
Design
Standard Salaries 25,763 25,763 - 25,763
Service Contracts 79 79 - 79 DAILY JOURNAL CORP
Total Design 25,843 25,843 - 25,843
Construction
Standard Salaries 150,000 145,805 4,195 150,000
Construcion Contract 1,146,327 1,097,781 48,546 1,146,327 SIMPSON SANDBLASTING - CONTRACTOR
229,152 229,152 - 229,152 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 APPROVED
97 - 97 97 CHANGE ORDER No. 2
Service Contracts 30,240 30,240 - 30,240 ALYSON CONSULTING-CM
83,289 83,289 - 83,289 CSI SERVICES-SPECIALTY INSPECTION
3,282 3,282 - 3,282 NINYO & MOORE-WELDING INSPECTION
1,815 1,815 - 1,815 NV5 INC - STRUCUTRAL INSPECTION
10,500 816 9,684 10,500 WATCHLIGHT
979 979 - 979 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS- Hard Copy Specs
688 688 - 688 CLARKSON LABORATORY
Project Contingency 1,300 - 1,300 1,300 CONTINGENCY
Total Construction 1,657,669 1,593,847 63,822 1,657,669
Grand Total 1,689,913 1,626,091 63,822 1,689,913
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
P2546-980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
OTAY WATER DISTRICT980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & UpgradesLocation Map
EXHIBIT A
F
P:
\
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
C
I
P
P
2
5
4
6
-
9
8
0
-
2
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
I
n
t
-
E
x
t
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
0 750375
Feet
CIP P2546
980-2 Reservoir
ACC
E
S
S
R
D
SALT CREEK
GOLF CLUB
HU
N
T
E
!\
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTSDIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
?ò
Aä%&s
?p
?Ë
F
944-1R
980-1
927-1R
PROCTOR VALLEY RD
P
K
W
Y
ACCESS RD
Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 2 page 2 of 3
Description of Work
Description
Increase Decrease Time
Item No. 1:
This Change Order increases the amount allocated for Bid Item 21, 5/16-
inch Steel Patch Plates by $1,980.00 to a new authorized amount of
$4,455.00. (Add 12 EA at $165/EA)
$1,980.00 4
Item No. 2:
This Change Order provides for installation of puddle welds to repair pitted
areas of the reservoir floor.
$2,563.70 5
Item No. 3:
This Change Order provides for surface preparation and coating application
to multiple bollards and site appurtenances.
$1,316.53 3
Item No. 4:
Reimbursement for grinding removal ($1.50/SF) and replacement
($15.00/SF) of damaged asphalt concrete paving at the 980-2 Reservoir.
(Credit 285 SF at $16.50/SF)
$4,702.50 0
Item No. 5:
Reimbursement for additional inspection costs outside normal work hours
per Section 00800-1.2 at the 980-2 Reservoir.
$1,060.50 0
Item No. 6:
Add 44 calendar days due to weather impacts per Contract Specifications
00700-8.5
$0.00 $0.00 44
Sub Total Amount $5,860.23 $5,763.00 56
Total Net Change Order Amount $97.23
Revisions to: BID SCHEDULE
Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount
21 8-inch Diameter 5/16-inch Thick Steel Patches 27 EA $165 $4,455.00
Reason:
Item No. 1:
The Contract Bid Item No 21, 5/16-inch Steel Patch Plates, required a quantity adjustment resulting from field conditions.
Item No. 2:
Subsequent to sandblasting of the interior floor, pitting of the existing steel was discovered in multiple locations requiring
remedial action. It was determined that filling the pits by puddle welds to replace corroded steel while providing a smooth
surface for coating adherence was the most cost-effective repair method. This change order is required to provide for the
additional scope.
Item No. 3:
During punchlist development it was determined that the existing coating for 6 bollards, an air/vac enclosure, fire hydrant and
air-gap piping adjacent to the 980-2 Reservoir was nearing the end of its life cycle. To provide a consistent coating service life
it was determined to incorporate surface preparation and coating application to remaining site appurtenances. This change
order is required to provide for the additional scope.
Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 2 page 3 of 3
Item No. 4:
The Contractor damaged existing asphalt concrete paving at the 980-2 Reservoir. In lieu of replacing the damaged asphalt
concrete paving the contractor elected to utilize the District’s FY2018 As-Needed Asphaltic Concrete Paving Services Contract
pricing to reimburse the District for the associated repair cost. This change order is required to reimburse the District for costs
associated with damaged asphalt concrete replacement at the 980-2 Reservoir.
Item No. 5:
Contract Documents Section 00800-1.2 provides for reimbursement of additional expenses of Owner’s personnel and inspection
services resulting from work outside normal working hours. The Contractor requested and was granted authorization to work
overtime with the provision for reimbursement of additional inspection costs. The delta between overtime and regular time
inspection costs is $21/hr. A total of 50.5 hours of overtime inspection was provided requiring premium time reimbursement.
This change order is required to reimburse the District for additional costs associated with providing inspection outside normal
working hours as requested by the Contractor.
Item No. 6:
Contract Documents Section 00700-8.5 provides for no cost time extensions due to weather impacts on the project progress.
Weather impacted the project forty-four (44) days between April and September 2018. The project was impacted on April 17,
18, 20, 24-27; May 3-4, 9-10, 15, 23, 30; June 4, 7, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27, 29; July 5, 7, 12, 16, 18-20; August 1, 10-11, 14,
16, 18, 21, 24-25, 27-28; September 4 & 7, 2018 due to weather.
980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Project: P2546
Consultant/Contractor: Simpson Sandblasting & Coating Subproject: 001103
APPROVED
C.O.AMOUNT BY DATE DESCRIPTION TYPE C.O.
1 $229,152.00 GM 4/5/2018
Roof support system structural work. Add 96
days Contractor
2 $97.23 Close out change order. Contractor
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3435
Total C.O.'s To Date: $229,249.23 20.0%
Original Contract Amount:$1,146,327.00
Current Contract Amount:$1,375,576.23
Month Net C.O.$ Limit Authorization Absolute C.O.$ C.O. %
11/18 $97.23 $2,000 Insp 0.0%
$5,000 PM/Sr. Engr. 0.0%
$10,000 DivM 0.0%
$20,000 Chief 0.0%
$75,000 GM 0.0%
>$75000 Board 0.0%
CHANGE ORDER LOG
P:\WORKING\CIP P2546 - 980-2 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Construction\Change Orders\181116_COLOG1 11/19/2018
CA#878060 NV#72342 AZ#255672
Corporate Office • 14665 Rancho Vista Drive • Fontana, CA 92335
P: (909) 928-0000 • F: (909) 829-0024
November 2, 2018
Doug Cook
Alyson Corp
9968 Hibert Street, #109
San Diego, CA 92131
Re: Otay Water District
980-2 Resevoir
Request for Delay Days
Mr. Cook,
This letter is for the request of additional contract days to be added to the contract. Simpson
Sandblasting is requesting 44 contract days to be added to the contract due to excessive heat, and
excessive humidity. These environmental conditions resulted in environments that were not within the
project specifications or the paint manufacturer’s product data sheets, thus causing Simpson to not be
able to proceed with the scheduled coatings work. All daily reports have been submitted and each delay
day is documented and noted for a requested contract day. Please review all daily reports for
confirmation of the amount of delay days requested.
Simpson would also like to request 5 additional days for the puddle welding work performed on pitted
areas of steel, 3 additional days for painting of bollards & pipes, and 3 additional contract days for the
plate welding.
Please feel free to contact me in regards to these requested days. (951) 233-7076.
Respectfully,
Rusty Simpson
Project Manager
Job Number Date PCO Type PCO No.
7/23/2018 CONTRACT 2
Labor:
Item Craft ST Hours OT Hours ST Rate OT Rate Labor Total Payroll Taxes %Work Comp Work Comp %Per Diem Rate Daily Truck Rate Qty/Days Benefits Total Tracking Code
1 BOILERMAKER 8.00 3.00 $81.63 $115.74 $1,000.26 18.00%Iron/Steel
Erection 9.93%$100.00 $100.00 1.0 $0.00 $1,479.63 550-1 - Carbon Field
2 NON-PREVAILING 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Clerical 0.51%$0.00 310-1 - Carbon Shop -
Paso
3 NON-PREVAILING 7.00 $78.48 $0.00 $549.36 SELECT
CLASS 0.00%$75.35 $624.71 410-1 - Paso Paint Shop -
Labor
4 NON-PREVAILING $0.00 $0.00 SELECT
CLASS 0.00%$0.00 100 - Engineering
5 NON-PREVAILING $0.00 $0.00 SELECT
CLASS 0.00%$0.00 110 - CAD/Drafting
6 SELECT CRAFT SELECT
CLASS 0.00%$0.00 SELECT CODE
Equipment:
Item Duration Charged # Of Units
Onsite ST Quantity OT Quantity ST Rate OT Rate Standby Rate Total
1 HOURLY 1.00 8.00 2.40 $8.33 $15.07 $1.97 $102.81
2 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
6 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
7 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
8 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
9 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
11 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
12 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
13 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
14 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
15 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
16 HOURLY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
17 $0.00 $0.00
18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Materials:
Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Total Tax Rate
1 8.75%Cost $2,104.35
2 8.75%Surcharge %0.00%$0.00
3 $0.00 0.00%Markup %15.00%$315.65
4 $0.00 0.00%Total $2,420.00
5 $0.00 0.00%Cost $102.81
6 $0.00 0.00%Equipment Markup %15.00%$15.42
7 $0.00 0.00%Total $118.23
8 $0.00 0.00%Cost $0.00
Subcontractors:Tax $0.00
Item Total Markup %0.00%$0.00
1 Total $0.00
2 Cost $0.00
3 Markup %0.00%$0.00
4 Total $0.00
5 Cost $0.00
Freight:Markup %0.00%$0.00
Item Total Total $0.00
1 Bonding Bonding %1.00%$25.64
2
Profit Profit %Profit %0.00%$0.00
5 $2,563.70
Signature of Owner's Representative/General Contractor Name Date
PRT Project Manager Signature Name Date
Tracking Code
Tracking Code
SELECT CODE
550-44 - Misc. Equip Rental
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
Summary of Charges
Standby Quantity
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
Name
Same
Owner
Qtay Water District
SELECT CODE
41075
Job Name
Paso Robles Tank, Inc.
825 26th St.
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Otay Water District
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Proposed Change Order (PCO)
Puddle welding
PCO Title/Description
Select Equipment
Customer
Class
AREA 2 BOILERMAKER-
BLACKSMITH
CARBON SHOP
PAINTER
CAD/DRAFTING
Select Equipment
Equipment Description
Welding Machine 250-450A
ENGINEERING
SELECT CLASS
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
Total Calendar Days Requested:
SELECT CODE
Tracking Code
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
Freight
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
Name
0.00%
Material
PCO Total:
Description
Description
Labor
Subcontractor
Overhead
(Contract)
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
Tracking Code
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
$0.00Overhead %
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
Select Equipment
Select Equipment SELECT CODE
Select Equipment
Select Equipment
SELECT CODE
Select Equipment SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
SELECT CODE
RESET FORM
. ~,<~~,~~'tf:'l'' ·s.:,:~,
CSI
SERVICES
CSI Services, Inc., P.O. Box 801357, Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316 /
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO: DATE OF INVOICE: 05/30/18 V
Engineering Department
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
JOB DESCRIPTION:
Project Name: As-Needed Coating Inspection
OWD Project Manager: Kevin Cameron
CIP No: Various
AUTHORIZATION:
Purchase Order Number: 720092 ~
Consultant Project Number: 218529
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RELATED TO INVOICE: 04/23/2018 to 05/11/2018
Perform Coating Inspection Services.
AUTHORIZED AND INVOICED FEE:
Original Fee Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 1 Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 2 Amount Authorized
Total Fee Amount Authorized
Amount of This Invoice
Amount Previously Invoiced
Total Amount Invoiced to Date
$175,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$175,000.00
$ 10,180.25
$ 95,280.75
$ 105 ,461.00
Amount Previously Paid
Authorized Fee Amount Remaining
Percent Complete
$ I-e5;46 t.oo-q ~. z..e>o · 1S""t~~
$ 69,539.00
CONTRACTED DATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION: June 30, 2019
Invoice has been reviewed and found correct.
6/3/18
Chris Sweeney/Project Coordinator Date
FOR OWD USE ONLY
TOTAL
:&0~ f..-4-(~
Date Div Mgr Date
70%
Chief Date
INVOICE
BILL TO
CSI Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 801357
Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316
us
(877)27 42422
www .csiservices.biz
Otay Water District
Attn: Accounts Payable
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
PO/AUTH.
720092
DATE ACTIVITY
04/23/2018 Inspector
04/24/2018 Inspector
04/25/2018 Inspector
04/26/2018 Inspector
04/27/2018 Inspector
04/30/2018 Inspector
05/01/2018 Inspector
05/02/2018 Inspector
05/03/2018 Inspector
05/04/2018 Inspector
05/07/2018 Inspector
05/08/2018 Inspector
05/09/2018 Inspector
05/10/2018 Inspector
05/10/2018 Inspector
05/11/2018 Inspector
PROJECT NO
218529
ACTIVITY
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services-OT
Coating Inspection Services
There will be a 3 percent surcharge for payments made with a credit BALANCE DUE
card
FederaiiD (EIN}:45-0532361
INVOICE# 8220
DATE 05/30/2018
DUE DATE 06/29/2018
TERMS Net30
PROJECT NAME
Reservoir 980-2
QTY RATE
8:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
4:00 94.75
4:00 94.75
4:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
5:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
8:00 94.75
2:00 115.75
8:00 94.75
AMOUNT
758.00
758.00
758.00
758.00
758.00
379.00
379.00
379.00
758.00
473.75
758.00
758.00
758.00
758.00
231.50
758.00
$10,180.25
~ ' ~~-..._.t ~ 1,;~" ~·""". " :r
CSI
SERVICES
CSI Services, Inc., P.O. Box 801357, Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316 V' Z018 JUL -9 AM 9-q I
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO: DATE OF INVOICE: 07/06/2018 yi
Engineering Department
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
JOB DESCRIPTION:
Project Name: As-Needed Coating Inspection
OWD Project Manager: Kevin Cameron
CIP No: Various
INVOICEN
AUTHORIZATION:
Purchase Order Number: 720092 ~
Consultant Project Number: 218529
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RELATED TO INVOICE: 05/14/18 to 06/29/18
Perform Coating Inspection Services.
AUTHORIZED AND INVOICED FEE:
Original Fee Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 1 Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 2 Amount Authorized
Total Fee Amount Authorized
Amount of This Invoice
Amount Previously Invoiced
Total Amount Invoiced to Date
Amount Previously Paid
Authorized Fee Amount Remaining
Percent Complete
CONTRACTED DATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION: June 30, 2019
Invoice has been reviewed and found correct.
7/6/18
Chris Sweeney/Project Coordinator Date
FOR OWD USE ONLY
$175,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$175,000.00
$ 26,556.13
$105,461.00
$ 132,017.13
$ 105,461.00
$ 42,982.87
75%
Amount Project No. Project Account No.
~ 2k, ss-b. !2 l'Z 5Ll(o-O()l\03 -3lOL-S"2.<al Ol [~-332-(
~ Zlo I 5~~ ~ '~ TOTAL
-,.
~ ~~ 1\1otl'l
Date Div Mgr Date Chief Date
INVOICE
BILL TO
CSI Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 801357
Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316
us
(877)27 42422
www .csiservices.biz
Otay Water District
Attn: Accounts Payable
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
PO/AUTH.
720092
DATE ACTIVITY
05/14/2018 Inspector
05/15/2018 Inspector
05/16/2018 Inspector
05/17/2018 Inspector
05/18/2018 Inspector
05/18/2018 Inspector
05/21/2018 Inspector
05/22/2018 Inspector
05/22/2018 Inspector
05/23/2018 Inspector
05/24/2018 Inspector
05/24/2018 Inspector
05/25/2018 Inspector
05/29/2018 Inspector
05/30/2018 Inspector
05/31/2018 Inspector
05/31/2018 Inspector
06/01/2018 Inspector
06/04/2018 Inspector
06/05/2018 Inspector
06/06/2018 Inspector
06/07/2018 Inspector
06/08/2018 Inspector
06/11/2018 Inspector
06/12/2018 Inspector
06/13/2018 Inspector
06/14/2018 Inspector
PROJECT NO
218529
ACTIVITY
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services-OT
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services-OT
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services-OT
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
FederaiiD (EIN):45-0532361
INVOICE# 8281
DATE 07/06/2018
DUE DATE 08/05/2018
TERMS Net 30
PROJECT NAME (J_ :j
Reservoir 980-2 'P2S4b
QTY RATE AMOUNT
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
4:00 94.75 379.00
4:00 94.75 379.00
4:00 94.75 379.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
2:30 115.75 289.38
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
DATE ACTIVITY ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
06/15/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/18/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/19/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/20/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/21/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/22/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/25/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/26/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/27/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/28/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
06/29/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
............. ····-· ............................................... ... ········ ................ ····*···· ..... ................... ..............
There will be a 3 percent surcharge for payments made with a credit BALANCE DUE $26,556.13 card
FederaiiD (EIN):45-0532361
-""-,.,.. <' •
CSI OTAY WATER DI STRICT RECEIVE D
SERVICES
CSI Services, Inc., P.O. Box 801357, Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316 Of8 AUG f 7 AH 9: SS
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO:
Engineering Department
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
JOB DESCRIPTION:
Project Name: As-Needed Coating Inspection
OWD Project Manager: Kevin Cameron
CIP No: Various
DATE OF INVOICE: 08/12/2018 ~
INVOICEN
AUTHORIZATION:
Purchase Order Number: 720092 V
Consultant Project Number: 218529
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RELATED TO INVOICE: 07/02/18 to 08/04/18
Perform Coating Inspection Services.
AUTHORIZED AND INVOICED FEE:
Original Fee Amount Authorized
Change Order No. I Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 2 Amount Authorized
Total Fee Amount Authorized
Amount of This Invoice
Amount Previously Invoiced
Total Amount Invoiced to Date
Amount Previously Paid
Authorized Fee Amount Remaining
Percent Complete
CONTRACTED DATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION: June 30,2019
Invoice has been reviewed and found correct.
8/17/18
Chris Sweeney/Project Coordinator Date
FOR OWD USE ONLY
$175,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$175,000.00
$ 26,580.75
$ 132,017.13
$ 158,543.88
$ 158,543.88
$ 16,456.12
9.5%
. Amount Project No. Project Account No.
~J-GJ 5~0~ 7S V2-s-LJ6-DtJ\\0 ~-)\t>L-5Utc> \ l"L-3~l
J
l-P2bl 5~0~ !S TOTAL
.,..~,.-~""'~---
CSI
SERVICES
INVOICE
BILL TO
Otay Water District
CSI Services, Inc.
P .0. Box 801357
Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316
us
(877)2742422
www.csiservices.biz
Attn: Accounts Payable
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
PO/AUTH. PROJECT NO
720092 218529
DATE ACTIVITY ACTIVITY
07/02/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/02/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/02/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/03/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/03/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/03/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/05/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/05/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/05/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/06/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/06/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/06/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/07/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/07/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/09/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/09/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/10/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/11/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/12/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/12/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/12/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/13/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/13/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/14/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/16/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
07/16/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
07/17/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
FederaiiD (EIN):45-0532361
INVOICE # 8385R
DATE 08/12/2018
DUE DATE 09/11/2018
TERMS Net 30
-----
PROJECT NAME
Reservoir 980-2
QTY RATE AMOUNT
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
2:00 115.75 231.50
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 115.75 926.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
2:00 115.75 231.50
8:00 94.75 758.00
DATE ACTIVITY ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
07/17/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-Or 4:00 115.75 463.00
07/18/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 7:00 94.75 663.25
07/24/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
07/25/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-or 1:00 115.75 115.75
07/25/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
07/26/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
07/27/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
07/28/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
07/30/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
07/30/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-or 1:00 115.75 115.75
07/31/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
08/01/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
08/02/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
08/02/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-Or 3:00 115.75 347.25
08/03/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services 8:00 94.75 758.00
08/04/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-or 8:00 115.75 926.00
There will be a 3 percent surcharge for payments made with a credit BALANCE DUE $26,580.75 card
Federal tO (EIN):45-0532361
CSI oT · y \·,;"'· EH li ~ lRICT
SERVICES
RE r.FI\l EO
CSI Services, Inc., P.O. Box 801357, Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316 V l]_..
2018 SEP J4f-PM Q: 56
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO: DATE OF INVOICE: 09/13/2018 v"'
Engineering Department
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
JOB DESCRIPTION:
INVOICE NOS
AUTHORIZATION:
Project Name: As-Needed Coating Inspection
OWD Project Manager: Kevin Cameron
Purchase Order Number: 720092 /
Consultant Project Number: 218529
CIP No: Various
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RELATED TO INVOICE: 08/06/18 to 08/31/18
Perform Coating Inspection Services.
AUTHORIZED AND INVOICED FEE:
Original Fee Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 1 Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 2 Amount Authorized
Total Fee Amount Authorized
Amount of This Invoice
Amount Previously Invoiced
Total Amount Invoiced to Date
Amount Previously Paid
Authorized Fee Amount Remaining
Percent Complete
CONTRACTED DATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION: June 30, 2019
Invoice has been reviewed and found correct.
9/17/18
Chris Sweeney/Project Coordinator Date
FOR OWD USE ONLY
$175,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$175,000.00
$ 15,882.75 j
$ 158,579.88
$ 174,426.63
$ 158,579.88
$ :519.37
99%
Pro·ect Account No.
-()Q/103 -3/02--SZ/ulol /2---332-/
t -lo-~
Date
~ ~ «,\ Lo\lf'
Chief Date
-; .... .,.,-.: ~'"'.,
CSI
SERVICES
INVOICE
BILL TO
Otay Water District
CSI Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 801357
Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316
us
(877)27 42422
www .csiservices.biz
Attn: Accounts Payable
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
PO/AUTH. PROJECT NO
720092 218529
DATE ACTIVITY ACTIVITY
08/06/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/06/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
08/07/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
08/07/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/08/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/09/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/09/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
08/10/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/13/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/14/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/14/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
08/15/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/15/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
08/16/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/17/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/17/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
08/20/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/21/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/22/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/23/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/24/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/27/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/28/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/29/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/30/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
08/30/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services-OT
08/31/2018 Inspector Coating Inspection Services
FederaiiD (EIN):45-0532361
INVOICE# 8442
DATE 09/13/2018
DUE DATE 10/13/2018
TERMS Net 30
PROJECT NAME
Reservoir 980-2
QTY RATE AMOUNT
8:00 94.75 758.00
2:00 115.75 231.50
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
2:00 115.75 231.50
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
4:00 94.75 379.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
8:00 94.75 758.00
1:00 115.75 115.75
8:00 94.75 758.00
There will be a 3 percent surcharge for payments made with a credit
card
BALANCE DUE
FederaiiD (EIN):45-0532361
$15,822.75
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
CSI OlAY t1·~1 Eh Ld ~ I RICT
R E~FIV ED
SERVICES l
CSI Services, Inc., P.O. Box 801357, Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316 V"'znt8 SEP PM 2: 22
INVOICE SUBMITTED TO:
Engineering Department
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
JOB DESCRIPTION:
Project Name: As-Needed Coating Inspection
OWD Project Manager: Kevin Cameron
CIP No: Various
DATE OF INVOICE: 09/19/2018 /
INVOICE NOEV
AUTHORIZATION:
Purchase Order Number: 720579 /
Consultant Project Number: 218529
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RELATED TO INVOICE: 09/04/18 to 09/12/18
Perform Coating Inspection Services.
AUTHORIZED AND INVOICED FEE:
Original Fee Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 1 Amount Authorized
Change Order No. 2 Amount Authorized
Total Fee Amount Authorized
Amount of This Invoice
Amount Previously Invoiced
Total Amount Invoiced to Date
Amount Previously Paid
Authorized Fee Amount Remaining
Percent Complete
CONTRACTED DATE OF PROJECT COMPLETION: June 30, 2019
Invoice has been reviewed and found correct.
9/19/18
Chris Sweeney/Project Coordinator Date
FOR OWD USE ONLY
$175,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$175,000.00
$ 4,089.50
$ 0.00
$ 4,089.50
$ 0.00
$170,910.50
0.01%
Pro'ect Account No.
f>Q l 0!-'l'b-'~ ~'j~ lo\1\\lg
Div Mgr Date Chief Date
O'L l:fSf"' tf}t~l I~
INVOICE
BILL TO
CSI Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 801357
Santa Clarita, CA 91380-2316
us
(877)27 42422
www.csiservices.biz
Otay Water District
Attn: Accounts Payable
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
PO/AUTH.
720579
DATE ACTIVITY
09/04/2018 Inspector
09/05/2018 Inspector
09/05/2018 Inspector
09/06/2018 Inspector
09/06/2018 Inspector
09/07/2018 Inspector
09/12/2018 Inspector
····-····---.
PROJECT NO
218529
ACTIVITY
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services-OT
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services-OT
Coating Inspection Services
Coating Inspection Services
. ... --· --· ·-
INVOICE # 8464REV
DATE 09/19/2018
DUE DATE 10/19/2018
TERMS Net 30
PROJECT NAME
Reservoir 980-2
QTY RATE
8:00 96.45
8:00 96.45
1:00 115.75
8:00 96.45
1:00 115.75
8:00 96.45
8:00 96.45
-...... --.. ··-·. -...... --..
AMOUNT
771.60
771.60
115.75
771.60
115.75
771.60
771.60
--..... -
There will be a 3 percent surcharge for payments made with a credit BALANCE DUE $4,089.50 card
FederaiiD (EIN):45-0532361
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: January 2, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:
Bob Kennedy
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: P1210 DIV. NO.
5
APPROVED BY:
Dan Martin, Assistant Chief of Engineering
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4355 Declaring the Hillside Drive, a
Portion of the Buena Vista Avenue, the Jamacha Boulevard and
La Presa Avenue Parcels as Surplus Real Properties and
Authorize the General Manager to Dispose of the Surplus
Properties in Accordance with Applicable Statues and Laws
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
adopt Resolution No. 4355 declaring the Hillside Drive Assessor’s
Parcel Number (APN 597-041-66), a portion of the Buena Vista Avenue
parcel (a portion of APN 579-364-17), the Jamacha Boulevard parcels
(APN 505-672-20 and a portion of APN 505-672-19) and the La Presa
Avenue parcels (APN 579-031-16 and APN 579-031-18) comprising a total
of approximately nine (9) acres of land as surplus, and authorize the
General Manager to dispose of the surplus properties in accordance
with applicable statutes and laws, and in the best interest of the
District.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
2
PURPOSE:
To request the Board to declare real property as surplus and
authorize the General Manager to dispose of the declared property in
accordance with applicable statutes and laws, and in the best
interest of the District.
ANALYSIS:
As a regular course of business, the District periodically reviews
the need and use of real estate (property) it owns. This is done to
ensure that the District’s current and future property needs are
provided for, and that property that is no longer required is
disposed of in order to minimize costs and associated liabilities of
property ownership. The retention of real property that is surplus
to the District’s needs increases operating expense by increasing the
requirement to maintain and manage the property. The properties
listed herein were identified after review by District staff.
An evaluation of District-owned properties identified the following
four properties as not required for District use:
Exhibit Area
(Acres) Property Location APN
A 7.81 Hillside Drive 597-041-66
B 0.29
Buena Vista Avenue
100 Ft. N/S by 127
Ft. E/W (Approx.)
Portion of
579-364-17
C 0.23
Jamacha Boulevard
100 Ft. by 100 Ft.
(Approx.)
505-672-20 & portion of
505-672-19
D 0.69
La Presa Avenue
234 Ft. N/S by 127
Ft. E/W (Approx.)
579-031-16 &
579-031-18
District Options and Legal Obligations
The District can alter the use of the sites and it has broad
discretion to determine what to do with the properties, as long as it
is in the best interests of the District. If the Board chooses to
retain ownership of the properties, it must ensure that future use
complies with the law and applicable zoning ordinances. If the Board
wishes to dispose of the properties entirely, it may do so by
following the statutory procedures required for Surplus Property,
outlined in detail in Government Code section 54222.
3
Although, the District is required to make a determination as to what
to do with the listed properties, it is not required to either keep
or dispose of the properties. The District can dispose of some of
the property and reserve some for District use. If the District
determines that the properties should be sold as surplus property, it
is expected that the boundary of several of the surplus property
sites will need to be modified depending on the ultimate use of the
properties. For example, the property on Jamacha Road is currently
used for a pressure reducing station with a large graded pad for
drainage facilities. The buyer of the property may desire to
relocate the drainage facilities that conflict with their development
plans.
The following is an outline of the procedure that the District must
use to sell or otherwise dispose of District property:
I. General Sale and Disposal Procedures and Priorities
Water Code Section 71690 allows the District to dispose of real
property of every kind subject to the procedural requirements
found in Government Code Section 54220, et seq., pertaining to the
disposition of “surplus land” by a local agency. There are
certain exemptions that may apply depending on the characteristics
of the property in question.
Chapter 4 Section 4.05 of the District’s Code of Ordinances
provides:
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY. All property, real or
personal, which has been declared surplus to the
District's needs, shall be disposed of in accordance
with the District Purchasing Manual or applicable
statutes and laws.
The requirements for declaring the property surplus and disposing
of the property once it has been declared surplus, are set forth
below.
1. Surplus Land
"Surplus land" is defined in Gov. Code Section 54221(b) as land
owned by the District "that is determined to be no longer
necessary for the [District's] use. It excludes property being
held by a local agency for the purpose of exchange. There are
various exemptions to the surplus land requirements that are not
applicable to these properties.
4
The intent behind the disposal procedures is to promote the use
of surplus land for affordable housing, parks and recreation
purposes, open-space purposes, and transit-oriented development.
The District has never designated these properties as surplus
property, and it does not qualify as exempt property.
If the Board determines that the District no longer has use for
the properties and that each property is surplus to the
District’s needs, the Board must adopt a resolution which
includes:
1. A finding that the properties are not, and will not, be
needed by the District;
2. A declaration the properties are surplus to the District's
needs; and
3. A statement that the District will solicit offers for the
lease or purchase of the properties.
Once the resolution has been adopted by the Board, the District
may solicit offers for the lease or sale of the surplus
properties from Preferred Entities (notify specific entities of
the opportunity to purchase or lease the properties for
specified priority uses. (Gov. Code § 54222 et seq.)
2. Written Offers to Sell or Lease Property
Once the properties are declared surplus, the District must
send a written offer to sell or lease the properties to the
following entities, in the order set forth below:
(1) Local Public Entities A written offer to sell or lease the
surplus properties for the purposes of developing low- and
moderate-income housing must be sent to any “Local Public
Entity” (as that term is defined in Section 50079 of the
Health and Safety Code) within whose jurisdiction the
surplus land is located.
(2) Housing Sponsors Upon written request, “Housing Sponsors”
(as defined in Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code)
shall also be sent a written offer to sell or lease the
surplus properties for the development of low- and
moderate-income housing.
5
Notices to Local Public Entities and Housing Sponsors must
be sent by first-class mail and must include the location
and description of the properties. Priority is to be given
to the development of land to provide affordable housing
for lower income, elderly, or disabled persons or
households.
(3) Parks and Recreational Purposes A written offer to sell or
lease the surplus properties are to be made to various
entities for parks, and recreational or open space
purposes. These written offers are to be sent to the
following entities:
(a) To any Park and Recreation Department of any city
where the surplus land is located.
(b) To any Park and Recreation Department of the county
within the area on which the land is situated.
(c) To any regional park authority having jurisdiction
within the area on which the land is located.
(d) To the State Resources Agency or any agency which may
succeed to its powers.
(4) School Districts If the land is suitable for school
facilities construction or use by a school district for
open space purposes, a written offer to sell or lease the
surplus properties are to be made to any school district in
whose jurisdiction the land is located.
(5) Enterprise Zones If the area is in an "Enterprise Zone," a
written offer to sell or lease the surplus properties shall
be sent to the nonprofit neighborhood enterprise
association in that zone.
(6) Infill Opportunity Zone A written offer to lease or sell
the surplus properties for the purpose of developing
property located within an infill opportunity zone (infill
housing and mixed use commercial developments within
walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and
town centers) must be sent to any county, city, community
redevelopment agency, public transportation agency, or
housing authority within whose jurisdiction the surplus
land is located.
6
3. Timing for Notices and Written Offers
The District may send or publish the notices and written offers
to the local planning commission and public agencies at the
same time, in order to move through the process as quickly as
possible. The notices and written offers should state that the
District is concurrently offering the properties to all other
entities, as required by the Government Code.
The District must also notify the local city or county planning
agency, if such city or county has adopted a general plan,
which affects or includes the area where the property is
located.
4. Sixty (60) Day Window to Accept Offer to Sell or Lease
Once the written offer has been sent to the various entities,
they have sixty (60) days after receipt of the offer to notify
the District in writing of their intent to purchase or lease
the properties.
5. Good Faith Negotiations for Sixty (60) Days
If the District receives notice from any of the entities listed
above expressing their interest in purchasing or leasing the
surplus properties, the District must then enter into good
faith negotiations to determine a mutually satisfactory sales
price or a lease term. If, after a sixty day period of good
faith negotiations, the price or terms cannot be agreed upon,
then the District may dispose of the land without further
regard to the provisions of Section 54220, et seq.
It should be emphasized that the basic rule is that the
District must offer the land to these agencies, but it is not
obligated to sell at less than fair market value. Should the
District reach an acceptable price with any entity interested
in purchasing the properties, the sale may provide for terms of
payment up to twenty years and a contract of sale or sale by
deed of trust. The District, under the provisions of Section
54226, may sell or lease the properties at less than, full, or
in excess of the fair market value of the property. In
addition, an examination of the proposed sale or lease should
be made under CEQA.
7
6. Multiple Offers - Priority to Parks and Affordable Housing
In the event the District receives interest from one or more
entities interested in purchasing or leasing the surplus
properties, the District must give first priority to an
interested entity that proposes to make at least twenty-five
(25) percent of the total number of units developed on the
parcel affordable to lower-income households. The twenty-five
(25) percent affordability requirement applies to both sales
and rentals.
If the District receives multiple offers from notified
(preferred) entities, the District must give priority to the
one that proposes to provide the greatest number of affordable
units at the deepest level of affordability (i.e., affordable
to households at the lowest income levels).
Park and recreational purposes may be given priority if the
land being offered is already being used and will continue to
be used for park and recreational purposes; or if the land is
designated for park and recreational use in the local general
plan and will be developed for that purpose.
II. Sale of the Property if No Section 54220 Interest is Shown or
Negotiations Fail
Public Competitive Bidding
If the District has offered the properties to public entities as
described above, and the properties remain unsold after the
expiration of the applicable timeframes, the District may proceed
to lease or sell the properties to the public through a
competitive and open bidding process.
If surplus properties are sold outside the preferred system to an
entity that develops the properties for the development of 10 or
more residential units, the development must include at least 15%
of the units at an affordable housing cost, or affordable rent,
for low income households. Rental units must remain affordable
to, and occupied by, lower income households for a period of at
least 55 years. The initial occupants of all ownership units must
be lower income households, and the units are subject to an equity
sharing agreement that must provide for the distribution of any
appreciation or improvements to the property. These requirements
must be recorded against the properties and are enforceable by the
local agency or eligible residents. (Gov. C. §§ 54223 and 54233.)
8
There are specific requirements that must be followed before
offering the lease or sale of any surplus property through
competitive bidding, including (a) Board declaration of intention
to lease or sell, (b) notice of resolution, and (c) bid-opening
meeting and acceptance of a proposal. (Public Contract Code §§
20110-20118.4.)
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
It is anticipated that the District will obtain the fair market value
for the properties. The proceeds from the sale of the properties
will be credited to the funds that provided for their purchase.
Staff anticipates that the Engineering Outside Services budget will
be able to cover the cost of appraisal services. Currently,
Engineering’s expenses have not exceeded anticipated expenses and it
is expected that there will be sufficient funds available to offset
the expected appraisal costs.
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 responsive
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:
Failure to comply with the statutory provisions for the disposal of
surplus properties will expose the District to legal challenges.
BK/RP:jf
P:\Bob Kennedy\Surplus Property\Staff Report 01-02-19\BD 01-02-19 Surplus Property-2.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B - Resolution No. 4355
Exhibit A – Hillside Drive Location Map
Exhibit B – Buena Vista Avenue Location Map
Exhibit C – Jamacha Boulevard Location Map
Exhibit D – La Presa Avenue Location Map
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P1210
Adopt Resolution No. 4355 Declaring the Hillside Drive, a
Portion of the Buena Vista Avenue, the Jamacha Boulevard
and La Presa Avenue Parcels as Surplus Real Properties and
Authorize the General Manager to Dispose of the Surplus
Properties in Accordance with Applicable Statues and Laws
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance and Administration Committee (Committee) reviewed this
item at a meeting held on December 5, 2018 and the following comments
were made:
Staff is requesting that the Board declare the Hillside Drive, a
portion of the Buena Vista Avenue, the Jamacha Boulevard and La
Presa Avenue parcels as surplus real properties and authorize the
General Manager to dispose of the surplus properties in accordance
with applicable statues and laws.
Staff reviewed information in the staff report and presented
location maps for each of the parcels (the approximate total acres
to be surplused is 9 acres).
In response to an inquiry from the Committee, staff stated that all
four of the parcels are within the unincorporated area of the County
of San Diego. In response to further inquiries, staff indicated
that:
The Hillside Drive property is identified on the County of San
Diego’s zoning and property information website as split zoned
with the westerly portion along Campo Road designated as C32
Commercial and the larger easterly portion designated as RR
Rural Residential. Staff explained that the parcel was
acquired through a land exchange with Mr. Frank McNeill. The
District’s Board minutes dated October 20, 1993 noted the
escrow for the land exchange was completed on October 19, 1993
and “General Manager Lewinger stated that the land the District
obtained is superior for District purposes than the one
exchanged, which is a benefit to the community.”
The Buena Vista Avenue site and the La Presa Avenue sites are
identified on the County of San Diego zoning and property
information website as RS Residential-Single.
A small 0.13 MG forebay reservoir and the 850-1 and 657-1 pump
stations were all removed from the Jamacha Boulevard sites and
replaced with a pressure reducing station. These sites are
identified on the County of San Diego’s zoning and property
information website as C30 Commercial for APN 505-672-20 and a
portion of APN 505-672-19 is identified as M-58 Industrial.
The La Presa Avenue site (Dictionary Hill) was the location of
the 0.4 MG 1004-1 reservoir which was built in 1959. It was
replaced in 2003, when it reached the end of its useful life,
with the 1.4 MG 1004-2 reservoir and disinfection facility that
was constructed nearby on an easement acquired by the District.
This site is surrounded by preservation land owned by the
County of San Diego. The La Presa Avenue site could be
exchanged with the County of San Diego for fee title of the
easement land on which 1004-2 reservoir is located.
It was discussed that if the parcels are declared surplus, staff
will issue a RFP for a broker and appraisals will be performed.
Following the discussion, the Committee supported staff’s
recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent
calendar.
1
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 4355
DECLARATION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DECLARING SURPLUS REAL
PROPERTY, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO SOLICIT OFFERS FOR THE PURCHASE
OF THE SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Water Code Section 31041, the Otay Water
District (“District”) is empowered to dispose of District property; and
WHEREAS, the District is the owner in fee of real property designated as
Hillside Drive Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN 597-041-66), a portion of the Buena Vista
Avenue parcel (a portion of APN 579-364-17), the Jamacha Boulevard parcels (APN 505-672-
20 and a portion of APN 505-672-19) and the La Presa Avenue parcels (APN 579-031-16 and
APN 579-031-18) comprising a total of approximately nine (9) acres of land and located in the
County of San Diego, California (“Properties”); and
WHEREAS, said Properties are described in Exhibits “A, B, C, and D” attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the District Code of Ordinances Section 4.05 provides for the
disposal of surplus property; and
WHEREAS, the California Government Code Section 54220 et seq. establishes
procedures and requirements for the disposition of surplus land owned by local agencies,
including but not limited to a local agency’s responsibility to make written offers to sell the
property to various state, county, and local entities and a local agency’s right to sell the
property at fair market value;
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has considered a report from staff, and has
determined and hereby declares that the Properties are not, and will not be, needed for the
District’s use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the
Otay Water District that the District real properties, Hillside Drive Assessor’s Parcel Number
(APN 597-041-66), a portion of the Buena Vista Avenue parcel (a portions of APN 579-364-
17), the Jamacha Boulevard parcels (APN 505-672-20 and a portion of APN 505-672-19) and
the La Presa Avenue parcels (APN 579-031-16 and APN 579-031-18) comprising a total of
approximately nine (9) acres of land in the County of San Diego, California, and described in
Exhibits “A, B, C, and D”, are surplus properties because they are not, and will not, be
needed by the District and are surplus to the District's needs, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is authorized to
ATTACHMENT B
2
dispose of said surplus properties in accordance with the District Code of Ordinances Section
4.05 and California Government Code Section 54220 et seq.; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is hereby directed to
make the Properties available for sale and provide written notice of the District’s intent to
dispose of said surplus properties to those certain public agencies as prescribed in California
Government Code Sections 54220 et seq. Such notice shall offer said property for sale to the
public agencies at fair market value, and shall request written notification of the intent to
purchase said properties, and be submitted to the District within 60 days.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the General Manager does not receive
timely and acceptable written notification of the intent to purchase said Properties from any
public agency, the General Manager is hereby authorized to make the Properties available to
the general public through a competitive bidding process.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is directed to bring all
offers and bids on said surplus properties to the Board of Directors for approval and award of
bid.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District, County of
San Diego, State of California, on the 2nd day of January, 2019, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________________
President
Attest:
_______________________
District Secretary
OTAY WATER DISTRICTOWD PARCEL 597-041-66-00LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT A
November 2018F
P:\DRAFTING DEPARTMENT\Info for Others\OWD\Bob K\District Owned Parcel Research\Exhibit A, Hillside Drive Property.mxd
33
33
33
33$R
¹r$R
¹r
l?l?
l?
l?
l?
l?
l?l?
l?
l?
Campo Rd
H ill s i d e D r
Maxfield Rd
5961800100
ROW
5970416600
5961803600
5970410100
5961800200
5970421800
5970420600 5970411800
5
9
7
0
4
1
0
4
0
0
5970421900
5970420300
5970420500
5970420400
5970410300
5970413300
5970416500
5 9 7 0 4 1 4 9 0 0
5 9 7 0 4 1 2 9 0 0
5970413200
5970412700
5 9 7 0 4 2 0 1 0 0
5 9 7 0 4 2 0 2 0 0
5
9
7
0
4
1
3
1
0
0
5970413400
5970411700
5970413000
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
ÃÅ54
!\
ÃÅ125
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ905
§¨¦805
FNTS
Legend
OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY: 7.81 ACRES (approx)
SURPLUS PROPERTY: 7.81 ACRES (approx)
PARCEL LINES
0 340170
Feet
OTAY WATER DISTRICTOWD PARCEL 579-364-17-00LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT B
November 2018F
P:\DRAFTING DEPARTMENT\Info for Others\OWD\Bob K\District Owned Parcel Research\Exhibit B, Buena Vista Ave Property.mxd
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`"`
"`"`
"`
"`"`
"`
"`"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`
"`"`"`
"`"`
"`
"`
33
33
$R
¹r
¹r
$R
$R
$R
¹r
¹r
l?
l?
l?
l?
l?l?
l?l?l?l?
l?
l?
l?l?
1004-2
PUMP STATION
Maria Ave
Chestnut St
Buena Vista Ave
ROW
5793641700
5793580900
5793640800
5793640700
5793581800
5793640100
5793641900
5793641800
5793640600
5793641600
5793642000
5793640500
5793640300
5793640400
5793640200
5793641500
5793810800
5793810700
5793810600
5793810500
5793810400
5793810300
5793582100
5793810200
5793810100
5793750100
5793750200
5793810900
5793570900
5793632300
5
7
9
3
6
3
2
4
0
0
5
7
9
3
6
3
2
5
0
0
5793
6
3
2
6
0
0
5793632000
5793631900
5793640900
5793631800
5793631700
5793572300
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
ÃÅ54
!\
ÃÅ125
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ905
§¨¦805
FNTS
Legend
OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY: 0.59 ACRES (approx)
SURPLUS PROPERTY: 0.29 ACRES (approx)
PARCEL LINES
0 10050
Feet
100' (approx)
127' (approx)
OTAY WATER DISTRICTOWD PARCEL 505-672-19-00 and 505-672-20-00LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT C
November 2018F
P:\DRAFTING DEPARTMENT\Info for Others\OWD\Bob K\District Owned Parcel Research\Exhibit C, Jamacha Blvd Property.mxd
"`
33
¹r
l?
l?
l?
l?
l?
l?
l?
l?
îîSRP
Jamacha Blvd
ROW
5056720300
5056720900
5056721900
5056721000
5056722000
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
ÃÅ54
!\
ÃÅ125
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ905
§¨¦805
FNTS
Legend
OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTIES: 0.63 ACRES (approx)
SURPLUS PROPERTY: 0.23 ACRES (approx)
PARCEL LINES
0 10050
Feet
850-657 PRS
100' (approx)
100' (approx)
OTAY WATER DISTRICTOWD PARCEL 579-031-16-00 and 579-031-18-00LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT D
November 2018F
P:\DRAFTING DEPARTMENT\Info for Others\OWD\Bob K\District Owned Parcel Research\Exhibit D, Old 1004-1 Res Property.mxd
$R
l?
l?
l?l?
5790311400
ROW
5790320100
5790311100 5790311600
5790311100
5790311800
5790311200
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
DIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
ÃÅ54
!\
ÃÅ125
ÃÅ94
ÃÅ905
§¨¦805
FNTS
Legend
OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTIES: 0.69 ACRES (approx)
SURPLUS PROPERTY: 0.69 ACRES (approx)
PARCEL LINES
0 10050
Feet
La Presa Av
234' (approx)
127' (approx)
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: January 2, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:
Stephen Beppler
Senior Civil Engineer
PROJECT: S1502-
001000
DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY:
Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager
Dan Martin, Assistant Chief, Engineering
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4356 to Approve the Amended and Restated
Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement Between the City of San
Diego and the Participating Agencies in the Metropolitan
Sewerage System
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
adopt Resolution No. 4356 (Attachment B) to approve the Amended and
Restated Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement between the City of
San Diego (City) and the Participating Agencies (PA) in the
Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro) (Agreement) and authorize the
General Manager to execute the Agreement. The updated Agreement
(Exhibit A) incorporates the Pure Water San Diego (Pure Water)
program, which is a long-range regional water reuse plan with the
goal of realizing a secondary equivalent Point Loma Wastewater
Treatment Plant (PLWTP) and a new local sustainable water supply.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
In order to comprehensively and equitably address the costs and
revenues associated with the Pure Water project and the related
2
construction, expansion, and modification of the Metro wastewater
facilities, the City and the PAs wish to amend and restate the
Agreement.
ANALYSIS:
Background
The Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a
coalition of municipalities and special districts in the southern and
central portions of San Diego County that share in the use of the
City's regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The
District is one of twelve (12) PAs in the JPA party to the agreement
with the City for wastewater treatment. Other JPA member agencies
include the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon,
Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, Poway, the County of San
Diego Sanitation District, the Lemon Grove Sanitation District, and
Padre Dam Municipal Water District. The District contributes roughly
0.5% of the wastewater flow to the Metro system while the JPA
represents approximately 35% of the Metro flow.
The City’s sewage system dates back to 1885, but a formal agreement
between the PAs was not established until 1998 under a Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement. The Metropolitan Wastewater
Commission (Metro Commission) was formed at that time pursuant to the
terms of the Agreement between the PAs and the City. In 2001, the
JPA was formed to provide the PAs with a stronger voice in the
operations of the Metro System.
PLWTP operates under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit modified under section 301(h) & (j)(5) of the
Clean Water Act, which allows for the facility to operate as an
advanced primary treatment plant under a waiver that must be renewed
every 5 years. The loss of that waiver would require PLWTP to
upgrade to secondary treatment. For the permit renewal in 2015, the
Pure Water program strategy allows for the attainment of treatment
within the Metro system that could allow PLWTP to be permitted as
equivalent to secondary treatment. This involves diverting 83 MGD of
sewage for water purification to potable water quality while allowing
the PLWTP to continue its current operating process. The first phase
of the Pure Water project to be constructed at the North City Water
Reclamation Plant is expected to produce 30 MGD of indirect potable
reuse water to be conveyed to Miramar reservoir.
To continue to operate the PLWTP at the advanced primary treatment
level, the City is seeking passage of federal legislation, with
support from the environmental community. The proposal, called Ocean
3
Pollution Reduction Act II (OPRA II), will allow the City’s NPDES
permit to be based on secondary equivalency with a commitment to
implement potable reuse of wastewater. Until permanent federal
legislation is adopted to recognize secondary equivalence, there is
uncertainty about the total financial cost strategy for wastewater
associated with the Pure Water project.
Amended and Restated Regional Wastewater Agreement
The proposed changes to the existing 1998 Regional Wastewater
Disposal Agreement primarily consist of the following:
1. Define the Pure Water program and secondary equivalency for
PLWTP;
2. Change methodology for repayment of future capital investment
projects, where costs for Pure Water are based upon flow and
strength commitments for planning year 2050 as listed in
Exhibit G of the Agreement;
3. Set cost allocations between water and wastewater facilities
reflective of wastewater operation requirements for secondary
discharge for ocean disposal;
4. Establish alternative capacity rights reflecting secondary
equivalency implementation, which reduces the wastewater
infrastructure construction for Pure Water to reflect the flow
projections for planning year 2050;
5. Provide a maximum cap on financial exposure to wastewater
customers from the Pure Water program based upon the cost of
converting PLWTP to secondary treatment, determined to be $1.8
billion in November 2018 dollars for a capacity of 180 MGD;
6. Establish criteria for requiring agencies to obtain additional
treatment capacity should their flow and/or strength exceed
their contracted limits and setting penalties if they fail to
do so upon notification; and
7. Provide sharing of potential future water revenues when Pure
Water potable supply costs become less expensive than other
supply sources.
The District’s flow and strength commitments identified in Exhibit G
of the Agreement are based upon the assumption that the Ralph W.
Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) will be operational
through 2050. Should the District decide to cease treating flow at
RWCWRF, additional Pure Water flow and strength capacity would need
to be obtained following the procedures established in the Agreement.
Underpayments to the date of revising the capacities would need to be
paid within 4 years on a quarterly basis.
4
District staff reviewed each of the developmental drafts of the
Agreement and provided numerous comments that are viewed as providing
safeguards for the District. Among these are providing adequate
durations before additional flow or strength capacity commitments are
triggered by exceeding the established Pure Water limits set in
Exhibit G of the Agreement. Initial drafts had set this at 3 months,
with subsequent negotiations extending this to 3 years of continuous
exceedance levels at 10 percent above the commitment level. With the
District’s operation of RWCWRF currently being considered in the
District’s planning year 2050 capacity rights, it was important that
short-term shutdowns of the plant not result in the need to obtain
additional capacity rights. If the District were to trigger the need
for increasing contract capacity and not do so, the Agreement
provides for the City to assess damages at $1 for each gallon of flow
in excess of the contract capacity during each quarter year of
occurrence until the new capacity is obtained.
Pure Water Phase I cost projection dated October 2018 estimated the
total cost to Water and Wastewater at $1.44 billion. Metro
Wastewater allocation is currently projected at thirty-nine percent
(39%) of the overall estimated cost and City Water allocation is
sixty-one percent (61%). At this distribution of costs, Phase I is
projected at $562 million or about 31% of the Wastewater portion of
the Pure Water commitment. Based upon Exhibit G of the Agreement,
the District’s portion of the Phase I costs is currently projected at
$2.57 million, with a total Pure Water cost estimated at $8.23
million in 2018 dollars.
The entire Pure Water program costs for all phases to meet the
program goal of producing 83 MGD of potable reuse water was estimated
to cost $2.5 to $3 billion dollars in 2014 when the Cooperative
Agreement between the City of San Diego and San Diego Coastkeeper,
Surfrider Foundation San Diego Chapter, Coastal Environmental Rights
Foundation, and the San Diego Audubon Society was approved to support
the PLWTP’s NPDES Permit.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
Pure Water Phase I is projected to cost the District’s sewer
customers $2.57 million. The City is expected to obtain financing
for a large portion of the capital cost, so the impact will be
amortized over a period of 20 to 30 years depending on the types of
financing. There have been several changes to the terms of the
agreement since the City last provided a cost allocation estimate
around June of 2018. Based on the last cost allocation estimate,
Phase I is expected to increase the annual Metro fees by an average
of $250,000 between FY 2019 and FY 2024, which equates to a rate
5
impact of approximately of 9.0% over the same period. The FY 2018
and FY 2019 rate models were prepared including these additional
costs in the projected rates and rate increases. Phase I is expected
to be operational in 2023.
Pure Water Phase II planning costs are expected to begin being
incurred within the next 5 years and the associated capital costs are
expected to begin being incurred in 2030, with Phase II being
operational in 2035. The final methodology for Phase II cost
allocation has not been determined and the City has not provided
final cost estimates, cost allocation figures, or a cost allocation
methodology for Phase II; however, using the same allocation methods
used to determine the impact of Phase I and based on a cap of $1.8
billion, Phase II will cost the District an additional $5.66 million.
Based on the annual cost impact of Phase I, Phase II would equate to
an annual additional expense of $550,000 per year, which would have a
rate impact of approximately 20.0%. The majority of this rate
increase would be anticipated to be incorporated into the rates as
the 2030 construction timeframe approaches and may impact rates up to
and beyond the 2035.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Resolution 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
responsive 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:
Unknown at this time.
SB/BK:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP S1502 - City of San Diego Metro Water Issues\Staff Reports\Bd 01-02-19, Staff Report
Metro JPA Restated and Amended Agreement\BD 01-02-19 Staff Report Metro JPA-Restated and Amended
Wastewater Agreement.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Resolution No. 4356
Exhibit A – Draft Amended and Restated Regional
Wastewater Agreement
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
S1502-001000
Adopt Resolution No. 4356 to Approve the Amended and
Restated Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement Between the
City of San Diego and the Participating Agencies in the
Metropolitan Sewerage System
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 4, 2018, and the
following comments were made:
Staff provided a background of the existing agreement and
discussed the proposed changes that are within the Agreement and
presented in the staff report.
The Agreement is driven primarily to address the City’s Pure
Water Program. It includes an establishment of capacity
commitments reflecting secondary equivalency implementation that
reduces the wastewater infrastructure construction for Pure Water
based on flow projections for planning year 2050 (See Exhibit G
of the Agreement). Staff indicated that the existing agency
contract capacity (See Exhibit B of the Agreement) could be
revised in the future if the discharge permit conditions change
for secondary equivalency. Staff is working on a memo for the
basis of the District’s capacity on Exhibit G and will present
this to the Board in a future General Manager’s report.
The District’s flow and strength commitments identified in
Exhibit G of the Agreement are based upon the assumption that the
RWCWRF will be operational through 2050.
Staff indicated that the Pure Water Phase I project cost dated
October 2018 estimated the total cost to Water and Wastewater at
$1.44 billion with 39% attributed to wastewater. See page 4 of
the staff report for additional cost projections. Staff noted
that the entire Pure Water Program was estimated at $2.5 to
$3 billion dollars in 2014.
On November 15, 2018, the City of San Diego Council authorized
the Mayor to execute the Agreement, as presented in this staff
report, with participating agencies.
On November 27, 2018, EPA issued a $614 million WIFIA loan for
the first phase of Pure Water. This loan is for the Water
portion of the project. SRF funding for the Wastewater portion of
the project is being sought with terms of 2% for 30 years
expected. This funding would need to be in place prior to the
start of construction.
In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that
the District’s legal counsel has fully reviewed the Agreement.
The Committee inquired if there were any disclosures or
liabilities that the District should be concerned about with the
Agreement. Legal counsel stated that the Agreement gives the
City of San Diego more discretion whereas the City can negotiate
with participants, but there are no provisions for sanctions,
grievances, liabilities or consequences should the City fail to
act in good faith.
Staff stated that active discussions/negotiations of the
Agreement have taken place with lawyers and staff from the
District, other participating agencies, and the City. As a fail-
safe, if the City does not act in good faith, the Agreement does
have a $1.8B cap (based upon November 2018 cost index) in place.
In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that
the only other option for the District is to continue to operate
under the old agreement that that does not include a $1.8B cap.
The Committee inquired if there were other benefits in the
Agreement besides the $1.8B cap. Staff stated that the District
can opt out of the agreement if written notice is provided by
December 31, 2019 and flow is diverted from the system before
July 1, 2025.
In response to a question from the Committee, legal counsel
stated that this Agreement would not impact the District’s
current litigation against the City of San Diego.
The Committee commented that the District currently has a 1.287
MGD contract capacity with the City. The flow commitment towards
Pure Water is a capacity of 0.38 MGD for planning year 2050.
The Committee inquired if there were other changes in the
Agreement since August 1, 2018, when it was presented to the
Board at its regular board meeting. Staff stated that there were
changes which include clarifications related to dealing with
management of residuals (solids, brine and centrate) from future
reclamation projects, setting the initial $1.8 billion cap
effective date, increasing the period of capacity exceedance to
three years before requiring additional capacity purchasing, and
changing the date that an agency needs to withdrawal from Metro
to avoid participating in the Pure Water program.
With possible impacts from the Agreement, the Committee suggested
that staff create a one-page implication for the District’s
departments (i.e. Engineering, Finance, Operations). Staff has
generated the following table to summarize the aspects each
department needs to consider from the Agreement in the future.
Department Agreement Impacts
Operations Ensure long term operability of the
RWCWRF to not exceed the Pure Water
flow commitment capacity for 3
consecutive years
Consider long term necessity and
benefit of any process improvement
identified for implementation
Engineering Support Operations and Finance in
assessing the continued operation
of RWCWRF versus the procurement of
additional Metro capacity
Perform cost to benefit analysis on
future RWCWRF improvements to
ensure proposed work is justified
economically as well as
operationally
Finance Track capital plus operational and
maintenance costs for the continued
operation of RWCWRF versus Metro
costs
Assess distribution of Metro Pure
Water costs upon existing and
future customers in setting near
term and future sewer availability
fees
Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’
recommendation and presentation of this item to the full board as an
Action Item.
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 4356
RESOLUTION OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT APPROVING THE AMENDED
AND RESTATED REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Otay Water District (District) is one of 12 participating agencies of the
Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro System) which is owned and operated by the City of
San Diego (City); and
WHEREAS, the City and the participating agencies entered into that certain Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement dated May 18, 1998 (the “1998 Agreement”), which provided,
among other things, for certain contract rights to capacity in the Metropolitan System, a system
of wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities, and the establishment of a
mechanism to fund the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Metro
System by the City and the participating agencies.
WHEREAS, the District adopted Resolution No. 4243 on October 1, 2014, which
supported the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and included a goal for Pure Water San Diego (Pure
Water) to achieve the standards outlined in the permit by reducing solids discharged from
PLWTP to a level equivalent to that of converting the PLWTP to secondary treatment while
generating a potable water source; and
WHEREAS, the 1998 Agreement does not adequately address the complexities
associated with implementation of the Pure Water program, including new facilities, allocation
and financing of costs, potential revenue distribution, and capacity rights; and
WHEREAS, the City and the participating agencies have been working since 2014 on
deal points for the Pure Water program which have been incorporated into an Amended and
Restated Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement (Agreement); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement, among other things, sets a capital improvements spending
cap for the participating agencies based upon the cost of converting PLWTP to secondary
treatment; and
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2019\BD 01-02-2019\Wastewater Agreement btwn the City of SD and OWD
(SteveB)\Attachment B - Resolution - Amended and Restated Wastewater Disposal Agreement.doc
WHEREAS, the City of San Diego City Council on November 15, 2018 authorized the
Mayor or his designee to execute the Agreement with the participating agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water
District that the above stated recitals are incorporated herein by reference;
IT IS RESOLVED FURTHER that the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District
approves the terms and provisions of the Amended and Restated Regional Wastewater Disposal
Agreement; and
IT IS RESOLVED FURTHER that the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District
hereby authorizes the General Manager to execute the Amended and Restated Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement on behalf of the District.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Otay
Water District on the 2nd day of January, 2019:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________
President
ATTEST:
_____________________________
District Secretary
60409.00001\30914102.16
AMENDED AND RESTATED
REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
AND
THE PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
IN
THE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE SYSTEM
60409.00001\30914102.16
-i-
AMENDED AND RESTATED
REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AGREEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 2
II. OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF THE METRO SYSTEM .................................... 6
III. PAYMENT AND MONITORING PROVISIONS ......................................................... 12
IV. CAPACITY RIGHTS ...................................................................................................... 15
V. SYSTEM OF CHARGES ................................................................................................ 17
VI. PLANNING ..................................................................................................................... 21
VII. FACILITIES SOLELY FOR NEW CONTRACT CAPACITY ..................................... 22
VIII. THE METRO COMMISSION ........................................................................................ 24
IX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................... 25
X. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY ................................................................................. 26
XI. INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 27
XII. NOTICES REQUIRED UNDER AGREEMENT ........................................................... 27
XIII. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION .................................................................. 27
XIV. GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 28
Exhibits
A. Metro Facilities
B. Contract Capacities
C. Administrative Protocol on Allocation of Operating Reserves and Debt Service Coverage
to Participating Agencies
D. Notice Listing
E. Reclaimed Water Distribution System
F. Pure Water Cost Allocation and Revenues
G. Pure Water Capital Billing Table
60409.00001\30914102.16 -1-
AMENDED AND RESTATED REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED REGIONAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of _________________, 20___, by and
between the CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation (“the City”); and the CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF CORONADO, a municipal corporation;
the CITY OF DEL MAR, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF EL CAJON, a municipal
corporation; the CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, a municipal corporation; the CITY OF LA
MESA, a municipal corporation; the LEMON GROVE SANITATION DISTRICT, a political
subdivision of the State of California; the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, a municipal corporation;
the CITY OF POWAY, a municipal corporation; the OTAY WATER DISTRICT, a political
subdivision of the State of California; the PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, a
political subdivision of the State of California; and the SAN DIEGO COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “Participating Agencies”). The
City and the Participating Agencies may be referred to herein individually as a “Party,” and
collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City and the Participating Agencies (or their predecessors in interest)
entered into that certain Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement dated May 18, 1998 (the
“1998 Agreement”), which provided, among other things, for certain contract rights to capacity
in the Metropolitan Sewerage System, a system of wastewater conveyance, treatment, and
disposal facilities (“Metro System”) and the establishment of a mechanism to fund the planning,
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Metro System by the City and the
Participating Agencies; and
WHEREAS, the purposes of the 1998 Agreement were: (1) to replace the prior-existing
sewage disposal agreements between the City and the Participating Agencies; (2) to provide
certain contract rights to capacity in the Metro System to the Participating Agencies; (3) to
establish a mechanism to fund the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of
the Metro System by the City and the Participating Agencies as necessary to provide hydraulic
capacity, and to comply with applicable law and with generally accepted engineering practices;
and (4) to establish a system of charges which allocates the costs of the planning, design and
construction of such new wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal facilities as are
necessary solely to provide for new capacity on a fair and equitable basis; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2014 the San Diego City Council gave its approval and support
for the Pure Water San Diego program by adoption of Resolution No. R-308906. The
Resolution approved and supported the City’s efforts to develop an implementation strategy to
offload wastewater flow from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant through
implementation of potable reuse, resulting in effluent discharged to the Pacific Ocean being
equivalent to what would be achieved by upgrading the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant
to a secondary treatment plant (secondary equivalency); and
WHEREAS, the City is implementing a phased, multi-year program designed to
regionally produce at least 83 million gallons per day of safe, reliable potable water using new,
-2-
60409.00001\30914102.16
expanded, or modified facilities, some of which will include Metro System facilities, in order to
achieve secondary equivalency at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the Pure Water Program will not only benefit the City by producing
repurified water, but also the Participating Agencies and their wastewater customers, especially
if secondary equivalency is recognized through federal legislation amending the Clean Water
Act. Specifically, implementation of the Pure Water Program will reduce wastewater discharges
to the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, part of the Metro System where a large portion
of the Participating Agencies’ wastewater is currently treated and disposed by discharging it into
the Pacific Ocean. By diverting wastewater from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant
and reducing the effluent discharged into the Pacific Ocean, the City and the Participating
Agencies will potentially avoid billions of dollars in unnecessary capital, financing, energy, and
operating costs to upgrade the Point Loma plant to secondary treatment at full capacity.
Avoiding such costs would result in significant savings for regional wastewater customers; and
WHEREAS, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, the San Diego County Sanitation
District, and the City of El Cajon have proposed a program to produce up to 12 million gallons
per day of safe, reliable potable water for East San Diego County using wastewater that would
otherwise be disposed of in the Metro System (“East County AWP Program”). By offloading
wastewater and wastewater contents from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, the East
County AWP Program would, if implemented, help the City’s and region’s efforts to achieve
long-term compliance with the Clean Water Act by producing a regional annual average of at
least 83 million gallons per day of water suitable for potable reuse by December 31, 2035, as
described in the Cooperative Agreement in Support of Pure Water San Diego entered into by the
City and certain environmental stakeholders on December 9, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Section XIV, subsection B, of the 1998 Agreement provided that the Parties
may amend the Agreement by a written agreement between the City and all Participating
Agencies stating the Parties’ intent to amend the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in order to comprehensively and equitably address the costs and revenues
associated with the Pure Water Program and the related construction, expansion, and/or
modification of Metro System facilities, the City and Participating Agencies wish to amend and
restate the Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement as provided herein.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the City and the
Participating Agencies agree as follows:
I.DEFINITIONS
A.Annual Average Daily Flow is the number, in millions of gallons of wastewater
per day (“MGD”), calculated by dividing total Flow on a fiscal year basis by 365
days.
B.Brine is a waste byproduct of the demineralization process at an upstream Water
Repurification System facility or a Reclaimed Water facility.
C.Capital Expense Rate is the cost per acre foot that will apply if the Metro
-3-
60409.00001\30914102.16
System’s Capital Improvement Costs for the Pure Water Program and/or
upgrading of the Point Loma WTP to secondary treatment exceed $1.8 billion, as
further described in Exhibit F.
D.Capital Improvement Costs are costs associated with the planning, design,
financing, construction, or reconstruction of facilities.
E.Chemical Oxygen Demand or “COD” means the measure of the chemically
decomposable material in wastewater, as determined by the procedures specified
in the most current edition of “Standard Methods for the Examination for Water
and Wastewater,” or any successor publication which establishes the industry
standard.
F.City Water Utility PW Costs are those Pure Water Program costs allocated to
the City’s water utility and therefore excluded as Metro System costs under
Exhibit F.
G.Contract Capacity is the contractual right possessed by each Participating
Agency to discharge wastewater into the Metro System pursuant to this
Agreement up to the limit set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Contract
Capacity is stated in terms of Annual Average Daily Flow.
H.Flow is the amount of wastewater discharged by the City and each Participating
Agency.
I.Functional-Design Methodology shall mean the process of allocating Operation
and Maintenance Costs and Capital Improvement Costs to Flow and Strength
parameters recognizing the benefits of both the design criteria and the primary
function of a unit process.
J.Metro Commission is the advisory body created under Section VIII.
K.Metro System Costs are those costs set forth in Section 5.2.1.
L.Metro System Revenues are those revenues set forth in Section 5.2.2.
M.Metropolitan Sewerage System or Metro System shall mean and consist of
those facilities and contract rights to facilities which are shown and/or described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, including any
amendments thereto authorized by this Agreement.
N.Municipal System shall mean the City’s wastewater collection system, which
consists of pipelines and pump stations, that collects wastewater within the City
of San Diego and conveys it to the Metropolitan Sewerage System for treatment
and disposal.
O.New Capacity is the capacity to discharge wastewater outside the Metro System,
above the Contract Capacity set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto.
-4-
60409.00001\30914102.16
P.New Contract Capacity is the capacity to discharge wastewater into the Metro
System, above the Contract Capacity set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto.
Q.North City Water Reclamation Plant or North City WRP is the 30 million
gallons per day (as of the date of this Agreement) wastewater treatment facility
located at 4949 Eastgate Mall in San Diego, which includes four major processes:
primary treatment, secondary treatment, tertiary treatment, and disinfection.
R.Operation and Maintenance Costs are the costs of those items and activities
required by sound engineering and management practices to keep the conveyance,
disposal, treatment, and reuse facilities functioning in accordance with all
applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
S.Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant or Point Loma WTP is the 240
million gallons per day (as of the date of this Agreement) advanced primary
treatment plant which includes four major processes: screening, grit removal,
sedimentation, and digestion.
T.Projected 2050 Strength and Flow Amounts are the three (3) values described
below:
1.Projected COD 2050 Flows is the estimated amount of Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD), stated in pounds per day, that the City and each
Participating Agency are projected to have in the 2050 fiscal year.
Projected COD 2050 Flows for each Party are stated in Column 7 of
Exhibit G.
2.Projected Metro Flow 2050 is the estimated amount of Annual Average
Daily Flow, stated in millions of gallons per day (MGD), that the City and
each Participating Agency are projected to have in the 2050 fiscal year.
Projected Metro Flow 2050 for each Party is stated in Column 4 of Exhibit
G.
3.Projected SS 2050 Flows is the estimated amount of Suspended Solids
(SS) stated in pounds per day, that the City and each Participating Agency
are projected to have in the 2050 fiscal year. Projected SS 2050 Flows for
each Party are stated in Column 10 of Exhibit G.
U.Pure Water Capital Melded Percentage or Melded Percentage is the
proportionate share, stated in Column 12 of Exhibit G, by which Pure Water
Program Capital Improvement Costs, Repurified Water Revenue, and the Capital
Expense Rate will be allocated among the City and the Participating Agencies.
The Pure Water Capital Melded Percentage is based on each Party’s proportionate
share of Projected Metro Flow 2050, Projected SS 2050 Flows, and Projected
COD 2050 Flows, which proportions are weighted as described in Footnote 3 of
Exhibit G.
V.Pure Water Program is the City’s phased, multi-year program designed to
-5-
60409.00001\30914102.16
produce at least 83 million gallons per day of Repurified Water using new,
expanded, or modified facilities, some of which will include Metro System
facilities.
W.Reclaimed Water (or Recycled Water) shall have the definition set forth in
Title 22, Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations and shall mean water
which, as a result of treatment of wastewater, is suitable for a direct beneficial use
or a controlled use that otherwise could not occur.
X.Reclaimed Water (or Recycled Water) Distribution System shall mean and
consist of those eight (8) reclaimed water projects listed in Attachment B of the
Stipulated Final Order for Injunctive Relief approved by the U.S. District Court
on June 6, 1997 in U.S.A. v. City of San Diego, Case No. 88-1101-B, and attached
hereto as Exhibit E.
Y.Repurified Water shall mean water which, as a result of advanced treatment of
Reclaimed Water, is suitable for use as a source of domestic (or potable) water
supply.
Z.Repurified Water Revenue is the cost savings that will be realized when the
City water utility’s annual costs per-acre foot for Repurified Water are less than
the purchase costs per-acre foot for comparable water from the San Diego County
Water Authority, as further described in Exhibit F.
AA.Return Flow shall mean the effluent created by the dewatering of digested
biosolids, which includes centrate.
BB.Reuse shall mean to use again, such as water which has been reclaimed or
repurified, or sludge that has been converted to biosolids for beneficial use.
CC.South Bay Land/Ocean Outfall is the facility that is jointly owned by the
International Boundary & Water Commission (U.S. Section IBWC) and the City
of San Diego. The Outfall is planned to convey and discharge treated effluent
from the IBWC’s International Wastewater Treatment Plant and treated effluent
from the City’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant and the South Bay Secondary
Treatment Plant. As of the date of this Agreement, the Outfall has a current
Average Daily Flow Capacity of 174 million gallons per day. As of the date of
this Agreement, the City owns 39.94% of the capacity of the Outfall and the
balance of the capacity is owned by the IBWC.
DD.South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is the 15 million gallons per day (as of the
date of this Agreement) wastewater treatment facility located at 2411 Dairy Mart
Road in San Diego, which includes four major processes: primary treatment,
secondary treatment, tertiary treatment, and disinfection.
EE.Strength means the measurement of Suspended Solids (SS) and Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) within the wastewater Flow and any other measurement
required by law after the date of this Agreement.
-6-
60409.00001\30914102.16
FF.Suspended Solids or SS means the insoluble solid matter in wastewater that is
separable by laboratory filtration, as determined by the procedures specified in the
most current edition of “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater,” or any successor publication which establishes the industry
standard.
GG.Tertiary Component is that portion of the wastewater treatment process that
currently filters the secondary treated wastewater effluent through fine sand
and/or anthracite coal to remove fine Suspended Solids and disinfects it to meet
the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 22, or its successor
for filtered and disinfected wastewater.
HH.Water Repurification System shall mean any facilities, including treatment and
conveyance facilities, the purpose of which is the production or conveyance of
Repurified Water. Water Repurification System includes, but is not limited to:
the Tertiary Component of the North City Water Reclamation Plant to the extent
being used to produce Repurified Water, the North City Pure Water Facility to be
located across the street from the North City Water Reclamation Plant (“North
City Pure Water Facility”); the Repurified Water conveyance system, which will
transport Repurified Water from the North City Pure Water Facility and/or other
facilities to the Miramar Reservoir or other alternative location(s) as determined
by the City; and any other Repurified Water treatment or conveyance facilities
which are part of the Pure Water Program.
II.OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF THE METRO SYSTEM
2.1 Rights of the Parties.
The City is the owner of the Metro System, and of any additions to the Metro
System or other facilities constructed pursuant to this Agreement. All decisions with respect to
the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Metro System shall rest
with the City, in consultation with the Metro Commission. The Participating Agencies shall have
a contractual right to use the Metro System and to participate in its operation as set forth in this
Agreement. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, and in conformance with all applicable laws,
the City may transfer ownership of all or part of the Metro System at any time. In the event of a
transfer, the City’s successor shall be bound by the terms of this Agreement. Subject to the
terms of this Agreement, any Participating Agency may transfer or assign its rights and
obligations under this Agreement. Any transfer shall first be approved by the City. No transfer
may occur if the City reasonably determines, after consultation with the Participating Agencies
involved, that the proposed transfer will imbalance, or will otherwise adversely impact the City’s
ability to operate the Metro System.
2.2 Metro System Services.
2.2.1 The City shall provide wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal
services to the Participating Agencies through the Metro System, under
the terms set forth in this Agreement.
-7-
60409.00001\30914102.16
2.2.2 The City shall operate the Metro System in an efficient and economical
manner, maintaining it in good repair and working order, all in accordance
with recognized sound engineering and management practices.
2.2.3 The City shall convey, treat, and dispose of or reuse all wastewater
received under this Agreement in such a manner as to comply with all
applicable laws, rules and regulations.
2.3 Flow Commitment.
2.3.1 Absent agreement of the Parties, all Flow from the Participating Agencies
and the City, up to the capacity limits set forth in Exhibit B or any
amendments thereto, shall remain in the Metro System.
2.3.2 This Agreement shall not preclude any Participating Agency from
diverting Flow from the Metro System as a result of the construction of
reclamation facilities or New Capacity outside of the Metro System.
2.3.3 Any Participating Agency may negotiate an agreement with the City to
withdraw all Flow from the Metro System, which shall provide that the
Agency pay its proportionate share of Capital Improvement Costs.
If a Participating Agency enters into an agreement with the City by
December 31, 2019, to withdraw all Flow from the Metro System by
January 1, 2035, such Participating Agency shall not pay Pure Water
Program Capital Improvement Costs attributable to the Metro System
except for Phase I (as defined below in Section 2.8).
2.4 Funding Obligations.
Nothing in this Section or in this Agreement shall obligate the City to make any
payment for the acquisition, construction, maintenance or operation of the Metro System from
moneys derived from taxes or from any income and revenue of the City other than moneys in or
sewer revenues which go into the Sewer Revenue Fund for the Metro System and from
construction funds derived from the sale of such sewer revenue bonds for the Metro System as
are duly authorized. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to obligate the City to pay
from its annual income and revenues any sum which would create an indebtedness, obligation or
liability within the meaning of the provisions of Section 18 of Article XVI of the Constitution of
the State of California. Nothing in this Section, however, or in this Agreement shall prevent the
City, in its discretion, from using tax revenues or any other available revenues or funds of the
City for any purpose for which the City is empowered to expend moneys under this Agreement.
Nothing herein shall relieve the City from its obligations to fund and carry out this Agreement.
Nothing in this Section or in this Agreement shall obligate any Participating Agency to make any
payment which would create an indebtedness, obligation or liability within the meaning of the
provisions of Section 18 of Article XVI of the Constitution of the State of California, or which is
not authorized by law.
-8-
60409.00001\30914102.16
2.5 Financial Statements.
2.5.1 The City shall keep appropriate records and accounts of all costs and
expenses relating to conveyance, treatment, disposal, and reuse of
wastewater, and production of Repurified Water, and the acquisition,
planning, design, construction, administration, monitoring, operation and
maintenance of the Metro System and Water Repurification System, and
any grants, loans, or other revenues received therefor. The City shall keep
such records and accounts for at least four (4) years, or for any longer
period required by law or outside funding sources.
2.5.2 Said records and accounts shall be subject to reasonable inspection by any
authorized representative of any Participating Agency at its expense.
Further, said accounts and records shall be audited annually by an
independent certified public accounting firm appointed by the City
pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles. A copy of said
report shall be available to any Participating Agency. As part of said
audit, the actual amount of City Water Utility’s PW Costs, Pure Water
Program costs attributable to the Metro System, Repurified Water
Revenue, and the Capital Expense Rate shall be determined and audited by
the City’s external auditors and Participating Agency representatives, and
a cumulative and annual summary of such amounts shall be included as a
footnote or attachment to the audit of the Metro System. Cost summaries
shall include separate lines for Capital Improvement Costs and Operation
and Maintenance Costs.
2.5.3 The City shall make a good faith effort to complete the annual audit, and
any related adjustments under this Agreement, by the end of the following
fiscal year.
2.6 Limitations on Types and Condition of Wastewater.
2.6.1 Each Participating Agency will comply with all applicable laws, rules and
regulations including its regulatory obligations associated with the
discharge of wastewater into its respective system and from such system
into the Metro System.
2.6.2 Each Participating Agency will minimize to the maximum extent
practicable, the infiltration and inflow of surface, ground or stormwaters
into its respective wastewater systems.
2.6.3 Each Participating Agency will insure that all industrial users of its
wastewater system are regulated by an effective industrial pretreatment
program that conforms to all to all applicable laws, rules and regulations
and that is acceptable to the City. Provided, however, that the City shall
not require the Participating Agencies to take any actions beyond that
-9-
60409.00001\30914102.16
which is required under applicable laws, rules and regulations that can be
taken but are not being taken by the City.
2.6.4 The City and the Participating Agencies agree that nothing in this
Agreement, including the termination of the existing sewage disposal
agreements, shall affect the validity of the Interjurisdictional Pretreatment
Agreements, or the separate transportation agreements that are currently in
effect between or among the City and the Participating Agencies.
2.6.5 Each Participating Agency will not discharge a substantial amount of
sewage originating outside its respective boundaries into the Metro
System without the approval of the City.
2.6.6 Each Participating Agency shall be responsible for the violation of any
applicable laws, rules or regulations associated with its respective
discharge of wastewater into the Metro System. Nothing in this
Agreement shall affect the ability of any Participating Agency to hold
third parties responsible for such violations.
2.6.7 In the event a regulatory agency imposes any penalty or takes other
enforcement action relating to the conveyance, treatment, or disposal of
wastewater in or from the Metro System, the City shall determine if the
City or a Participating Agency or Agencies caused or contributed to the
violation by exceeding its Contract Capacity or by the contents of its
wastewater. The City shall allocate the penalty or other relief, including
the costs of defense, to the Party or Parties responsible. Each responsible
Party, whether a Participating Agency or the City, shall be obligated to
pay its share of such penalty or other relief, and any costs of defense. In
the event that the City cannot make such an allocation, the cost of such
penalty or other relief shall be shared by the Participating Agencies and
the City proportionately based on Flow and Strength.
2.7 Right of First Refusal.
2.7.1 The City shall not sell or agree to sell the Metro System without first
offering it to the Participating Agencies. For the purposes of this section,
“Participating Agencies” shall mean a Participating Agency, a group of
Participating Agencies, or a third party representing one or more
Participating Agencies. The term “sell” shall include any transfer or
conveyance of the Metro System or of any individual treatment or
reclamation facility or outfall within the Metro System.
2.7.2 The City and the Participating Agencies recognize that transfer of
ownership of the Metro System is currently restricted by Sections 6.04 and
6.20 of the Installment Purchase Agreement between the City and the
Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City, which inter alia restricts
the transfer of ownership to the Metropolitan Wastewater Sewage District
-10-
60409.00001\30914102.16
or other governmental agency whose primary purpose is to provide
wastewater treatment. The City shall not seek to impose on bond holders
a waiver of Section 6.04 or 6.20. Absent such a restriction, before the City
sells or agrees to sell the Metro System, or any portion of it, the City shall
offer to sell the Metro System to the Participating Agencies (the “Offer”)
on the terms and at a price equal to that proposed for the sale of the Metro
System to a third party. The Participating Agencies shall have thirty days
from receipt of the Offer (the “Intent to Respond Period”) in which to
notify the City of their intent to respond to the Offer. The Participating
Agencies shall have five months from the expiration of the Intent to
Respond Period in which to accept or reject the Offer. The Offer shall
contain the name of the proposed purchaser, the proposed sale price, the
terms of payment, the required deposit, the time and place for the close of
escrow, and any other material terms and conditions on which the sale is
to be consummated.
2.7.3 If the Participating Agencies give timely notice of their intent to respond
and timely notice of their acceptance of the Offer, then the City shall be
obligated to sell and the Participating Agencies shall be obligated to
purchase the Metro System or any individual treatment or reclamation
facility or outfall within the Metro System, as applicable, at the price and
on the terms and conditions of the Offer. If the Participating Agencies do
not give timely notice of their intent to respond or their acceptance of the
Offer, or do not submit an offer on the same terms and conditions as the
Offer, the City may, following the end of the Offer period, sell the Metro
System, or any portion of it, at a price and on terms and conditions no less
favorable to the City than those in the Offer. The City shall not sell the
Metro System to any third party on terms or at a price less favorable to the
City from the terms and price contained in the Offer absent compliance
with the terms of this Section.
2.7.4 Nothing herein shall prevent the City from entering into a financing
agreement which may impose limits on the City’s power to sell the Metro
System to the Participating Agencies pursuant to Section 2.7.1. if the City
reasonably believes that such a financing agreement is in the City’s best
interest. Neither the entry into such a financing agreement by the City nor
the performance thereof by the City shall constitute a breach or default by
the City hereunder.
2.8 Pure Water San Diego Program.
2.8.1 Each new, expanded, or modified Metro System facility which is used in
relation to the production of Repurified Water (in addition to the
modification and expansion of the North City Water Reclamation Facility)
shall be governed by this Agreement and Exhibit F, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
-11-
60409.00001\30914102.16
2.8.2 The allocation of Pure Water Program costs pursuant to this Agreement
shall be retroactive through the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, when
Pure Water Program costs were first incurred by the Metro System. When
conducting the year-end adjustments for the fiscal year in which this
Agreement takes effect, the City shall credit or assess such prior costs to
the Parties pursuant to this Agreement.
2.9 Future Negotiations and Cooperation.
2.9.1 This Agreement and Exhibit F specifically contemplate Phase I of the Pure
Water Program, which consists of new, expanded, or modified Metro
System facilities and Water Repurification System facilities designed to
produce only up to 30 million gallons per day of Repurified Water (“Phase
I”). Within one year of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties
intend to meet and negotiate in good faith regarding one or more
amendments to this Agreement or its Exhibits to address:
2.9.1.1 The allocation of specific Pure Water Program costs between
City’s water utility and the Metro System for such later phases;
2.9.1.2 Alternative billing methodologies for Metro System costs;
2.9.1.3 The exclusion of costs related to the industrial discharges
inspection and monitoring program within San Diego under
Section 5.2.1.2.3 of the Agreement;
2.9.1.4 The inclusion of costs for regional, non-Metro System potable
reuse projects in calculating the Capital Expense Rate;
2.9.1.5 A sample calculation of Repurified Water Revenue; and
2.9.1.6 The conveyance and treatment of wastewater generated at United
States military bases under this Agreement.
If such negotiations do not result in an amendment to this Agreement or its
Exhibits concerning these subjects, this Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect as set forth herein. Further, if the City proceeds with a
later phase of the Pure Water Program as authorized under Section 2.1 of
this Agreement, and the Parties have not yet amended this Agreement or
Exhibit F to specifically address such costs by the time they are incurred,
all costs listed in Section I of Exhibit F shall nonetheless be excluded as
Metro System costs under this Agreement.
2.9.2 The City and the Participating Agencies shall cooperate, coordinate, and
negotiate in good faith with the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, San
Diego County Sanitation District, and City of El Cajon on issues that
relate to the East County AWP Program, including, but not limited to, the
-12-
60409.00001\30914102.16
potential transfer of the Mission Gorge Pump Station; disposal of
residuals; and a source control program.
2.9.3 Following the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties intend to meet
and negotiate in good faith regarding the disposal, treatment, and/or
management of residuals (solids, brine, and centrate) produced at any new
non-Metro System secondary, tertiary, or advanced wastewater treatment
facilities upstream of any Metro System facilities related to the production
of Repurified Water that currently exist or may exist in the future. Such
negotiations may result in an amendment to this Agreement, or in one or
more separate agreements between the City and the involved Participating
Agencies, regarding the disposal, treatment, and/or management of
residuals at such non-Metro System facilities.
2.9.3.1 In the event that an amendment to this Agreement, or a separate
agreement between the City and the involved Participating
Agencies, regarding the disposal, treatment, and/or management of
residuals at such non-Metro System facilities, cannot be achieved
through direct negotiation, the parties shall use the dispute
resolution process in Article IX of this Agreement.
2.9.3.2 Absent an amendment to this Agreement or a separate Agreement
between the City and involved Participating Agencies as described
above, the involved Participating Agencies shall not dispose of
residuals from new non-Metro System secondary, tertiary, or
advanced wastewater treatment facilities at any point upstream of a
Metro System facility related to the production of Repurified
Water that currently exists or may exist in the future.
III. PAYMENT AND MONITORING PROVISIONS
3.1 Payment for Metro System Facilities.
Through the system of charges set forth in Article V of this Agreement, each
Participating Agency shall pay its share of the costs of planning, design and construction of all of
the Metro System facilities which are identified in Exhibit A hereto, which is incorporated herein
by reference.
3.2 Payment for Additional Metro System Facilities.
Through the system of charges set forth in Article V of this Agreement, each
Participating Agency shall pay its share of the costs of acquisition, or planning, design and
construction of such facilities in addition to those set forth on Exhibit A as are necessary for the
Metro System to maintain compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations, including the
Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 1994 and its successor(s), present and future waivers of
applicable treatment standards at any Metro System treatment facility, and all facilities as are
necessary to convey, treat, dispose, and reuse wastewater in the Metro System to provide the
Contract Capacity set forth in Exhibit B, to maintain hydraulic capacity and as otherwise
-13-
60409.00001\30914102.16
required by sound engineering principles. As a ministerial matter, the City shall amend Exhibit A
from time to time to reflect such additional facilities and shall give notice of any amendments to
the Participating Agencies. The City shall keep an updated version of Exhibit A on file with the
City Public Utilities Department. Exhibit A may be amended to reflect other changes to the
Metro System only as expressly provided in this Agreement.
3.3 Payment for Operation and Maintenance.
Through the system of charges set forth in Article V of this Agreement, each
Participating Agency shall pay its share of the Operation and Maintenance Costs of all Metro
System facilities. The Participating Agencies shall not pay for the Operation and Maintenance
Costs of Water Repurification System, which are City Water Utility PW Costs.
3.4 Charges Based on Flow and Strength; Exception.
3.4.1 Except as otherwise described in this Section 3.4, a Participating Agency’s
share of the charges in this Article III shall be assessed pursuant to Article
V of this Agreement based on its proportionate Flow in the Metro System
and the Strength of its wastewater.
3.4.2 Notwithstanding section 3.4.1, or any other provision of this Agreement, a
Participating Agency’s share of Pure Water Program Capital Improvement
Costs, Repurified Water Revenue, and Capital Expense Rate attributable
to the Metro System under Exhibit F shall be assessed or credited based on
the Parties’ proportionate share of the Pure Water Capital Melded
Percentage stated in Column 12 of Exhibit G. The City shall annually
allocate the estimated and actual Pure Water Program Capital
Improvement Costs and revenues which are attributable to the Metro
System under Exhibit F in proportion to each Party’s Pure Water Capital
Melded Percentage when estimating quarterly payments and conducting
year-end adjustments under Article V.
3.4.3 Each Party recognizes that operation within respective Projected 2050
Strength and Flow Amounts is essential to the accurate allocation of costs
and revenues under the Pure Water Program. In recognition of same, the
Parties agree as follows:
3.4.3.1 Beginning in the next fiscal year after the effective date of this
Agreement, if a Party’s Annual Average Daily Flow, annual
average pounds per day of COD, or annual average pounds per day
of SS exceeds any one of its Party’s Projected 2050 Strength and
Flow Amounts by more than ten percent (10%) for any three (3)
consecutive fiscal years, the City shall prepare an amendment to
Exhibit G that adjusts projections of each Party’s Projected 2050
Strength and Flow Amounts based on information about such
Party’s exceedance and other relevant information using sound
engineering principles. Upon approval by the City and two-thirds
-14-
60409.00001\30914102.16
of the members of the Metro Commission, the City shall, as a
ministerial matter, amend Exhibit G (including the Melded
Percentages in Column 12 of Exhibit G) to reflect the new
Projected 2050 Strength and Flow Amounts for each Party. The
City shall keep an updated version of Exhibit G on file with the
City Public Utilities Department. If the City and two-thirds of the
Metro Commission cannot agree on an amendment to Exhibit G,
the matter shall be submitted to dispute resolution pursuant to
Article IX.
3.4.3.2 Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in Columns 4, 7, and 10 of
Exhibit G, the following Parties will be deemed to have the
following Projected 2050 Strength and Flow Amounts until July 1,
2025:
3.4.3.2.1 Padre Dam: 3.2 MGD Flow; 24,730 lb/day COD;
11,900 lb/day SS
3.4.3.2.2 San Diego County Sanitation District: 13.617 MGD
Flow; 70,210 lb/day COD; 27,830 lb/day SS
3.4.3.2.3 El Cajon: 7.8 MGD Flow; 41,848 lb/day COD; 16,556
lb/day SS
3.4.3.3 If Exhibit G is amended to update one or more Parties’ Projected
2050 Strength and Flow Amounts, the change in Projected 2050
Strength and Flow Amounts and Pure Water Capital Melded
Percentages shall be retroactive in effect, and the City shall use the
updated amounts in estimating quarterly payments and conducting
year-end adjustments for Pure Water Program costs and revenues.
Therefore, any Party that underpaid based on prior Pure Water
Capital Melded Percentages (which were based on prior Projected
2050 Strength and Flow Amounts) shall pay the retroactive amount
due in its quarterly payments the following fiscal year; any Party
that overpaid based on previous Pure Water Capital Melded
Percentages shall receive a credit in its quarterly payments the
following fiscal year. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if
the retroactive amount due exceeds 20% of a Party’s average
annual Metro System payments for the previous four (4) years,
such Party may elect to pay the retroactive amount due in its
quarterly payments over the subsequent four (4) fiscal years, with
interest based on the most recent quarterly earnings rate of the
Local Agency Investment Fund’s Pooled Money Investment
Account; any Party that overpaid based on previous Pure Water
Capital Melded Percentages shall receive a credit in its quarterly
payments the following four (4) fiscal years.
-15-
60409.00001\30914102.16
3.4.3.4 If a Participating Agency (other than those specified in Section
3.4.3.2) intends to divert a portion of its Flow from the Metro
System pursuant to Section 2.3.2 on or before July 1, 2025, the
Participating Agency may provide written notice to the City by
December 31, 2019, requesting an adjustment in its Projected 2050
Strength and Flow Amounts and Melded Percentage in Exhibit G.
If such notice is timely provided, the City shall prepare an
amendment to Exhibit G based on information about such Party’s
diversion and other relevant information using sound engineering
principles. Such amendment shall then be subject to the approval
procedures set forth in Section 3.4.3.1, and the retroactivity
provisions set forth in Section 3.4.3.3; provided, however, that
such an amendment to Exhibit G shall also be subject to an
agreement with the City for the Participating Agency to pay its
proportionate share of Pure Water Program planning, design, and
construction costs incurred to date by the Metro System (based on
such Participating Agency’s prior Melded Percentage), and any
costs for Pure Water Program planning or design changes which
are reasonably necessary due to the intended diversion.
3.5 Monitoring Flow and Strength.
3.5.1 The City shall monitor wastewater that is discharged into the Metro
System for Flow and Strength. The City shall own and operate as part of
the Metro System monitoring devices which will measure the amount of
daily wastewater discharged into the Metro System. These devices shall be
installed at locations appropriate to accurately monitor Flow and Strength.
The City may also monitor wastewater Flow and Strength at other
locations as it deems appropriate.
3.5.2 In measuring Strength, the frequency and nature of the monitoring shall
not be more stringent for the Participating Agencies than it is for the City.
3.5.3 The City shall, at least once every five (5) years, update and provide its
plans for the monitoring system and for the procedures it will use to
determine Strength to the Participating Agencies. The Participating
Agencies shall have the opportunity to review and comment prior to
implementation.
3.5.4 The City shall report Flow and Strength data to the Participating Agencies
at least quarterly.
IV.CAPACITY RIGHTS
4.1 Contract Capacity.
In consideration of the obligations in this Agreement, each Participating Agency
shall have a contractual right to discharge wastewater to the Metro System up to the Contract
-16-
60409.00001\30914102.16
Capacity set forth in Exhibit B. Each Party’s Projected Metro Flow 2050 stated in Exhibit G, is
used solely for the purpose of allocating the Metro System’s Pure Water Program Capital
Improvement Costs, Repurified Water Revenue, and the Capital Expense Rate under this
Agreement, and does not replace or limit Contract Capacity.
4.2 Transfers of Contract Capacity.
The Participating Agencies and the City may buy, sell or exchange all or part of
their Contract Capacity among themselves on such terms as they may agree upon. The City shall
be notified prior to any transfer. Any transfer shall be first approved by the City. No Contract
Capacity may be transferred if the City determines, after consultation with the Participating
Agencies involved in the transaction, that said transfer will unbalance, or will otherwise
adversely impact the City’s ability to operate the Metro System. Provided, however, that the
Participating Agency seeking the transfer may offer to cure such imbalance at its own expense.
Following the City’s consent, as a ministerial matter, the Contract Capacity set forth in Exhibit B
shall be adjusted to reflect the approved transfer. If necessary, Projected Metro Flow 2050 set
forth in Exhibit G shall also be adjusted to reflect the approved transfer using the process set
forth in Section 3.4.3.1, provided, however, that an amendment to Exhibit G due to an approved
transfer shall not be retroactive in effect pursuant to Section 3.4.3.3.
4.3 Allocation of Additional Capacity.
The Parties recognize that the City’s applicable permits for the Metro System may
be modified to create capacity in the Metro System beyond that set forth in Exhibit B as a result
of the construction of additional facilities or as a result of regulatory action. This additional
capacity shall be allocated as follows:
4.3.1 Except as provided in section 4.3.2 below, in the event that the Metro
System is rerated so that additional permitted capacity is created, said
capacity shall be allocated proportionately based upon the Metro System
charges that have been paid since July 1, 1995 to the date of rerating.
4.3.2 In the event that the additional permitted capacity is created as the result
of the construction of non-Metro System facilities, or as the result of the
construction of facilities pursuant to Article VII, such additional capacity
shall be allocated proportionately based on the payments made to plan,
design and construct such facilities.
4.4 Deductions in Contract Capacity.
The Parties further recognize that the Contract Capacity in Exhibit B and
Projected Metro Flow 2050 in Exhibit G may be modified to comply with, or in response to,
applicable permit conditions, or related regulatory action, or sound engineering principles. In the
event that the capacity of the Metro System is rerated to a level below the total capacity set forth
in Exhibit B, the Contract Capacity in Exhibit B and Projected Metro Flow 2050 in Exhibit G
shall be reallocated proportionately pending the acquisition or construction of new facilities. The
City shall acquire or construct such facilities as necessary to provide the Contract Capacity rights
-17-
60409.00001\30914102.16
set forth in Exhibit B, as planning and capacity needs require. The costs of such facilities shall be
assessed pursuant to Section 3.2.
4.5 Amendments to Exhibits B and G.
As a ministerial matter, the City shall prepare amendments to Exhibits B and G to
reflect any adjustment in Contract Capacity pursuant to this Article within ninety (90) days after
the adjustment is made. The City shall give notice of the amendments to each Participating
Agency, and shall provide copies of the amendments with the notice. The City shall keep an
updated version of Exhibits B and G on file with the City Public Utilities Department.
4.6 The South Bay Land/Ocean Outfall.
Nothing in this Article shall limit the City’s right to transfer capacity service
rights in that portion of the South Bay Land/Ocean Outfall which is not part of the Metro
System.
V. SYSTEM OF CHARGES
5.1 Charges Authorized.
The City agrees to implement and the Participating Agencies agree to abide by a
new system of charges. This new system allows the City to equitably recover from all
Participating Agencies their proportional share of the net Metro System Costs through the
imposition of the following charges:
5.1.1 SSC (Sewer System Charge);
5.1.2 NCCC (New Contract Capacity Charge).
5.2 SSC (Sewer System Charge).
The City shall determine the SSC based on the projected Metro System Costs (as
defined below) for the forthcoming fiscal year, less all Metro System Revenues (as defined
below).
5.2.1 Metro System Costs
5.2.1.1 The following shall at a minimum be considered Metro System
Costs for purposes of calculating the annual SSC:
5.2.1.1.1 Except as provided in section 5.2.1.2 (Excluded Costs),
the annual costs associated with administration,
operation, maintenance, replacement, annual debt
service costs and other periodic financing costs and
charges, capital improvement, insurance premiums,
claims payments and claims administration costs of the
Metro System, including projected overhead. Overhead
-18-
60409.00001\30914102.16
shall be calculated using accepted accounting practices
to reflect the overhead costs of the Metro System.
5.2.1.1.2 Fines or penalties imposed on the City as a result of the
operation of the Metro System, unless the fine/penalty
is allocated to the City or a Participating Agency as
provided in Section 2.6.7.
5.2.1.2 Excluded Costs. The following items shall not be considered
Metro System Costs for purposes of calculating the annual SSC:
5.2.1.2.1 Costs related to the City of San Diego’s Municipal
System as determined by reasonable calculations;
5.2.1.2.2 Costs related to the treatment of sewage from any
agency which is not a party to this Agreement;
5.2.1.2.3 Costs related to the inspection and monitoring program
for the industrial dischargers located in San Diego,
including associated administrative and laboratory
services;
5.2.1.2.4 Right-of-way charges for the use of public streets of the
City or any Participating Agency. The City and the
Participating Agencies agree not to impose a right-of-
way charge for the use of its public rights-of-way for
Metro System purposes;
5.2.1.2.5 Capital Improvement Costs of any non-Metro System
facility;
5.2.1.2.6 Capital Improvement Costs for which an NCCC is paid;
and
5.2.1.2.7 City Water Utility PW Costs.
5.2.2 Metro System Revenues.
5.2.2.1 The following revenues shall be at a minimum considered Metro
System Revenues for purposes of determining the annual SSC:
5.2.2.1.1 Any grant or loan receipts or any other receipts that are
attributable to the Metro System, including, but not
limited to, all compensation or receipts from the sale,
lease, or other conveyance or transfer of any asset of
the Metro System; provided, however, that this shall not
include any grant, loan, or other receipts attributable to
the Metro System components of the Pure Water
-19-
60409.00001\30914102.16
Program, which are specifically addressed in Section
5.2.2.1.8.
5.2.2.1.2 All compensation or receipts from the sale or other
conveyance or transfer of any Metro System by-
products, including, but not limited to gas, electrical
energy, sludge products, and Reclaimed Water
(excepting therefrom any receipts allocated pursuant to
section 5.2.2.1.3).
5.2.2.1.3 The distribution of revenue from the sale of Reclaimed
Water from the North City Water Reclamation Plant,
including incentives for the sale of Reclaimed Water,
shall first be used to pay for the cost of the Reclaimed
Water Distribution System, then the cost of the
Operation and Maintenance of the Tertiary Component
of the North City Water Reclamation Plant that can be
allocated to the production of Reclaimed Water, and
then to the Metro System.
5.2.2.1.4 Any portion of an NCCC that constitutes
reimbursement of costs pursuant to Section 7.1.4.
5.2.2.1.5 Any penalties paid under Section 7.3.
5.2.2.1.6 Proceeds from the Capital Expense Rate, as calculated
under Exhibit F and allocated among the City and
Participating Agencies in the proportions set forth in
Column 12 of Exhibit G.
5.2.2.1.7 Those portions of Repurified Water Revenue
attributable to the Metro System, as calculated under
Exhibit F and allocated among the Participating
Agencies in the proportions set forth in Column 12 of
Exhibit G.
5.2.2.1.8 Any grant or loan receipts or any other receipts that are
attributable to the Metro System components of the
Pure Water Program, including, but not limited to, all
compensation or receipts from the sale, lease, or other
conveyance or transfer of any asset of the Metro
System components of the Pure Water Program. Any
proceeds under this section shall be allocated among the
City and the Participating Agencies in the proportions
set forth in Column 12 of Exhibit G.
-20-
60409.00001\30914102.16
5.2.2.2 Excluded Revenue
5.2.2.2.1 Capital Improvement Costs for which an NCCC is paid;
5.2.2.2.2 Proceeds from the issuance of debt for Metro System
projects.
5.2.2.2.3 Proceeds from the sale of Reclaimed Water used to pay
for the Reclaimed Water Distribution System pursuant
to section 5.2.2.1.3 above.
5.2.3 Calculation of SSC Rates.
5.2.3.1 Prior to the initial implementation of the new system of charges,
the City shall prepare a sample fiscal year estimate setting forth the
methodology and sampling data used as a base for Strength based
billing (SBB) which includes Flow and Strength (Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) and Suspended Solids (SS)). The analysis
shall be submitted to each Participating Agency.
5.2.3.2 The City shall determine the unit SSC rates by allocating net costs
(Metro System Costs less Metro System Revenues) between
parameters of Flow, COD and SS. This allocation is based on the
approved Functional-Design Methodology analyses for individual
Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) and estimated Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Costs allocated to the three parameters. The
City may revise the calculations to include any other measurement
required by law after the effective date of this Agreement.
5.2.3.3 The net cost allocated to each of the three parameters (Flow, COD
and SS) shall be divided by the total Metro System quantity for
that parameter to determine the unit rates for Flow, COD and SS.
These unit rates shall apply uniformly to all Participating
Agencies.
5.2.4 Estimate and Billing Schedule and Year End Adjustment
5.2.4.1 The City shall estimate the SSC rates on an annual basis prior to
January 15. The City shall quantify the SSC rates by estimating the
quantity of Flow, COD and SS for each Party, based on that
Party’s actual flow and the cumulative data of sampling for COD
and SS over the preceding years. If cumulative data is no longer
indicative of discharge from a Participating Agency due to the
implementation of methods to reduce Strength, previous higher
readings may be eliminated.
5.2.4.2 Costs of treating Return Flow for solids handling will be allocated
to the Participating Agencies in proportion to their Flow and
-21-
60409.00001\30914102.16
Strength. Return Flow will not be counted against the Participating
Agencies’ Contract Capacity as shown in Exhibit B.
5.2.4.3 The City shall bill the Participating Agencies quarterly, invoicing
on August 1 , November 1, February 1 and May 1. Each bill shall
be paid within thirty (30) days of mailing. Quarterly payments will
consist of the total estimated cost for each Participating Agency,
based on their estimated Flow, COD and SS, divided by four.
5.2.4.4 At the end of each fiscal year, the City shall determine the actual
Metro System Costs and the actual Flow as well as the cumulative
Strength data for the City and each of the Participating Agencies.
The City shall make any necessary adjustments to the unit rates for
Flow, COD and SS based on actual costs for the year. The City
shall then recalculate the SSC for the year using actual costs for the
year, actual Flow, and cumulative Strength factors (COD, SS and
Return Flow) for the City and for each Participating Agency. The
City shall credit any future charges or bill for any additional
amounts due, the quarter after the prior year costs have been
audited.
5.3 NCCC (New Contract Capacity Charge).
If New Contract Capacity is required or requested by a Participating Agency,
pursuant to Article VII, the Metro System shall provide the needed or requested capacity,
provided that the Participating Agency agrees to pay an NCCC in the amount required to provide
the New Contract Capacity. New Contract Capacity shall be provided pursuant to Article VII.
5.4 Debt Financing.
The City retains the sole right to determine the timing and amount of debt
financing required to provide Metro System Facilities.
5.5 Allocation of Operating Reserves and Debt Service Coverage.
The Parties shall continue to comply with the 2010 Administrative Protocol on
Allocation of Operating Reserves and Debt Service Coverage to Participating Agencies, attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
VI.PLANNING
6.1 Projected Flow and Capacity Report.
Commencing on July 1, 1999, each Participating Agency shall provide the City
and the Metro Commission with a ten-year projection of its Flow and capacity requirements from
the Metro System. The Agencies shall disclose any plans to acquire New Capacity outside the
Metro System. This “Projected Flow and Capacity Report” shall be updated annually.
-22-
60409.00001\30914102.16
6.2 Other Planning Information.
Each Participating Agency shall provide the City with such additional information
as requested by the City as necessary for Metro System planning purposes.
6.3 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
The City shall prepare a Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan for the Metro
System that describes the facilities necessary to convey, treat, and dispose of, or reuse all Flow in
the Metro System in compliance with all applicable rules, laws and regulations. The plan shall be
updated annually.
6.4 Notice to Metro Commission.
In the event that the City is not able to include a facility in the Ten-Year Capital
Improvement Plan, the City shall notify the Metro Commission as soon as possible before the
detailed design or construction of such facility provided that the facility will significantly impact
the Metro System.
VII.FACILITIES SOLELY FOR NEW CONTRACT CAPACITY
The Participating Agencies and City are obligated to pay for the acquisition or
planning, design, and construction of new facilities in the Metro System that are needed solely to
provide New Contract Capacity only under the terms provided below.
7.1 Determination of Need for New Contract Capacity.
7.1.1 As part of its planning efforts, and considering the planning information
provided to the City by the Participating Agencies, the City shall
determine when additional facilities beyond those acquired or constructed
pursuant to Article III above will be necessary solely to accommodate a
need for New Contract Capacity in the Metro System, whether by the City
or by the Participating Agencies. The City shall determine: (1) the amount
of New Contract Capacity needed; (2) the Participating Agency or
Agencies, or the City, as the case may be, in need of the New Contract
Capacity; (3) the type and location of any capital improvements necessary
to provide the New Contract Capacity; (4) the projected costs of any
necessary capital improvements; and, (5) the allocation of the cost of any
such facilities to the Participating Agency and/or the City for which any
New Contract Capacity is being developed. The City shall notify the
Participating Agencies of its determination within sixty days of making
such determination.
7.1.2 The City or Participating Agency or Agencies in need of New Contract
Capacity as determined by the City pursuant to section 7.1.1 above, may
choose, in their sole discretion, to obtain New Capacity outside of. the
Metro System in lieu of New Contract Capacity. Under such
circumstances, the Participating Agency or Agencies shall commit to the
-23-
60409.00001\30914102.16
City in writing their intent to obtain such New Capacity. Upon such
commitment, the City shall not be required to provide New Contract
Capacity to such Agency or Agencies as otherwise required under this
Agreement.
7.1.3 The Participating Agencies shall have six months from the date of notice
of the determination within which to comment on or challenge all or part
of the City’s determination regarding New Contract Capacity, or to agree
thereto or to commit, in writing, to obtain New Capacity outside of the
Metro System. Any Participating Agency objecting to the City’s
determination shall have the burden to commence and diligently pursue
the formal dispute resolution procedures of this Agreement within said six
month period. The City’s determination shall become final at the close of
the six month comment and objection period. The City’s determination
shall remain valid notwithstanding commencement of dispute resolution
unless and until otherwise agreed to pursuant to the dispute resolution
process in Article IX, or pursuant to a final court order.
7.1.4 The City and the Participating Agency or Agencies which need New
Contract Capacity shall thereafter enter into an agreement specifying the
terms and conditions pursuant to which the New Contract Capacity will be
provided, including the amount of capacity and the New Contract
Capacity. Each Party obtaining New Contract Capacity shall reimburse the
Metro System for the costs of acquisition, planning, design, and
construction of facilities necessary to provide the New Contract Capacity
that have been paid by other Parties under Section 7.2.3.
7.1.5 The Parties recognize that the City may acquire and plan, design and
construct facilities that are authorized pursuant to both Article III and
Article VII of this Agreement. Under such circumstances, the City shall
allocate the costs and capacity of such facilities pursuant to Article III and
Section 7.1.1 as applicable.
7.2 Charges for Facilities Providing New Contract Capacity
7.2.1 The expense of acquisition, planning, design, and construction of New
Contract Capacity shall be borne by the City or the Participating Agency
or Agencies in need of such New Contract Capacity.
7.2.2 Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement, the City and the
Participating Agencies shall pay for the Operation and Maintenance Costs
of all facilities pursuant to the payment provisions of Article III, including
those facilities acquired and constructed to provide New Contract
Capacity in the Metro System.
7.2.3 Charges for the acquisition, planning, design and construction of facilities
solely to provide New Contract Capacity shall be paid for by the
-24-
60409.00001\30914102.16
Participating Agencies and the City pursuant to the payment provisions in
Article III of this Agreement until an agreement is reached under Section
7.1.4. or pending the resolution of any dispute relating to the City’s
determination with respect to New Contract Capacity.
7.2.4 As a ministerial matter, the City shall prepare amendments to Exhibits A
and B to reflect the acquisition or construction of facilities to provide New
Contract Capacity pursuant to this Article. The City shall give notice of
the Amendments to the Participating Agencies, and shall provide copies of
the Amendments with the notice.
7.3 Liquidated Damages.
7.3.1 The Parties recognize that appropriate capacity and long term planning
for same are essential to the proper provision of sewerage service. In
recognition of same, the Parties agree that discharge beyond Contract
Capacity will result in damages that are difficult to determine. Therefore,
the damages are being liquidated in an amount estimated to the actual
damage that will be incurred by the City, and is not a penalty. In the
event that a Participating Agency exceeds its Contract Capacity after the
City has given notice that New Capacity is required, said Participating
Agency shall be assessed and pay a liquidated damages until such time
as the Participating Agency obtains the required New Capacity. The
liquidated damages shall be one dollar ($1) for each gallon of Flow
which exceeds the Participating Agency’s Contract Capacity for each
quarter in which any exceedance occurs. The amount of liquidated
damages shall be adjusted each fiscal year to reflect the annual
percentage change in the Engineering News Record – Los Angeles
construction cost index.
7.3.2 In the event that a Participating Agency fails to pay the charges imposed
under this Article after the City has given notice that payment is
required, said Participating Agency shall be assessed and shall pay
liquidated damages which shall be determined by multiplying the most
recent quarterly earnings rate of the Local Agency Investment Fund’s
Pooled Money Investment Account times the total outstanding charges.
The Participating Agency shall pay such liquidated damages each quarter
until the outstanding charges are paid in full.
VIII.THE METRO COMMISSION
8.1 Membership.
The Metro Commission shall consist of one representative from each Participating
Agency. Each Participating Agency shall have the right to appoint a representative of its choice
to the Metro Commission. If a Participating Agency is a dependent district whose governing
body is that of another independent public agency that Participating Agency shall be represented
-25-
60409.00001\30914102.16
on the Metro Commission by a representative appointed by the governing body which shall have
no more than one representative no matter how many Participating Agencies it governs. Each
member has one vote in any matter considered by the Metro Commission. The Metro
Commission shall establish its own meeting schedule and rules of conduct. The City may
participate in the Metro Commission on an ex officio, non-voting basis.
8.2 Advisory Responsibilities of Metro Commission.
8.2.1 The Metro Commission shall act as an advisory body, advising the City on
matters affecting the Metro System. The City shall present the position of
the majority of the Metro Commission to the City’s governing body in
written staff reports. The Metro Commission may prepare and submit
materials in advance and may appear at any hearings on Metro System
matters and present its majority position to the governing body of the City.
8.2.2 The Metro Commission may advise the City of its position on any issue
relevant to the Metro System.
IX.DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This Section governs all disputes arising out of this Agreement.
9.1 Mandatory Non-Binding Mediation.
If a dispute arises among the Parties relating to or arising from a Party’s
obligations under this Agreement that cannot be resolved through informal discussions and
meetings, the Parties involved in the dispute shall first endeavor to settle the dispute in an
amicable manner, using mandatory non-binding mediation under the rules of JAMS, AAA, or
any other neutral organization agreed upon by the Parties before having recourse in a court of
law. Mediation shall be commenced by sending a Notice of Demand for Mediation to the other
Party or Parties to the dispute. A copy of the notice shall be sent to the City, all other
Participating Agencies, and the Metro Commission.
9.2 Selection of Mediator.
A single mediator that is acceptable to the Parties involved in the dispute shall be
used to mediate the dispute. The mediator will be knowledgeable in the subject matter of this
Agreement, if possible, and chosen from lists furnished by JAMS, AAA, or any other agreed
upon mediator.
9.3 Mediation Expenses.
The expenses of witnesses for either side shall be paid by the Party producing
such witnesses. All mediation costs, including required traveling and other expenses of the
mediator, and the cost of any proofs or expert advice produced at the direct request of the
mediator, shall be Metro System costs.
-26-
60409.00001\30914102.16
9.4 Conduct of Mediation.
Mediation hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Discovery shall not
be allowed. The discussions, statements, writings and admissions and any offers to compromise
during the proceedings will be confidential to the proceedings (pursuant to California Evidence
Code Sections 1115 – 1128 and 1152) and will not be used for any other purpose unless
otherwise agreed by the parties in writing. The parties may agree to exchange any information
they deem necessary. The parties involved in the dispute shall have representatives attend the
mediation who are authorized to settle the dispute, though a recommendation of settlement may
be subject to the approval of each agency’s boards or legislative bodies. Either Party may have
attorneys, witnesses or experts present.
9.5 Mediation Results.
Any resultant agreements from mediation shall be documented in writing. The
results of the mediation shall not be final or binding unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
parties. Mediators shall not be subject to any subpoena or liability and their actions shall not be
subject to discovery.
9.6 Performance Required During Dispute.
Nothing in this Article shall relieve the City and the Participating Agencies from
performing their obligations under this Agreement. The City and the Participating Agencies shall
be required to comply with this Agreement, including the performance of all disputed activity
and disputed payments, pending the resolution of any dispute under this Agreement.
9.7 Offers to Compromise
Any offers to compromise before or after mediation proceedings will not be used
to prove a party’s liability for loss or damage unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing
(pursuant to Evidence Code Section 1152.)
X.INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
10.1 City Shall Maintain All Required Insurance.
10.1.1 Throughout the term of this Agreement the City shall procure and
maintain in effect liability insurance covering Metro System assets and
operations in the same manner, and to the same extent, as the City insures
similar assets and operations of the City. Such insurance may be provided
through separate policies for the Metro System, or by consolidating the
Metro System with other City assets and operations for insurance
purposes. If the Metro System is insured separately, policy limits,
deductibles, and self-insured retentions shall be equivalent to what the
City procures for other similar City assets and operations. The City shall
maintain all insurance required by law, including workers’ compensation
insurance, and may self-insure for certain losses when allowed by law.
-27-
60409.00001\30914102.16
The proportionate cost of insurance for the Metro System shall be
included in the computation of the SSC.
10.1.2 If the Metro System is insured separately, any policy or policies of
liability insurance carried by the City for the Metro System shall name the
Participating Agencies as additional insureds with evidence of same
supplied to each upon request.
10.1.3 Upon request by the Metro Commission or a Participating Agency, the
City shall promptly provide written coverage and policy information,
including, but not limited to, the scope of coverage, policy limits,
deductibles, and self-insured retentions, including information on any
claims made against the policies and remaining limits and deductibles.
10.2 Substantially Equivalent Coverage.
In the event of a transfer of the Metro System to a nonpublic entity pursuant to
Article II, coverage substantially equivalent to all the above provisions shall be maintained by
any successor in interest.
XI.INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE
Should the Metro System services to the Participating Agencies be interrupted as a result
of a major disaster, by operation of federal or state law, or other causes beyond the City’s
control, the Participating Agencies shall continue all payments required under this Agreement
during the period of the interruption.
XII.NOTICES REQUIRED UNDER AGREEMENT
The City and each Participating Agency shall give notice when required by this
Agreement. All notices must be in writing and either served personally, or mailed by certified
mail. The notices shall be sent to the officer listed for each Party, at the address listed for each
Party in Exhibit D in accordance with this Article. If a Party wishes to change the officer and/or
address to which notices are given, the Party shall notify all other Parties in accordance with this
Article. Upon such notice, as a ministerial matter, the City shall amend Exhibit D to reflect the
changes. The amendment shall be made within thirty (30) days after the change occurs. The City
shall keep an updated version of Exhibit D on file with the City Public Utilities Department. The
City shall provide a copy of the amended Exhibit D to all Parties.
XIII.EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXPIRATION
13.1 Effective Date.
This Agreement shall be effective thirty (30) days after execution by the City and
all of the Participating Agencies, and shall be dated as of the signature date of the last executing
Party.
-28-
60409.00001\30914102.16
13.2 Expiration.
Subject to the rights and obligations set forth in Section 13.4, this Agreement
shall expire on December 31, 2065. This Agreement is subject to extension by agreement of the
Parties. The Parties shall commence discussions on an agreement to provide wastewater
treatment services beyond the year 2065 on or before December 31, 2055, or at such time, if any,
that the Point Loma WTP is required to be upgraded to secondary treatment.
13.3 Contract Capacity Rights Survive Expiration.
The Participating Agencies’ right to obtain wastewater treatment services from
the facilities referred to in, or constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall survive the expiration
of the Agreement. Provided however, upon expiration of this Agreement, the Participating
Agencies shall be required to pay their proportional share based on Flow and Strength of all
Metro System Costs (Capital Improvement Costs and Operation and Maintenance) to maintain
their right to such treatment services. Provided further, that in the event that the Participating
Agencies exercise their rights to treatment upon expiration of this Agreement, the City shall have
the absolute right, without consultation, to manage, operate and expand the Metro System in its
discretion.
13.4 Capital Expense Rate Beyond Expiration.
The Capital Expense Rate, as further described in Exhibit F, shall continue until
the cost difference between (a) the actual sum of Pure Water Program Capital Improvement
Costs and associated debt attributable to the Metro System under Exhibit F and/or the costs to
upgrade the Point Loma WTP and (b) $1.8 billion (as adjusted for inflation), has been fully paid,
or the Agreement expires, whichever is sooner. Notwithstanding, it is the express intent and
desire of the City and the Participating Agencies that if the Agreement expires before the cost
difference has been paid through the Capital Expense Rate, that the Capital Expense Rate
continue in any extension of this Agreement negotiated by the Parties pursuant to Section 13.2
until the cost difference has been fully paid.
13.5 Abandonment.
After December 31, 2065, the City may abandon the Metro System upon delivery
of notice to the Participating Agencies ten (10) years in advance of said abandonment. Upon
notice by the City to abandon the Metro System, the Parties shall meet and confer over the nature
and conditions of such abandonment. In the event the Parties cannot reach agreement, the matter
shall be submitted to mediation under Article IX. In the event of abandonment, the City shall
retain ownership of all Metro System assets free of any claim of the Participating Agencies.
XIV.GENERAL
14.1 Exhibits.
1.This Agreement references Exhibits A through G. Each exhibit is attached
to this Agreement, and is incorporated herein by reference. The exhibits are as follows:
-29-
60409.00001\30914102.16
Exhibit A Metro Facilities;
Exhibit B Contract Capacities;
Exhibit C Administrative Protocol on Allocation of Operating
Reserves and Debt Service Coverage to Participating
Agencies;
Exhibit D Notice Listing;
Exhibit E Reclaimed Water Distribution System;
Exhibit F Pure Water Cost Allocation and Revenues; and
Exhibit G Pure Water Capital Billing Table
14.2 Amendment of Agreement.
Except as provided in this Agreement, and recognizing that certain amendments
are ministerial and preapproved, this Agreement may be amended or supplemented only by a
written agreement between the City and the Participating Agencies stating the Parties’ intent to
amend or supplement the Agreement.
14.3 Construction of Agreement.
14.3.1 Drafting of Agreement
It is acknowledged that the City and the Participating Agencies, with the
assistance of competent counsel, have participated in the drafting of this
Agreement and that any ambiguity should not be construed for or against
the City or any Participating Agency on account of such drafting.
14.3.2 Entire Agreement
The City and each Participating Agency represent, warrant and agree that
no promise or agreement not expressed herein has been made to them, that
this Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties, that this
Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings
between the Parties unless otherwise provided herein, and that the terms of
this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital; that in executing
this Agreement, no Party is relying on any statement or representation
made by the other Party, or the other Party’s representatives concerning
the subject matter, basis or effect of this Agreement other than as set forth
herein; and that each Party is relying solely on its own judgement and
knowledge.
-30-
60409.00001\30914102.16
14.3.3 Agreement Binding on All; No Third Party Beneficiaries
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of
each of the Parties, and each of their respective successors, assigns,
trustees or receivers. All the covenants contained in this Agreement are for
the express benefit of each and all such Parties. This Agreement is not
intended to benefit any third parties, and any such third party beneficiaries
are expressly disclaimed.
14.3.4 Severability
14.3.4.1 Should any provision of this Agreement be held invalid or
illegal, such invalidity or illegality shall not invalidate the whole of this
Agreement, but, rather, the Agreement shall be construed as if it did not
contain the invalid or illegal part, and the rights and obligations of the
Parties shall be construed and enforced accordingly except to the extent
that enforcement of this Agreement without the invalidated provision
would materially and adversely frustrate either the City’s or a Participating
Agency’s essential objectives set forth in this Agreement.
14.3.4.2 Should a court determine that one or more components of the
allocation of costs set forth in this Agreement places the City or a
Participating Agency in violation of Article XIII D, Section 6 of the
California Constitution with respect to their ratepayers, such components
shall no longer be of force or effect. In such an event, the City and the
Participating Agencies shall promptly meet to renegotiate the violative
component of the cost allocation to comply with Article XIII D, Section 6
of the California Constitution, and use the dispute resolution process in
Article IX of this Agreement if an agreement cannot be reached through
direct negotiation.
14.3.4.3 Should a state or federal agency provide a final, written
determination that the method of allocating Pure Water Program Capital
Improvement Costs under this Agreement violates the requirements of
state or federal grants or loans which are, or will be, used to fund the
wastewater components of the Pure Water Program, such allocation
method will no longer be of any force or effect. In such an event, the
Parties agree that the allocation of Pure Water Program Capital
Improvement Costs attributable to the Metro System will be based on
Strength and Flow as set forth in Section 3.4.1, and the allocation of
Repurified Water Revenue and the Capital Expense Rate will be based on
the Parties’ actual payments to fund the Pure Water Program Capital
Improvement Costs attributable to the Metro System. The City and the
Participating Agencies shall also promptly meet to negotiate an alternative
cost allocation method that would comply with such grant or loan funding
requirements.
-31-
60409.00001\30914102.16
14.3.5 Choice of Law
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced pursuant to the laws of
the State of California.
14.3.6 Recognition of San Diego Sanitation District as Successor to Certain
Parties.
The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that the San Diego County
Sanitation District is a Participating Agency under this Agreement as the
successor in interest to the Alpine Sanitation District, East Otay Mesa
Sewer Maintenance District, Lakeside Sanitation District, Spring Valley
Sanitation District, and Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District.
14.4 Declarations Re: Agreement.
14.4.1 Understanding of Intent and Effect of Agreement
The Parties expressly declare and represent that they have read the
Agreement and that they have consulted with their respective counsel
regarding the meaning of the terms and conditions contained herein. The
Parties further expressly declare and represent that they fully understand
the content and effect of this Agreement and they approve and accept the
terms and conditions contained herein, and that this Agreement is
executed freely and voluntarily.
14.4.2 Warranty Regarding Obligation and Authority to Enter Into This
Agreement
Each Party represents and warrants that its respective obligations herein
are legal and binding obligations of such Party, that each Party is fully
authorized to enter into this Agreement, and that the person signing this
Agreement hereinafter for each Party has been duly authorized to sign this
Agreement on behalf of said Party.
14.5 Restrictions on Veto of Transfers and Acquisitions of Capacity
Each Party understands and agrees that this Agreement governs its
respective rights and responsibilities with respect to the subject matter hereto and specifically
recognizes that with respect to the transfer and acquisition of Contract Capacity (Section 4.2) or
the creation of New Contract Capacity for any Participating Agency (Article VII), no
Participating Agency has a right to veto or prevent the transfer of capacity by and among other
Participating Agencies or with the City, or to veto or prevent the creation or acquisition of
capacity for another Participating Agency or Agencies, recognizing that by signing this
Agreement each Participating Agency has expressly preapproved such actions. The sole right of
a Participating Agency to object to any of the foregoing shall be through expression of its
opinion to the Metro Commission and, where applicable, through exercise of its rights under the
dispute resolution provisions of this Agreement.
-32-
60409.00001\30914102.16
14.6 Right to Make Other Agreements
Nothing in this Agreement limits or restricts the right of the City or the
Participating Agencies to make separate agreements among themselves without the need to
amend this Agreement, provided that such agreements are consistent with this Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement or Exhibit F limits or restricts the right of the City or the Participating
Agencies to enter into separate agreements for the purchase or sale of Repurified Water produced
by the Water Repurification System or sharing in City Water Utility PW Costs. Such agreements
shall not affect the cost allocation and Metro System revenues delineated in Exhibit F.
14.7 Limitation of Claims
Notwithstanding any longer statute of limitations in State law, for
purposes of any claims asserted by the City or a Participating Agency for refunds of
overpayments or collection of undercharges arising under this Agreement, the Parties agree that
such refunds or collections shall not accrue for more than four years prior to the date that notice
of such claim is received by the City or a Participating Agency. This also applies to any related
adjustments to each Participating Agency’s share of net Metro System costs or revenues
resulting from the resolution of such claims. The City and the Participating Agencies hereby
waive any applicable statute of limitations available under State law that exceed four years. In
no case shall the limitations period stated in this section begin to accrue until the date that the
annual audit and year-end adjustment from which the claim arises are complete.
14.8 Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. This Agreement shall
become operative as soon as one counterpart hereof has been executed by each Party. The
counterparts so executed shall constitute one Agreement notwithstanding that the signatures of
all parties do not appear on the same page.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES
-33-
60409.00001\30914102.16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment and Restated Regional
Wastewater Disposal Agreement as of the date first set forth above.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF CORONADO Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF DEL MAR Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF EL CAJON Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF LA MESA Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
LEMON GROVE SANITATION
DISTRICT
Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
-34-
60409.00001\30914102.16
OTAY WATER DISTRICT Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF POWAY Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
CITY OF SAN DIEGO Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT
Approved as to Form:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
EXHIBIT A
60409.00001\30914102.16
EXHIBIT A
METRO FACILITIES AS OF 6/27/18
Existing Facilities
Pt. Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant
Pt. Loma Ocean Outfall
Pump Station #1
Pump Station #2
South Metro Interceptor
North Metro Interceptor
Metro Force Mains 1 & 2
Digested Sludge Pipeline
North City Water Reclamation Plant
Metro Biosolids Center (NCWR Plant Related Facilities)
North City Tunnel Connector
North City Raw Sludge Pipeline
Centrate Pipeline
Rose Canyon Parallel Trunk Sewer
Second Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer
East Mission Bay Trunk Sewer
Morena Blvd. Interceptor
South Bay Water Reclamation Plant
Dairy Mart Road & Bridge Rehab
Grove Avenue Pump Station
Grove Avenue Pump Station Sewer Pipeline
South Bay Raw Sludge Pipeline
South Bay Land/Ocean Outfall1
Environmental Monitoring & Technical Services Laboratory
Centrate Treatment Facility at Metropolitan Biosolids Center
Metro Operations Center (Iv10C) Complex (based on annual facilities allocation)
Additional Metro Facilities
Note: The below listed facilities could be required as part of the Metro System for
hydraulic capacity, good engineering practices and/or compliance with applicable law,
rules or regulations, including OPRA, and the continuation of the City's waiver of
applicable treatment standards at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant
("Waiver").
South Bay Sludge Processing Facility
1 The South Bay Land/Ocean Outfall is jointly owned by the International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S.
Section (60.06%) and the City of San Diego (39.94%). The capacity of the City’s portion of the outfall as of the
date of this Agreement is 74 MGD average dry weather flow, of which the Metro System has a capacity right to 69.2
MGD and the City as an exclusive right to 4.8 MGD.
EXHIBIT A
60409.00001\30914102.16
South Bay Secondary Treatment Plant, Phase I (21 MGD)
South Bay Secondary Sewers, Phase I
Note: These facilities could be required as part of the Metro System for hydraulic
capacity, good engineering practices, compliance with OPRA, and to maintain the City's
Waiver. In the event that hydraulic capacity demands, or the obligations of OPRA (or its
successor) or the terms of the City's Waiver change, these facilities may not be required
or may be modified or supplemented, as appropriate, pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement.
South Bay Secondary Treatment Plant, Phase II (28 MGD)
South Bay Secondary Sewers, Phase II
Note: These facilities could be added to the Metro System as part of Phase I of the Pure
Water Program.
Expansion of North City Water Reclamation Plant
Morena Pump Station
EXHIBIT B
60409.00001\30914102.16
EXHIBIT B
CONTRACT CAPACITIES
Annual Average Daily Flow in Millions of Gallons Per Day
Metro Agency
Original
Contract
Capacity
Additional
Contract
Capacity
New
Contract
Capacity
Transferred
Contract
Capacity
Total
Contract
Capacity
Percent
of
Total
Chula Vista 19.843 1.021 0.000 0.000 20.864 8.182%
Coronado 3.078 0.172 0.000 0.000 3.250 1.275%
Del Mar 0.821 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.876 0.344%
East Otay Mesa*0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.392%
El Cajon 10.260 0.655 0.000 0.000 10.915 4.280%
Imperial Beach 3.591 0.164 0.000 0.000 3.755 1.473%
La Mesa 6.464 0.359 0.000 0.170 6.993 2.742%
Lakeside-Alpine*4.586 0.255 0.000 0.000 4.841 1.898%
Lemon Grove 2.873 0.154 0.000 0.000 3.027 1.187%
National City 7.141 0.346 0.000 0.000 7.487 2.936%
Otay 1.231 0.056 0.000 0.000 1.287 0.505%
Padre Dam 6.382 0.343 0.000 (0.500) 6.225 2.441%
Poway 5.130 0.264 0.000 0.500 5.894 2.312%
Spring Valley/
Otay Ranch* 10.978 0.545 0.000 (1.170) 10 .353 4.060%
Wintergardens*1.241 0.068 0.000 0.000 1.309 0.513%
Subtotal 83.619 4.459 0.000 0.000 88.078 34.540%
EXHIBIT B
60409.00001\30914102.16
Metro
Agency
Original
Contract
Capacity
Additional
Contract
Capacity1
New
Contract
Capacity2
Transferred
Contract
Capacity3
Total
Contract
Capacity
Percent
of
Total
San Diego 156.381 10.541 0.000 0.000 166.922 65.460%
Total 240.000 15.000 0.000 0.000 255.000 100.00%
* Indicates a sub-area of the San Diego County Sanitation District.
1.Additional Contract Capacity is capacity allocated pursuant to Section 4.3.1 of the Agreement.
2.New Contract Capacity is capacity obtained pursuant to Section 6 of the Agreement.
3.Transferred Contract Capacity is capacity obtained pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement.
EXHIBIT C
60409.00001\30914102.16
EXHIBIT C
ADMINISTRATIVE PROTOCOL ON ALLOCATION OF OPERATING RESERVES
AND DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE TO PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
EXHIBIT D
60409.00001\30914102.16
EXHIBIT D
NOTICE LISTING
City Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91919
Phone: (619) 691-5031
Fax: (619) 585-5612
City Manager
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: (619) 667-1101
Fax: (619) 462-7528
Chief Operating Officer
City of San Diego
202 “C” Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 236-5949
Fax: (619) 236-6067
City Manager
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92113
Phone: (619) 522-7335
Fax: (619) 522-7846
City Manager
City of Lemon Grove
3232 Main Street
Lemon Grove, CA 91945
Phone: (619) 464-6934
Fax: (619) 460-3716
Chief Administrative Officer
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway, Rm. 209
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 531-5250
Fax: (619) 557-4060
City Manager
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: 755-9313 ext. 25
Fax: 755-2794
City Manager
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, CA 91950
Phone: (619) 336-4240
Fax: (619) 336-4327
General Manager
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91977
Phone: (619) 670-2210
Fax: (619) 670-2258
City Manager
City of El Cajon
200 Civic Center Way
El Cajon, CA 92020
Phone: (619) 441-1716
Fax: (619) 441-1770
City Manager
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Phone: (858) 679-4200
Fax: (858) 679-4226
General Manager
Padre Dam Municipal Water
District
9300 Fanita Pkwy
Santee, CA 92071
Phone: (619) 258-4610
Fax: (619) 258-4794
City Manager
City of Imperial Beach
825 Imperial Beach Blvd.
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Phone: (619) 423-8300 ext. 7
Fax: (619) 429-9770
EXHIBIT E
60409.00001\30914102.16
EXHIBIT E
RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
October 23, 2018 Version
60409.00001\30398144.16
EXHIBIT F
PURE WATER PROGRAM COST ALLOCATION AND REVENUES
As part of the Pure Water Program, the City intends to modify the North City Water
Reclamation Plant (a Metro System facility) and expand its capacity to 52 mgd. In addition, the
City intends to construct the North City Pure Water Facility on a nearby site to produce
Repurified Water. This Exhibit F sets forth the costs and revenues associated with the Pure
Water Program which are, or are not, attributable to the Metro System.
I.Costs Excluded from Metro System Costs
All of the following Pure Water Program costs, including Capital Improvement Costs,
Operation and Maintenance Costs, and other related costs (including administration, insurance,
claims, and overhead) are excluded as Metro System Costs for purposes of calculating the annual
Sewer System Charge, and shall be the responsibility of City’s water utility (“City Water Utility
PW Costs”), unless otherwise expressly agreed to pursuant to an amendment to this Exhibit F:
1.1 General Exclusions.
1.1.1 Costs of the Water Repurification System and any Metro System facilities
to the extent constructed, modified, expanded, or used for the purpose of treating water beyond
secondary treatment (ocean discharge standard under current law). This shall include costs for
preliminary treatment, primary treatment, and secondary treatment to the extent such costs are
higher than they would otherwise be due to the production of Repurified Water.
1.1.2 Costs for fail-safe disposal, if necessary, for design capacity for Repurified
Water, including, but not limited to, any costs associated with the reservation of capacity at the
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.
1.1.3 Costs for the demolition or replacement of existing Metro System facilities
with similar facilities for the purpose of making space available for Water Repurification System
facilities. Such costs may take into account the current asset value or market value of the
existing Metro System facility.
1.2 Cost Exclusions Specific to North City Water Reclamation Plant
Improvements.
1.2.1 Costs for increased aeration tank volume to the extent the new volume
exceeds the amount necessary to provide 52 mgd capacity. Determination of sizing to provide
52 mgd capacity shall be based on the current tank volume necessary to provide 30 mgd
capacity.
1.2.2 Costs for the methanol feed system.
1.2.3 Costs for brine disposal, including, but not limited to, pump stations,
pipelines, retreatment, ocean outfall, and monitoring.
60409.00001\30398144.16 2
1.2.4 Costs for the use of existing tertiary water filters for Repurified Water
purposes. Such costs may take into account the depreciated value of such filters, or use such
other appropriate valuation method as agreed by the City and authorized representatives of the
Metro Commission. (Costs under this section shall be reimbursed or credited by City’s water
utility to the Metro System.)
II.North City Water Reclamation Plant Improvement Costs Included as Metro System
Costs
Notwithstanding the above exclusions, the City and the Participating Agencies have
specifically agreed that the following Capital Improvement Costs and Operation and
Maintenance Costs related to North City Water Reclamation Plant improvements shall be
included as Metro System Costs for purposes of calculating the annual Sewer System Charge
(and therefore not qualify as City Water Utility PW Costs):
2.1 Costs for chemically enhanced primary treatment for up to 52 mgd capacity.
2.2 Costs for primary effluent equalization for up to 52 mgd capacity.
2.3 Costs for increased volume of aeration tanks that will provide up to, but not
exceeding, 52 mgd capacity. Determination of sizing to provide 52 mgd capacity shall be based
on the current tank volume necessary to provide 30 mgd capacity.
2.4 Costs to add secondary clarifier tanks sufficient for up to 52 mgd capacity.
2.5 Costs for wastewater conveyance facilities to provide wastewater for replacement
of centrate flows that cannot be treated at the North City Water Reclamation Plant due to the
production of Repurified Water.
2.6 Costs for treatment and conveyance of all return flows (micro-filtration and
tertiary backwash) based on Flow, COD, and SS.
III.Cost Allocation Example
Attachment 1 is an example of the City’s Pure Water Phase I Cost Estimate (based on
60% design), and indicates which costs are City Water Utility PW Costs and which costs are
attributable to the Metro System. The Parties agree that Attachment 1 is an illustrative document
to assist the Parties in the future and is not a comprehensive list of all such costs. If there is any
conflict between this Exhibit F and Attachment 1, or if a specific cost is not addressed in
Attachment 1, this Exhibit F shall control.
IV.Revenue Sharing for Repurified Water
4.1 Background. Initially, the parties anticipate that the cost per acre foot associated
with the production of Repurified Water will be more expensive than the cost per acre foot of
untreated imported water. However, it is anticipated that Repurified Water produced under the
Pure Water Program will be less expensive than untreated imported water sometime in the
future. Once Repurified Water produced under the Pure Water Program becomes less expensive
60409.00001\30398144.16 3
than the cost of untreated imported water, the parties agree that there will be revenue from the
Pure Water Program.
4.2 Calculation. Revenue sharing shall occur in each fiscal year during which the
annual cost per acre foot associated with the production of Repurified Water is less than the cost
of untreated water per acre foot from the San Diego County Water Authority (“CWA”). The
annual cost difference shall be known as “Repurified Water Revenue.” Repurified Water
Revenue shall be determined as follows:
Attachment 2 is a summary of billings from CWA showing fixed and variable costs for
untreated water. The Parties agree that Attachment 2 shall be referred to by the Parties in the
future in determining how costs for water delivered at Miramar Reservoir are calculated. If no
untreated water is delivered at Miramar Reservoir in a given year, then the closest point of
delivery of untreated water to the City shall be used.
The City shall estimate whether there will be Repurified Water Revenue in the upcoming
fiscal year prior to January 15 of each year, and the estimated amount of Repurified Water
Revenue shall be effective on July 1 of the upcoming fiscal year.
4.3 Revenue Sharing. Repurified Water Revenue shall initially be shared based on
the relative actual Capital Improvement Costs for the Pure Water Program contributed by City’s
Water Utility and the Metro System. Such Capital Improvement Cost contributions are currently
estimated as (61% City Water Utility and 39% Metro System) until the debt attributable to the
Metro System is fully paid.
Following full payment of debt attributable to the Metro System, Repurified Water
Revenue shall be shared based on the relative actual Operation and Maintenance Costs for Pure
Water Program facilities contributed by City’s Water Utility and the Metro System, calculated
Annual cost per acre foot of CWA untreated water
purchased by the City for delivery at Miramar Reservoir (which
shall be determined based on the total of certain fixed and variable
costs for water actually billed to the City by CWA for water
delivered at Miramar Reservoir in a fiscal year, divided by the
number of acre-feet of CWA water delivered at Miramar Reservoir
that year)
less
Annual cost per acre foot of City Water Utility PW Costs
(which shall be determined based on total annual City Water
Utility PW Costs divided by the number of acre-feet of Repurified
Water actually produced in that year)
multiplied by
The number of acre feet of Repurified Water produced by
Pure Water Program facilities during the applicable fiscal year.
60409.00001\30398144.16 4
annually. Such Operation and Maintenance Costs are currently estimated as (76% City Water
Utility and 24% Metro System) on an annual basis.
4.4 Year-End Adjustment. At the end of each fiscal year during which there is
Repurified Water Revenue, the City shall determine the actual cost per acre foot of CWA
untreated water purchased by the City, the actual cost per acre foot of City Water Utility PW
costs, and the actual amount of Repurified Water produced at Pure Water Program facilities.
Based on the actual cost and production information, the City will recalculate the
Repurified Water Revenue for the prior fiscal year. The City will credit any future charges or
bill for any additional amounts due the quarter after the prior year costs have been audited.
4.5 Change in Potable Reuse Method. The parties acknowledge that the Pure Water
Program will initially use the surface water augmentation method of potable reuse. The use of
CWA untreated water costs in calculating Repurified Water Revenue is intended to provide an
appropriate point of comparison to costs for producing Repurified Water that will be introduced
into surface water. The parties agree that if the City implements direct potable reuse (in which
Repurified Water is introduced directly into a water supply pipeline or facility), the parties shall
meet and negotiate in good faith regarding an amendment to this Exhibit F to appropriately
update the formula for Repurified Water Revenue.
V.Capital Expense Rate
5.1 Background. The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant operates under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit modified under section
301(h) & (j)(5) of the Clean Water Act. If such modified permit were ever revoked or not
renewed, the parties agree that, under current law, the City would have an obligation to upgrade
the Point Loma WTP to secondary treatment. The parties further agree that $1.8 billion is a fair
and comprehensive estimation of the costs that could be incurred by the Metro System to meet
the legal requirements related to the Metro System under current law. The estimate of $1.8
billion is based on the net present value of the capital cost to develop 180 MGD of secondary
treatment at Point Loma WTP as of November 15, 2018.
Therefore, the parties agree that $1.8 billion represents the maximum amount of Capital
Improvement Costs that the Metro System should be obligated to contribute to the Pure Water
Program, the purpose of which is not solely the disposal of wastewater, but also the production
of Repurified Water. The parties agree that this $1.8 billion maximum contribution should apply
whether or not the Point Loma WTP is actually upgraded to secondary treatment to meet legal
requirements in the future because, as of the date of the Agreement, the parties have the option of
upgrading the Point Loma WTP to full secondary treatment for the cost of approximately $1.8
billion.
In light of the above, the parties have agreed that if Metro System costs related to the
Pure Water Program exceed the $1.8 billion, City’s Water Utility will pay a charge for each acre
foot of secondary treated effluent produced by Metro System facilities and used for the
production of Repurified Water.
5.2 Capital Expense Rate. Under the circumstances described below, City’s Water
60409.00001\30398144.16 5
Utility shall pay a charge (“Capital Expense Rate”) for each acre-foot of secondary treated
effluent produced by Metro System facilities and used for the production of Repurified Water.
City’s Water Utility shall pay the Capital Expense Rate if the following costs alone, or in
combination, exceed $1.8 billion (which amount shall be adjusted for inflation):
(a) the sum of all Capital Improvement Costs and associated debt attributable
to the Metro System components of the Pure Water Program under this Exhibit F; and/or
(b) the sum of all Capital Improvement Costs and associated debt for the full
or partial upgrading of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant to secondary treatment.
Notwithstanding the above, the Capital Expense Rate shall not apply if the Point Loma
WTP is actually upgraded to secondary treatment (or beyond) due to: (a) a change in federal or
state statutory law making it necessary to upgrade the Point Loma WTP to comply with such
new discharge standard; or (b) a final decision by a state or federal court or a federal
administrative agency of competent jurisdiction that an NPDES permit modified under section
301(h) & (j)(5) of the Clean Water Act is thereby revoked or denied renewal due to a finding that
the discharge from the Point Loma WTP violates anti-degradation rules or regulations
promulgated under section 403 of the Clean Water Act.
5.3 Calculation of Capital Expense Rate. The amount per acre-foot of the Capital
Expense Rate shall be determined as follows:
The City shall estimate whether the Capital Expense Rate shall apply to the upcoming
fiscal year (and its amount) prior to January 15 of each year, and the estimated amount of the
Capital Expense Rate shall be effective on July 1 of the upcoming fiscal year.
The sum of all Capital Improvement Costs and associated
debt attributable to (i) the Metro System components of the Pure
Water Program under this Exhibit F and (ii) upgrading of the Point
Loma WTP to secondary treatment (if any)
less
$1.8 billion, as adjusted for inflation each July 1 (starting on July
1, 2019) to reflect the annual percentage change in the Engineering
News Record – Los Angeles construction cost index
multiplied by
1.42 (which estimates the total interest on a 30-year State
Revolving Fund loan with an interest rate of 2.5%)
and divided by
The total number of acre feet per year of secondary treated effluent
that is expected to be produced by Metro System facilities for the
production of Repurified Water over a period of thirty (30) years.
60409.00001\30398144.16 6
For purposes of this Article V of Exhibit F, Capital Improvement Costs and associated
debt shall include such costs incurred by the Metro System prior to the effective date of the
Agreement.
5.4 Year-End Adjustment
At the end of each fiscal year during which the Capital Expense Rate applies, the City
shall determine the actual Capital Improvement Costs and associated debt attributable to the
Metro System components of the Pure Water Program under this Exhibit F and any upgrading of
the Point Loma WTP to secondary treatment, the then-applicable interest amount for outstanding
loans for the Metro System components of the Pure Water Program and Point Loma WTP
upgrades, and the actual amount of secondary treated effluent produced by Metro System
facilities and used for the production of Repurified Water.
Based on the actual cost, interest, and effluent information, the City will recalculate the
Capital Expense Rate for the prior fiscal year. The City will credit any future charges or bill for
any additional amounts due the quarter after the prior year costs have been audited.
5.5 Duration; Expiration
The duration and expiration of the Capital Expense Rate is set forth in Section 13.4 of the
Agreement.
60409.00001\30398144.16
ATTACHMENT 1 – PURE WATER PHASE I COST ESTIMATE
Note: The above estimates are based on 60% design of Phase I of the Pure Water Program.
EXHIBIT G
60409.00001\30914102.16
EXHIBIT G
PURE WATER CAPITAL BILLING TABLE
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: January 2, 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 1-02-19.doc
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:
January 29, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.: Tour of District Facilities
BOARD WORKSHOPS:
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: January 2, 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 – First 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.
The First 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
First Quarter totaled approximately $4.13 million. Approximately 17%
of the Fiscal Year 2019 expenditure budget was spent (see Attachment
B).
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\Q1\Staff Report\BD 01-02-19 Staff Report First
Quarter FY 2019 CIP Report (DM-RP).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2019 First Quarter CIP
Expenditure Report
Attachment C – Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
VARIOUS
Informational Item – First 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 December 4, 2018,
and the following comments were made:
Staff indicated that the District’s FY 2019 CIP budget consists
of 106 projects that total $24.5 million and is 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 first quarter
of FY 2019 totaled $4.1 million, which is approximately 17% of
the District’s fiscal year budget.
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 indicated that the OWD Admin & Operations Parking Lot
Improvements Project – Phase 2 (P2555) is nearing completion
with the canopy construction and operations lower lot pending
to close out this project.
Staff stated that during the first quarter of FY 2019, the rate
for Change Orders with Allowance Credit equaled to -0.1%. In
response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that
the Hillsdale Road 12-Inch Waterline Replacement and Sewer
Repairs Project’s (P2573 & S2048) net change order was 14.8% as
a result of added work to address differing site conditions and
utility conflicts. The 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior
Coating & Upgrades Project’s (P2546) net change order was 22.9%
as a result of added work to replace the reservoir’s steel
rafters and girders.
Staff noted that the Consultant Contract Status information was
updated to reflect as-needed services that have two (2)
contractors whereas it provides transparency as to how task
work and expenditures were distributed.
With regards to the Consultant Contract Status for Carollo
Engineers, Inc., the Committee commented about the 870-2 Pump
Station (P2083) design construction that indicated a 62.0%
change order. Staff stated that design work for piping under
the reservoir, additional surge analysis, and a 3-D model to
aid design was added during the design phase of the project.
Also, additional design support work for submittal review and
responses to contractor requests for information was provided
for the construction of this project.
Following the discussion, the committee supported presentation to the
full board as an informational item.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 1ST QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 9/30/2018)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2019 09/30/18
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2019
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS -
P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Cameron 5$ 13$ (8)$ 260%3,400$ 545$ 2,855$ 16%
Expenditures for this Fiscal Year are to update the
Environmental documents. Expenses are within
project budget.
P2382 Safety and Security Improvements Payne 224 14 210 6%3,251 3,086 165 95%Will be completed and closed by end Q4 FY 2019.
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 - 10 0%3,975 3,821 154 96%
EIR/EIS complete and Presidential permit issued.
Continue meetings with DDW and AdR.
P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Marchioro 25 16 9 64%4,000 1,869 2,131 47%
Schedule driven by Caltrans. Caltrans scheduled to
bid work Q3 FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated for FY 2021.
P2460 I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition Beppler 20 - 20 0%600 5 595 1%
Demolition proposed for FY 2020, environmental
consultant services to be obtained in Q3 of FY 2019
P2485 SCADA - Infrastructure and Communications Replacement Kerr 162 29 133 18%2,428 2,055 373 85%
On track; slightly more budget used because of PLC cost.
P2494 Multiple Species Conservation Plan Coburn-Boyd 50 1 49 2%1,000 912 88 91%
The majority of this budget will be used in the
remaining quarters 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.
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 anticipated in FY 2019.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024.
P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program Carey 25 - 25 0%620 307 313 50%
On track. Staff will be using the rest of the year to
upgrade and fix various large meter vaults
throughout the District.
P2547 District Administration Vehicle Charging Stations Cameron 5 - 5 0%125 72 53 58%The project is complete and in the warranty period.
P2553 Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 80 2 78 3%1,430 28 1,402 2%
Project is in the Planning stage. Project is driven by
the City of Chula Vista's schedule for replacement. Construction is scheduled for FY 2022.
P2571 Datacenter Network- Data, Storage, and Infrastructure Enhancements Kerr 100 - 100 0%200 - 200 0%
Procured both hardware and implentation cost for
new District Firewall and other security enhancements; remaining balance for CIP is
$100K. Will initiaite the second phase of project/CIP next fiscal year.
P2572 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Replacement Kerr - - - 0%500 - 500 0%Project set to start in FY 2021.
P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marchioro - - - 0%1 - 1 0%
No expenditures anticipated 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 - 40 0%450 - 450 0%Consultant to be selected in Q2 for design.
P2611 Quarry Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 10 6 4 60%1,000 18 982 2%
Project is in the early Planning stage. Project is driven by County's schedule for replacement.
P2612 PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Pas de Luz/Telegraph Canyon Rd Cameron 10 - 10 0%500 1 499 0%Consultant to be selected in Q2 for design.
P2614 485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron - - - 0%895 - 895 0%No expenditures in FY 2019.
P2617 Lobby Security Enhancements Payne 145 - 145 0%150 1 149 1%Lobby Access doors will be secured Q3 FY 2019.
P2619 PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy Marchioro 200 44 156 22%1,800 142 1,658 8%
Delivery of redundant trailer and construction
contract award to install redundant trailer scheduled
for July 2019. Completion of construction
anticipated FY 2020. Project on track.
P2623 Central Area to Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipelines Combination Air/Vacuum Valve Replacements Marchioro 130 101 29 78%270 202 68 75%
Construction completed FY 2019 Q1. Project one
year warranty scheduled to complete in FY 2020
Q1.
P2630 624-3 Reservoir Automation of Chemical Feed System Cameron 5 - 5 0%385 - 385 0%Budget for early planning.
P2635 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Tank Replacement Marchioro 10 - 10 0%400 - 400 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019.
Commencement of planning and design phase pending coordination with P2640.
P2636 980-2 PS Surge Tank Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 150 3 147 2%175 3 172 2%Expenditures expected late in Q2.
P2637 Survey Division Field GPS Equipment Replacement O'Donnell 35 35 - 100%35 35 - 100%Equipment purchased in FY 2019 Q1.
P2638 Buildings and Grounds Refurbishments Payne 57 - 57 0%114 - 114 0%Admin Building paint and grounds FY 2019 Q3.
P2639 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 5 - 5 0%175 - 175 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019.
Commencement of planning and design phase pending coordination with P2640.
P2640 Portable Trailer Mounted VFD Pumps Marchioro 30 15 15 50%400 15 385 4%
Board award for purchase order to procure trailer
anticipated Q4 FY 2019. Project on track.
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/18 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/18
P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of FY19 1st qtr exp.xlsx Page 1 of 4 11/15/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2019 1ST QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 9/30/2018)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2019 09/30/18
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2019
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/18 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/18
P2641 Rancho Jamul Hydropneumatic Tank Replacement Marchioro 1 - 1 0%300 - 300 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 anticipated in FY 2019.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024.
P2643 980-1 Pump Station Surge Tanks Replacement Marchioro - - - 0%350 - 350 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024.
P2644 803-1 Pump Station Surge Tank Replacement Marchioro - - - 0%350 - 350 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024.
P2645 Rolling Hills Hydropneumatic Tank Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%225 - 225 0%Budget for early planning.
P2646 North District Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%800 - 800 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019.
Completion of construction anticipated FY 2024.
P2647 Central Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro - - - 0%1,000 - 1,000 0%
No expenditures anticipated in FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2023.
P2648 Otay Mesa Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 40 - 40 0%400 - 400 0%
Advanced planning work will begin FY 2019 Q3.
Design scheduled for FY 2020.
P2649 HVAC Equipment Purchase Payne 21 10 11 48%130 10 120 8%Multi year; Operation replacement FY 2019 Q3.
R2110 RecPS - 944-1 Optimization and Pressure Zone Modifications Marchioro 25 10 15 40%200 148 52 74%
Pressure reducing station work completed
underbudget FY 2019 Q1. Project on track.
R2116 RecPL - 14-Inch, 927 Zone, Force Main Improvements Marchioro 24 10 14 42%2,159 2,134 25 99%
Construction completed FY 2018 Q3. Project one
year warranty scheduled to complete in FY 2019 Q3.
R2118 Steele Canyon Sewer PS Large Solids Handling Improvements Beppler 105 2 103 2%150 36 114 24%
Project bid in FY 2019 Q1; to be awarded in FY
2019 Q2; and work to be performed in FY 2019 Q3. Budget to be increased to $175K with award of
contract.
R2120 RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements Beppler 50 - 50 0%500 29 471 6%Construction scheduled for FY 2020.
R2123 Repurpose Otay Mesa Recycled Water Lines Beppler 5 - 5 0%350 - 350 0%Planning work to begin in FY 2019 Q3.
R2125 RecPRS - 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay Lakes Road Marchioro 45 6 39 13%200 9 191 5%
Planning on track for completion FY 2019. Completion of design and construction phases
anticipated FY 2020.
R2146 Recycled Pipeline Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 20 - 20 0%600 - 600 0%
Planning phase scheduled to begin late FY 2019. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2022.
R2149 680-1R PS Surge Tank Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%175 - 175 0%Budget for early planning.
R2150 RWCWRF - Secondary Chlorine Analyzer and Feed System Beppler 40 5 35 13%45 5 40 11%
Design completed in FY 2019 Q1. Work to be
completed by FY 2019 Q4.
S2012 San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement Beppler 50 - 50 0%1,800 1,111 689 62%
This CIP reimburses the County for work on
transportation pipeline rehabilitation, dependent upon County scheduling.
S2027 Rancho San Diego Pump Station Rehabilitation Beppler 5 1 4 20%3,500 3,050 450 87%
Construction completed in FY 2019 Q1. Final budget adjustment with County to be confirmed in
FY 2019 Q2.
S2043 RWCWRF Sludge Handling System Beppler 5 - 5 0%51 40 11 78%
Review draft report with latest Metro cost projections that include Pure Water Phase 1
spending to confirm assumptions during FY 2019
Q3.
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 - 10 0%190 - 190 0%
Prepare scope of work in FY 2019 Q4 after aeration
panels replacement and confirmation of aeration system operation.
S2065 RWCWRF - TOC Monitor Beppler 30 23 7 77%30 23 7 77%
Monitor purchased in FY 2019 Q1; installation to be
performed in FY 2019 Q2.
S2067 RWCWRF Roofing Replacement and Natural Light Enhancement Payne 20 - 20 0%165 - 165 0%Anticipate completion early FY 2019 Q4.
Total Capital Facility Projects Total:2,087 346 1,741 17%46,551 20,081 26,470 43%
REPLACEMENT/RENEWAL PROJECTS
P2083 PS - 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 7,900 1,400 6,500 18%18,950 7,757 11,193 41%Construction on track for completion in FY 2020 Q2.
P2174 PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Replacement (400 gpm)Marchioro 150 3 147 2%2,500 8 2,492 0%
Design scheduled for FY 2020. Advanced planning
work will begin FY 2019 Q3 pending coordination with P2640.
P2400 PL - 20-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes Road - at Santa Paula Marchioro - - - 0%2,280 - 2,280 0%Planning phase scheduled for FY 2020.
P2507 East Palomar Street Utility Relocation Cameron 5 3 2 60%735 728 7 99%Waiting for reimbursement from Caltrans.
P2508 Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Program Marchioro 542 9 533 2%1,250 732 518 59%Construction on track for completion in FY 2019 Q3.
P2529 711-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 4 1 80%820 807 13 98%Budget is for warranty repairs; scheduled for Q3.
P2530 711-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 3 2 60%980 957 23 98%Budget is for warranty repairs; scheduled for Q3.
P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of FY19 1st qtr exp.xlsx Page 2 of 4 11/15/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2019 1ST QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 9/30/2018)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2019 09/30/18
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2019
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/18 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/18
P2531 944-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%345 321 24 93%Budget is for warranty repairs; scheduled for Q3.
P2532 944-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%960 940 20 98%Budget is for warranty repairs; scheduled for Q3.
P2533 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%810 7 803 1%Budget for early planning.
P2534 978-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 1 4 20%650 595 55 92%
Construction completed FY 2018. Project is in the
two year warranty period.
P2535 458-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 5 - 5 0%810 780 30 96%Budget is for warranty repairs; scheduled for Q3.
P2539 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Utility Relocations Cameron 45 10 35 22%1,090 937 153 86%
Project is driven by SANDAG. Expenditures within
overall project budget.
P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 1 4 20%875 9 866 1%Budget for early planning.
P2544 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 9 (4) 180%980 829 151 85%
Construction completed FY 2018. Project is in the two year warranty period.
P2545 980-1 Reservoir Interior Exterior Coating Cameron 5 5 - 100%1,215 1,193 22 98%Budget is for warranty repairs; scheduled for Q3.
P2546 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 695 276 419 40%1,690 1,621 69 96%
More work was completed in FY 2018 Q4 than anticipated. Expenditures within budget. Project
expected to be accepted in FY 2019 Q2.
P2555 Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements Cameron 25 17 8 68%985 600 385 61%
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 wil be over the FY budget, but all expenditures will be within the CIP
budget.
P2557 520 Res Recirculation Pipeline Chemical Supply and Analyzer Feed Replacement Project Beppler 60 6 54 10%125 66 59 53%
Purchase of materials and construction started.
Project to be completed by OPS staff in FY 2019 Q3.
P2561 Res - 711-3 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 2,195 21 2,174 1%2,300 73 2,227 3%Construction on track for completion in FY 2019 Q3.
P2562 Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 170 44 126 26%2,900 2,706 194 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 - 1 0%1,000 3 997 0%
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 27 728 4%1,000 27 973 3%
Construction to begin in late Q2. Project is on schedule.
P2566 520-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 10 - 10 0%1,500 - 1,500 0%Budget for early planning.
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 150 236 (86) 157%2,580 2,566 14 99%Construction completed in FY 2019 Q1.
P2574 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda Beppler 500 71 429 14%2,000 396 1,604 20%
Project bid in FY 2019 Q1 with contract to be
awarded in FY 2019 Q2 and construction to start in FY 2019 Q3.
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 3 92 3%625 344 281 55%
Majority of change outs will be completed in FY
2019 Q3.
P2604 AMR Change Out Carey 1,800 950 850 53%6,290 3,145 3,145 50%
Majority of change outs for this FY 2019 will be
completed by end of Q3.
P2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave Marchioro 75 5 70 7%325 8 317 2%
Planning and design on track for completion FY 2019. Construction scheduled for FY 2020.
P2607 Douglas Ave SWA and OWD Interconnection Upgrade Beppler 37 1 36 3%50 1 49 2%
SWA design in progress during FY 2019 Q1.
Construction expected to start in FY 2019 Q3.
P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus St, Coronado/Date/La Mesa Cameron 10 - 10 0%540 - 540 0%Consultant to be selected in Q2 for design
P2610 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 Cameron 95 2 93 2%275 22 253 8%
Delivery of this project is anticipated by Q4 in
coordination with OPS.
P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ, Vista Grande Beppler 20 - 20 0%1,200 - 1,200 0%
SWA design in progress during FY 2019 Q1; construction expected to start in FY 2019 Q3.
P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Pence Dr/Vista Sierra Dr Beppler 180 - 180 0%2,500 16 2,484 1%
SWA design in progress during FY 2019 Q1;
construction expected to start in FY 2019 Q3.
P2625 PL - 12-inch, 978 Zone, Hidden Mesa Road Beppler 1,000 36 964 4%1,500 171 1,329 11%
SWA design in progress during FY 2019 Q1;
construction expected to start in FY 2019 Q3.
P2627 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1505 Oleander Ave Marchioro 75 5 70 7%325 5 320 2%
Planning and design on track for completion FY 2019. 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%
Review of County design of road improvements
performed in FY 2019 Q1. Planning level design in
progress.
P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of FY19 1st qtr exp.xlsx Page 3 of 4 11/15/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2019 1ST QUARTER REPORT
(Expenditures through 9/30/2018)($000)
ATTACHMENT B
2019 09/30/18
CIP No.Description
Project
Manager
FY 2019
Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Budget Expenses Balance
Expense to
Budget %Comments
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/18 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/18
P2634 Rolling Hills Hydropneumatic Pump Station Jockey Pump Replacement Anderson 35 1 34 3%35 1 34 3%
The pump is 35% complete; anticipate installed by
FY 2019 Q2.
P2651 Automatic Data Processing Koeppen 20 - 20 0%20 - 20 0%On track. The project spending will be at 100% by the
end of March 2019.
R2121 Res - 944-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 1 - 1 0%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 5 - 5 0%30 - 30 0%
Construction started in FY 2019 Q1; completion expected in FY 2019 Q2.
R2143 AMR Change Out Carey 165 58 107 35%525 163 362 31%
Majority of change-outs for FY 2019 will be
completed by end of Q3.
R2145 RWCWRF - Filter Media and Nozzles Replacement Beppler 130 - 130 0%130 - 130 0%
Contract to be awarded in FY 2019 Q2;
construction to be performed in FY 2019 Q3.
R2147 RWCWRF Fuel Lines Replacement Marchioro 150 19 131 13%175 19 156 11%
Design and construction on track for completion FY 2019.
R2148 Large Meter Replacement - Recycled Carey 8 - 8 0%58 - 58 0%
Large meter testing will begin in Q2 and change-
outs scheduled for FY 2019 Q3 and Q4.
R2151 RWCWRF - Bulk Chlorine Vapor Scrubber System Refurbishment Lintner 35 - 35 0%37 - 37 0%
This project is scheduled for the end of January 2019
through February 2019. P.O. created 9/12/2018 for
Integrity Municipal Systems.
S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Beppler 4,000 432 3,568 11%10,300 5,476 4,824 53%
Construction on track for substantial completion in
FY 2019 Q4.
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 17 (7) 170%370 277 93 75%Construction completed in FY 2019 Q1.
S2046 RWCWRF - Aeration Panels Replacement Beppler 100 3 97 3%450 96 354 21%
Replacement panels to be delivered in FY 2019 Q2 and installed in FY 2019 Q3.
S2048 Hillsdale Road Sewer Repairs Beppler 10 73 (63) 730%720 687 33 95%
Construction completed in FY 2019 Q1. Invoicing
carried over from FY 2018.
S2049 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 20 - 20 0%1,000 7 993 1%
Planning underway with property issues to be
investigated prior to start of design in FY 2020.
S2050 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 20 - 20 0%1,300 - 1,300 0%Begin planning in FY 2019 Q3.
S2051 RWCWRF - Headworks Improvements Beppler 165 23 142 14%250 98 152 39%
Project bid in FY 2019 Q1; contract to be awarded
in FY 2019 Q2; and construction in FY 2019 Q3.
S2053 RWCWRF - Sedimentation Basins Weirs Replacement Beppler 5 1 4 20%60 3 57 5%
Construction started in FY 2019 Q1; completion
expected in 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:21,534 3,777 17,757 18%96,460 35,694 60,766 37%
CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS
P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Rahders 520 2 518 0%5,928 4,147 1,781 70%
P.O. for $286,623 will be issued in Q3 and an
additional $10,000 (approx.) will be spent by the
end of Q4, 2019.
P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 363 - 363 0%2,250 1,470 780 65%
P.O. for $329,350 will be issued in Q3 and an
additional $15,000 (approx.) will be spent by the
end of Q4, 2019.
Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:883 2 881 0%8,178 5,617 2,561 69%
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS
P2595 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way Beppler 1 - 1 0%150 - 150 0%Project under construction.
R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media Beppler 14 - 14 0%365 1 364 0%Project under construction.
Total Developer Reimbursement Projects Total:15 - 15 0%515 1 514 0%
122 GRAND TOTAL 24,519$ 4,125$ 20,394$ 17%151,704$ 61,393$ 90,311$ 40%
P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2019\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of FY19 1st qtr exp.xlsx Page 4 of 4 11/15/2018
Otay Water District
Capital Improvement Program
Fiscal Year 2019
First Quarter
(through September 30, 2018)
ATTACHMENT C
870-2 Pump Station –West Station Foundation and Galley Construction
9/13/2018
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 First Quarter of
Fiscal Year 2019 totaled $4.1 million, which is
approximately 17% of the Fiscal Year budget.
2
Fiscal Year 2019
First 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 $346 17% $46,551 $20,081 43%
2 Replacement/
Renewal $21,534 $3,777 18% $96,460 $35,694 37%
3 Capital
Purchases $883 $2 0% $8,178 $5,617 69%
4 Developer
Reimbursement $15 $0 0% $515 $1 0%
Total:
$24,519 $4,125 17% $151,704 $61,393 40%
3
Fiscal Year 2019
First Quarter
CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures
4
$4,125,000
$-
$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
$24,519,000
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: October
2019 870-2 Pump Station – Construction of
West Station Walls
Division No. 2
Location:
North East corner
of Otay Mesa.
Existing 571-1
Reservoir and High
Head/Low Head
Pump Station site.
6
9/28/2018
CIP Projects in Construction
980-2 Reservoir
Interior/Exterior
Coating & Upgrades
Project (P2546)
Remove and replace
existing interior and
exterior coatings.
Construct structural
upgrades to increase
the service life.
$1.45M Budget
Start: November 2017
Completion:
September 2018 980-2 (5.0 MG) – Interior Disinfection
Division No. 5
Location:
980-2 is located at
the north end of
Hunte Parkway.
7
9/17/2018
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:
June 2019 Westbound Campo Road –
East Bore Jacking Pit Preparation
Division No. 5
Location:
Campo Road (SR
94) between
Rancho San Diego
Village Shopping
Center and Rancho
San Diego Towne
Center.
8
10/03/2018
CIP Projects in Construction
Interconnect Airvac
Valve Replacement
(P2623)
Replace 37 existing
potable water
combination
air/vacuum valves on
interconnect pipeline
between 624-3
Reservoir and 870-1
Reservoir.
$0.27M Budget
Start: August 2018
Completed: August
2018 Combination Air/Vacuum Valve
Replacement - Sta 221+ 76
Division Nos. 1 & 2
Location:
South East Chula
Vista at various
locations.
9
8/08/2018
CIP Projects in Construction
OWD Admin &
Operations Parking
Lot Improvements
Project - Phase 2
(P2555)
Seal parking lots.
Install parking stalls
and stripe.
Install equipment
canopy in Operations
parking lot.
$0.99M Budget
Start: May 2018
Estimated Completion:
November 2018
Administration Parking Lots
Seal and Striping work
Division No. 3
Location:
District
Administration and
Operations lots -
Sweetwater
Springs Blvd.,
Spring Valley
10
9/23/2018
CIP Projects in Construction
Hillsdale Road
Waterline Replacement
and Sewer Repairs
(P2573/S2048)
Replacement of 4,129
linear feet of 12-inch
waterline.
Replacement of 760
liner feet of 8-inch
sewer.
$3.17M Budget
Start: October 2017
Completed: July 2018
Hillsdale Road
pavement
restoration in area
that fronts Valhalla
High School
Division No. 5
Location:
Hillsdale Road
between
Jamacha Road
and Vista
Grande Road.
11
7/5/2018
Construction Contract Status
12
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 $0 0.0% $152,646 $86,191 -7.5% 56.5%
November
2018
P2546
980-2 Reservoir
Interior/Exterior
Coating & Upgrades
Simpson
Sandblasting &
Special Coating, Inc.
$998,502 $1,146,377 $229,152 22.9% $1,375,529 $1,326,933 20.0% 96.5%
September
2019
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*
Construction Contract Status
13
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*
P2508
Pipeline CP
Improvements -
Phase II
M-Rae Engineering
Inc.$329,500 $347,000 $0 0.0% $329,500 $0 -5.0% 0.0%
February
2019
P2561
Reservoir 711-3
Floating Cover and
Liner Replacement
Layfield USA
Corporation $1,947,000 $1,997,000 $0 0.0% $1,947,000 $7,000 -2.5% 0.4%March 2019
S2024
Campo Road Sewer
Replacement
Project
Wier Construction
Corporation $7,623,146 $7,816,646 $74,266 1.0% $7,811,412 $3,785,503 -0.1% 48.5%June 2019
P2083
P2562
870-2 Pump Station
Replacement/ 571-1
Reservoir Liner and
Cover Replacement
Pacific Hydrotech
Corporation $16,500,900 $16,925,900 $26,270 0.2% $16,582,332 $6,893,661 -2.0% 41.6%
October
2019
TOTALS: $30,044,244 $31,070,719 $666,338 2.2%$31,049,250 $14,950,119 -0.1%
***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
14
CIP Project Title Consultant
Original
Contract
Amount
Total
Change
Orders
Revised
Contract
Amount
%
Change
Orders
Authorized
Task Orders
to Date
Approved
Payment To
Date
%
Project
Complete
Date of
Signed
Contract
End Date
of
Contract
PLANNING
HAZEN AND SAWYER DPC $ 41,090.00 $ 30,697.50 11/8/2017 6/30/2019
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC $ 23,000.00 $ 19,880.00 1/23/2018 6/30/2019
DESIGN
P2083 CIP P2083: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION FOR 870-2 PS CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC $ 624,910.00 $ 387,618.00 $ 1,012,528.00 62.0% N/A $ 963,804.25 95.2% 10/11/2013 6/30/2019
S2024 CIP S2024: CAMPO ROAD SEWER MAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY $ 805,705.00 $ - $ 805,705.00 0.0% N/A $ 764,763.53 94.9% 5/27/2014 6/30/2019
HAZEN AND SAWYER DPC $ 18,430.00 $ - 6/14/2018 6/30/2020
HDR ENGINEERING INC $ - $ - 6/14/2018 6/30/2020
CORRPRO COMPANIES INC $ - $ - 8/3/2017 6/30/2019
RFYEAGER $ 231,781.00 $ 131,483.00 7/18/2017 6/30/2019
Varies AS-NEEDED ELECTRICAL SERVICES FY17, 18 & 19 BSE ENGINEERING INC $ 125,000.00 $ - $ 125,000.00 0.0% $ 48,864.00 $ 4,863.76 3.9% 11/22/2016 6/30/2019
PSOMAS $ 212,413.00 $ 201,214.02 7/1/2016 6/30/2018
COMPLETE
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY $ 299,222.50 $ 274,234.99 7/1/2016 12/31/2019
MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC $ 34,565.00 $ 1,230.00 11/7/2017 6/30/2019
NV5 INC $ 244,135.00 $ 181,657.30 11/7/2017 6/30/2019
Varies GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FY15-18 NINYO & MOORE $ 175,000.00 $ - $ 175,000.00 0.0% $ 173,846.63 $ 150,997.83 86.3% 4/9/2015 6/30/2019
GEOCON INCORPORATED $ - $ - 12/7/2017 6/30/2020
NINYO & MOORE $ 15,000.00 $ - 12/11/2017 6/30/2020
ARCADIS TECHNICAL SERVICES INC $ - $ - 8/16/2017 6/30/2019
KEH & ASSOCIATES $ 48,871.00 $ 38,529.63 8/16/2017 6/30/2019
Varies TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES FY16-18 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY $ 175,000.00 $ - $ 175,000.00 0.0% $ 108,462.00 $ 63,253.01 36.1% 7/8/2015 6/30/2019
0.0%
22.8%
95.1%
30.5%
0.0%
22.0%
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies WATER RELCAMATION SERVICES FY 18 & 19 $ 175,000.00 $ - $ 175,000.00
0.0%
0.0%
AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN FY 18-20 $ 600,000.00 $ - $ 600,000.00 0.0%
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FY18-20 $ 175,000.00 $ - $ 175,000.00
AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN FY 17-18 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ -
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ASSET MANAGEMENT FY 18, 19 & 20 $ 175,000.00 $ 175,000.00 $ -
CORROSION ENGINEERING SERVICES FY 18 & 19 $ 577,276.00 $ - $ 577,276.00
AS-NEEDED HYDRAULIC MODELING FY 18 & 19Varies $ 175,000.00 $ - $ 175,000.00 28.9%
Consultant Contract Status
15
CIP Project Title Consultant
Original
Contract
Amount
Total
Change
Orders
Revised
Contract
Amount
%
Change
Orders
Authorized
Task Orders
to Date
Approved
Payment To
Date
%
Project
Complete
Date of
Signed
Contract
End Date
of
Contract
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
P2083 CIP P2083: 870-2 PS CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC $ 853,457.00 $ 74,238.00 $ 927,695.00 8.7% N/A $ 468,806.00 50.5% 7/30/2014 12/31/2019
Varies COATING INSPECTION SERVICES FY18-19 CSI SERVICES INC $ 175,000.00 $ - $ 175,000.00 0.0% $ 174,480.63 $ 174,480.63 99.7% 8/16/2017
6/30/2019
COMPLETE
CSI SERVICES INC $ 14,869.50 $ 14,869.50 9/19/2018 6/30/2021
RFYEAGER $ - $ - 8/13/2018 6/30/2021
ALYSON CONSULTING $ 185,508.22 $ 132,533.22 7/12/2017 6/30/2019
VALLEY CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT $ 342,134.00 $ 300,372.00 6/21/2017 6/30/2019
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES $ 18,200.00 $ 14,287.51 6/19/2018 6/30/2021
PSOMAS $ 6,800.00 $ - 6/19/2018 6/30/2021
Varies UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES FY 18-20 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 0.0% $ 150,000.00 $ 132,850.00 26.6% 1/23/2018 6/30/2021
ENVIRONMENTAL
P2494 CIP P2494: PREPARATION OF THE SUBAREA PLAN RECON $ 270,853.00 $ - $ 270,853.00 0.0% N/A $ 263,838.11 97.4% 3/28/2008 6/30/2020
HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL $ 158,222.00 $ 36,029.76 11/7/2017 6/30/2020
ICF INTERNATIONAL JONES &
STOKES INC $ 171,303.00 $ 128,583.95 11/7/2017 6/30/2020
Varies SAN MIGUEL HMA CY 2018-2021
ICF INTERNATIONAL JONES &
STOKES INC $ 483,787.40 $ - $ 483,787.40 0.0% N/A $ 33,354.38 6.9% 5/2/2018 6/30/2021
WATER RESOURCES
Varies MICHAEL WELCH ENGINEERING PLANNING SVCS. $ 100,000.00 $ - $ 100,000.00 0.0% N/A $ 22,800.00 22.8% 4/9/2014 6/30/2019
PUBLIC SERVICES
Varies AEGIS
AS-NEEDED DEVELOPER PROJECTS
FY 15-16 $ 400,000.00 $ - $ 400,000.00 0.0% N/A $ 291,437.80 72.9% 2/12/2015 6/30/2019
TOTALS: $ 8,390,988.40 $ 461,856.00 $ 8,852,844.40 5.5% $4,840,851.68
8.5%
86.6%
5.7%
41.2%
Varies LAND SURVEYING FY19-21 $ 250,000.00 $ - $ 250,000.00 0.0%
Varies CONSTRUCTION MGMT/INSPECTION FY 18-19 $ 500,000.00 $ - $ 500,000.00 0.0%
Varies COATING INSPECTION SERVICES FY19-21 $ 175,000.00 $ - $ 175,000.00 0.0%
Varies AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL FY 18-20 $ 400,000.00 $ - $ 400,000.00 0.0%
QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?
16
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: January 2, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Tenille M. Otero
PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY:
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Informational Item: Communications Update
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation. This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present the Board with an update on communications items from the
Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative Committee’s list dated August
22, 2018.
ANALYSIS:
The Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative Committee presented staff
with a list of committee objectives at the Aug. 22, 2018 committee
meeting. Staff has prepared an update regarding that list of items. The
list of objectives include the following:
Review and provide input on each edition of the Pipeline
newsletter.
Start a District Instagram account.
Have a list of items that the District systematically distributes
to customers, such as checking your pressure regulator, sewer
lateral, etc.
Make the District’s website mobile friendly.
Perform the customer survey.
Provide a list to the Board of yearly events that District staff
attends.
Review subjects for new District YouTube videos and the plan for
future videos and provide information to Board.
Review potential legislation that the District would be
supporting.
Provide a monthly list of articles, etc. when the District is in
the news.
Review and provide input on each edition of the Pipeline newsletter.
Communications staff produces a quarterly newsletter, titled Pipeline.
Production of the newsletter includes gathering article ideas from
current District activities, programs, and projects, soliciting ideas
from District staff, doing research, interviewing, writing, editing,
gathering images, proofing, performing administrative duties to submit
requests to InfoSend to distribute the newsletter, and managing the
District’s consultants, including the graphic designer, printing
company, Spanish translator, and the District’s gardening writer, Nan
Sterman. Newsletters are typically delivered to customers with their
water and/or sewer bill during each of the four seasons. The first
three pages of the newsletter are in English and highlight a variety of
timely District and conservation-related topics. The last page of the
newsletter is in Spanish, covering the front page article(s). The list
of recommended topics for 2019 newsletters is attached (Attachment B).
If issues arise that are timely during that quarter the topic could
change.
Start a District Instagram account.
Staff will launch the District’s Instagram account in January 2019. In
2018, staff reserved a District account, @otaywater. To spark interest,
gain followers early, and create awareness among the public that the
District will launch the District’s account in 2019, staff posted a
teaser photo to the District’s account. Also, to attract more
followers, staff is developing a plan to implement an Instagram contest
in 2019.
Have a list of items that the District systematically distributes to
customers, such as checking your pressure regulator, sewer lateral,
etc.
District staff works with customer service and other staff to develop
messages that the District’s customers can benefit from. Staff aims to
get these messages to the public on an annual basis or more if
necessary. These topics include, but are not limited to the following:
Checking Water Pressure Regulators
Reporting Water Waste
Protecting the Sewer System
Leak Detection Program
Encouraging customers to go paperless and pay their bill online
WaterSmart Landscape Contest
Consumer Confidence Report
Water-Use Efficiency Rebates
Seasonal Tips for Saving Water
As examples, staff recently distributed messages to the District’s
customers via its newsletter and social media about encouraging them to
check their water pressure regulators and to use online bill pay. As
other important topics arise, staff will assess them, develop
messaging, and distribute to customers using the appropriate
communications channels.
Make the District’s website mobile friendly.
A mobile-friendly website is one that is designed to work the exact
same way across all devices. This means that nothing changes or is
unusable on a desktop computer or mobile device. Features like
navigation drop-downs are limited, as they can be difficult to use on
mobile. The website is literally the same across the board, with no
usability concerns regardless of the device on which it is being
viewed.
A mobile-responsive website however, is one that responds or changes
based on the needs of the user and more importantly accommodates the
viewing content from a desktop computer format to that of the specific
mobile device. As part of a responsive site, text and images may change
or be hidden so they do not interfere or compete with the more
important information on the site's smaller display. The development
and maintenance of a responsive website also requires more resources,
thus a larger budget.
Based on mainstream web tools from WordPress and Google, the District’s
current mobile responsiveness scores a high grade in this area,
however, not significantly different, the scores do vary based on the
tool being used. Therefore, the District’s public-facing site is
considered a hybrid of a mobile-friendly and responsive website.
Because the District’s website is a fairly simple site, that is, mostly
text and image based, without complex functionality, and because the
District’s mobile viewing audience accounts for only 19 percent, best
practices recommend the use of a mobile-friendly website. The best
practice benchmark, if the website’s mobile viewing audience is less
than 35 percent, deems a mobile-friendly site as appropriate. The
District should consider assessing a 100 percent responsive design if
its website mobile viewing customer base reaches at least 35 percent,
and the District’s site and functionalities become more complex.
There are other more costly options like developing an entirely
separate mobile website with a separate subdomain, for example
m.otaywater.gov, but the requirements and cost of development and
maintenance are also more extensive than a responsive site. Staff will
continue to review and monitor the website’s analytics for usage
increase trends, as well as evaluate how to address its mobile
audience. Staff also will continue to evaluate advancements to the
District’s website and costs of these advancements, including the
potential development of a full blown mobile-responsive or separate
mobile website, and present an update to the committee at a later date.
Perform the customer survey.
Staff conducted the previous Customer Awareness Survey in 2015 and the
Call Center Survey in 2012. As part of the updated 2019-2022 Strategic
Plan, the implementation of both surveys was scheduled again for fiscal
year 2020, but staff and the Board agreed that that there is a need to
advance the surveys to fiscal year 2019. Staff will complete the
Customer Awareness and Call Center surveys in 2019. Attached are the
latest Customer Awareness and Call Center surveys (Attachments C and
D).
Provide a list to the Board of yearly events that District staff
attends.
On a biweekly and/or monthly basis, as staff confirms the District’s
participation, staff has provided the Board with a list of events where
Communications staff will host a District booth. Dates and confirmation
of outreach events are not normally confirmed a year in advance as most
organizations do not set their event dates until they have reserved a
venue and worked through their respective schedules and logistics.
Attached is a general list of potential events for 2019 (Attachment E).
This list includes events where staff frequently hosts the District’s
information and collaterals as well as potential chambers’ or other
organizations’ events that the District may sponsor or purchase
individual seats for. Event dates may change or new events may be added
contingent on the year and the organizations that the District may
partner with. Staff also continuously assesses the value of each of the
events and determines the District’s participation based on the benefit
to the District and its customers.
Review subjects for new District YouTube videos and the plan for future
videos and provide information to Board.
Staff will continue developing videos and work to promote them more
frequently through its social media and other communications platforms.
Recent videos that have been developed include:
What is Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG)?
How to Handle FOG?
Water Theft from Fire Hydrants
How to Read Your New Digital Water Meter/Register
Staff recommends the following YouTube videos to be developed:
Water Quality
District Efficiencies
About the District; Dedicated to Community Service
A Day and the Life of Various Water-Related Careers Featuring
Employees
Water Tax (dependent on what happens during 2019 Legislative
Session)
Shorter videos that include topics to appeal to the District’s
social media audience
Other timely topics
Review potential legislation that the District would be supporting.
District staff, through its government outreach and relations program,
continues to work closely with the Water Authority’s government
relations staff, the District’s legislative consultant, the Association
of California Water Agencies, California Special Districts Association,
California Water Efficiency Partnership, and other related coalitions,
associations or organizations to monitor legislative issues that affect
the District and its ratepayers.
Early during the calendar year, on an annual basis, staff provides the
Board with a list of top 10 or so legislative priorities that could
affect the District and its ratepayers during that legislative session.
Staff and legislative advocates proactively monitor and/or take action
on these issues during each legislative session and throughout the
year. Staff also provides updates to the Board throughout the year.
Staff will continue to work with the District’s legislative consultant
to focus on issues that may solely affect the District.
It is critical that staff remains engaged in these issues as they could
have an impact on how the District conducts day-to-day operations and
maintains its facilities, thus affecting our ratepayers.
Provide a monthly list of articles, etc. when the District is in the
news.
Staff has been providing the Board, on a biweekly/monthly basis, with a
list of District-related news articles as they appear. Staff will
continue to consistently monitor and report District-related news
stories to the Board.
Strategic Plan Update
In addition, as part of the Strategic Plan objectives, staff is
aligning the District’s Communications Program with the updated
Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2019 through 2022. To implement this,
staff is reviewing the current Five-Year Public Information &
Communications Plan for future years. Staff reviewed and presented this
strategy at the Sept. 5, 2018 Board meeting. The Sept. 5 Board meeting
packet includes the update on the five-year plan and Fiscal Year 2018
outreach activities (Agenda Item 16C).
Purposefully, the foundation of the Communications Program should
complement the Customer section of the Strategic Plan’s Balanced
Scorecard framework. This section focuses on performance related to
customer service levels, satisfaction, brand, and confidence.
Staff continues to use strategies and tactics from the existing five-
year communication plan, but also ensures they align with the current
strategic plan’s key strategies, which include:
Enhance and build awareness and engagement among the District’s
customers and stakeholders and within the San Diego Region about
the District’s strategies, policies, projects, programs, and
legislative/regulatory issues.
Assess and enhance communications tools and increase online
presence and social media exposure.
There are several objectives and tactics that fit into these
strategies, including but not limited to, Capital Improvement Project
outreach, increased public and community engagement and media and
government relations, streamlined District branding, and evaluation of
social media platforms and the District’s website. Staff will provide a
social media and website analytics update in summer 2019.
Through the District’s Communications Program, staff will remain driven
and focused to develop and preserve strong relationships with its
ratepayers, elected officials, and other stakeholders, with the goal of
creating awareness, transparency, and support of the District’s
strategies, policies, projects, and programs.
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) Recommended Newsletter Topics
C) Call Center Survey (2012)
D) Customer Awareness Survey (2015)
E) Annual Event List (2019 Draft)
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
Informational Item: Communication Update
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Public Relations, Legal and Legislative Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 4,
2018 and the following comments were made:
Staff presented an update on communications items discussed at
the August 22, 2018 Public Relations, Legal and Legislative
Committee meeting.
Staff reviewed information in the staff report.
The Committee supported staff’s recommendations for newsletter
topics for 2019. The committee suggested that staff also
include articles that educate ratepayers on the District’s
efforts to maintain its water systems and how it relates to
rate increases, while also evaluating ways to save money to
lessen the impact of higher costs to ratepayers. Staff
mentioned that they had included an article of this nature in
a previous newsletter, but will do so again as the numbers can
be updated. The committee also agreed with staff’s
recommendation to include current construction projects in the
newsletter and suggested that staff include how the District
utilizes technology to minimize costs and rate increases. For
example, using Pipeline Inspection and Condition Analysis
(PICA) technology, which provides savings in pipeline
replacement costs as it identifies small segments of a pipe
that requires replacement as opposed to replacing the entire
pipeline. The technology also assists the District in keeping
its water loss percentage low.
The Committee requested that staff forward the list of
proposed topics for the customer newsletter to the Committee
members for their information/review before each
season/quarter (winter, spring, summer, and fall) approaches.
Staff included topics for each issue in 2019, but will send
the next three to four issues of topics to the Committee as
the topics are finalized. Staff stated that the 2019 list
includes potential news article ideas, but if topics or issues
arise that may be timelier, then the articles could change.
Staff discussed launching the District’s Instagram account.
The Committee asked about potentially in the future
considering a Flickr account for the District. Staff stated
that the District has reserved a Flickr account, but is
assessing the use of Flickr for the public.
It was discussed that staff systematically distributes
messages to the public on an annual basis. These messages
include checking their pressure regulator, reporting water
waste, etc. Staff recently distributed messages through
social media and the Pipeline Newsletter encouraging customers
to check their water pressure regulators and to use online
bill pay. Staff also printed the paperless billing messages
on billing envelopes beginning in mid-October. Two hundred
and two customers have enrolled in paperless billing from
October 15 to 20, 2018. Although, there is not a direct
correlation, staff believes the increase in enrollment is
related to the messaging. Staff stated that as other
important topics arise, staff will assess them, develop
messaging, and distribute to customers using the appropriate
communications channels.
In response to an inquiry from the Committee, staff indicated
that the District receives, on average, about six water waste
reports a month. When such reports are received, customer
service will forward a letter to the customer (first offense,
second offense, and third offense) and if it is more serious,
a Water Operator will be sent to investigate.
Staff responded to another inquiry from the Committee stating
that the website structure generally does not change. Staff
indicated that updates/changes to the five to seven scrolling
pictures and articles on the website homepage occurs
approximately once every two to three weeks to keep the
website appealing to the public. As District-related news
arises, staff will update the scrolling pictures and articles
at the time the news is occurring.
The Committee discussed the differences between a mobile-
responsive site and a mobile-friendly website. A mobile-
responsive site is one that accommodates the individual mobile
devices (all Apple, Android, and other models and tablets) and
sizes the image properly for the device so all information is
displayed. Mobile-friendly means that whatever your device
is, it will work, but it will not accommodate (that is, the
viewer may not necessarily see all the pictures, etc., and may
just see a menu to select from, but the website will still
function on their device).
Staff stated that it uses mainstream web tools from WordPress
and Google and that according to these tools, the District’s
website is a hybrid of a mobile-friendly and responsive site.
Staff stated that the District must balance cost with the
level of responsiveness needed for its messaging.
The Committee observed that a video released in October 2018
had only 15 views as of the date of the committee meeting.
Staff mentioned that the video had not been promoted yet,
because changes to the video were still being considered.
Staff has since promoted the video. The Committee suggested
that the District promote the District’s videos by providing
links on the District’s social media channels, adding better
descriptions and key words for the videos so the videos can be
found easier.
To make Directors aware of new videos, staff will email
Directors a link when a new video is posted.
The Committee also suggested possible videos that staff could
develop, which included a synopsis of construction projects
occurring over the past year, PICA inspection of pipelines to
identify deteriorated sections, drone aerial shots of
construction projects, and educational videos of the
District’s treatment plant, how the District delivers Mexico’s
water to Mexico, and how sewer leaks are identified using
video inspections.
It was noted that the District’s budget includes the
development of three to four new videos a year.
There was also discussion on working jointly with sister
agencies to develop videos that can be used by all agencies,
such as, how to check pressure regulators, etc.
Upon completion of the discussion, the committee recommended
presentation of this item to the full board as an informational
item.
Newsletter Topics 2019
Winter
•Feature Article: Prepping for the New Year by checking for leaks – how and where (mention
Fix-a-Leak Week March 18-24)
•Inside Articles:
o Capital Improvement Program (current construction projects) OR Legislative
Roundup (legislation affecting the District and its customers from 2018 session)
o Instagram Launch
o Rain barrel rebate
o WaterSmart Landscape Contest (depends on if new website is launched)
o Upcoming Water Conservation Garden events
o Nan Sterman’s column – Why it is important to plant trees. This is a climate change
piece – make it a New Year’s resolution to plant a tree or two.
Spring
•Feature Article: Water Tax Update (story depends on status of water tax)
•Inside Articles:
o The Garden’s 20 year anniversary
o Leak Detection Program update
o Make Every Drop Count mobile app
o Water Agency Customer Appreciation Day at the Garden
o WaterSmart Landscape Contest
o Upcoming Water Conservation Garden events
o Nan Sterman’s column - What makes a plant drought tolerant and California
Friendly?
Summer
•Feature Article: History of Otay and how we are dedicated to community service
•Inside Articles:
o WaterSmart Landscape Contest winner
o Consumer Confidence Report
o Smart Irrigation Month Tips (July)
o Conservation rebates
o Online Bill Pay
o Upcoming Water Conservation Garden events
o Nan Sterman’s column – Update on Citrus Greening disease and other threats to
trees
Fall
•Feature Article: Tips for saving water during the holidays
•Inside Articles:
o FOG – what it is and how to dispose of it (promote FOG videos)
o Check your water pressure
o Report Water Waste
o Firescaping
o Upcoming Water Conservation Garden events
o Nan Sterman’s column - How to plant your holiday poinsettia
Attachment B
12
Otay Water District
Call Center Customer
Satisfaction Survey Report
Rea & Parker Research
July, 2012
Attachment C
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey i
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ii
Introduction and Methodology 1
Sample 2
Survey Findings 4
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics 4
Satisfaction with Customer Service 7
Satisfaction with Field Service 14
Purpose of Customer Calls 21
Issues Regarding Bill Payment Process 27
New Bill Design 28
Method of Bill Payment 30
Confidence in Accuracy of Bill/Meter 36
Communication with Otay Water District 39
New Telephone System 39
Interactive Voice Response 41
Website 44
Conclusions 46
Appendix 47
Survey Instrument 48
Frequencies 62
Open-Ended Responses 101
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey ii
Otay Water District Call Center
Customer Service Satisfaction Survey
Executive Summary
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer satisfaction telephone survey
among those who have called for customer service during the past 6 months. The purpose of the survey is
threefold – first, and foremost, to improve customer service, second, to provide information about the
volume and purpose of customer calls, to determine the level of satisfaction regarding customer and field
service, the bill payment process, and the communication efforts of the District (including the new
telephone system, the website and the Interactive Voice Response Feature); and third, to compare the results
of this 2012 Call Center Customer Service Survey with the results of previous Call Center Customer Service
Satisfaction Surveys and the more general 2012 Residential Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey
where the data are comparable.
Specifically, the primary areas of interest are:
Volume and purpose of customer calls
Basic demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
Overall customer satisfaction
Satisfaction with services of telephone and field representatives
Satisfaction with the resolution of problems and issues
Satisfaction with the bill payment process
Satisfaction with communication efforts
Rea & Parker Research was selected to conduct this study, as it was for the 2005, 2006 and 2008 Call Center
Customer Services Satisfaction Surveys. The purpose of the research is to:
Obtain scientifically reliable and sufficiently robust results to determine the level of satisfaction
among those who seek customer service for important service delivery features.
Determine customer service call patterns with regard to the purpose and volume of calls.
Determine level of satisfaction with various issues, including:
Telephone and field representatives
Problem resolution
District communication efforts including the official website, Interactive Voice Response
Feature, and the new telephone system
Bill payment process
Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and crosstabulations of data that can result in new, optimally targeted and tailored public outreach programs.
Compare the results of this survey with the results of the 2005, 2006 and 2008 Call Center Surveys and the 2012 General Customer Survey, where applicable.
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey iii
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 303 respondents, which equates to a margin
of error of +/- 5.4 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.
In the current survey, respondents are predominantly White (43 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (41 percent)
and earn an annual median household income of $73,100 (29 percent earning $100,000 or more and 8
percent earning under $25,000). They have a median age of 47 years and have been customers of the Otay
Water District for a median of 8 years. Among these respondents, 51 percent possess a Bachelor’s degree
or more, with 19 percent having a high school education or less. Survey respondents are predominantly
homeowners (72 percent) with a mean household size of 3.72.
Survey Findings
This survey report has been divided into six informational components as follows:
Demographic statistics/Respondent characteristics
Overall satisfaction with customer service
Satisfaction with field service
Purpose of customer calls
Issues regarding the bill payment process
Communication with the Otay Water District
Overall Satisfaction with Customer Service
According to the 2012 General Survey of all customers of the Otay Water District, a survey
conducted immediately prior to the 2012 Call Center Survey, it is reported that 9 percent of
customers have contacted customer services during the 6 months that immediately preceded the
survey. This is consistent with the results of the 2008 Call Center Survey where 10 percent called
Customer Service 6 months prior to the Survey, but less than the percentage of callers indicated in
the 2009 and 2011 General surveys—17 percent each.
Customer service callers rate the overall quality of customer service as very high –83 percent rate
it as excellent (56 percent) or good (26 percent). This is consistent with the high rating provided
by customers in the 2008 Call Center Survey, where 82 percent of the callers rated their satisfaction
with customer satisfaction favorably. Based upon the 2012 General Survey, customers who made
calls to the Call Center were also highly satisfied with customer service (80 percent in the favorable
range).
Between 81 and 87 percent of customer service callers feel very satisfied or somewhat satisfied
regarding the 4 service features presented in the survey: knowledge and expertise of the service
representative, courtesy of the service representative, ability to reach service representative, and
satisfaction in getting their problem solved. Similarly high levels of satisfaction were found
regarding these features in the 2005, 2006, and 2008 Call Center Surveys.
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey iv
Callers make an average of 1.4 calls per issue to customer service (a decrease from the 1.6 calls per
issue reported in the 2008 Call Center Survey and 1.8 calls in 2006), with 77 percent of all callers
having their issue resolved in one call. Among the 23 percent who make more than one call, 14
percent of them had their problem ultimately resolved, leaving only 9 percent of callers with
unresolved issues. This represents an improvement over the findings of the 2008 survey where
about 21 percent of those who made one call had their problem ultimately resolved and 13 percent
of callers were left with unresolved issues
Customer service callers to the Otay Water District compare the District very favorably to other
authorities and utilities that bill monthly, with 41 percent of the customer callers saying that it is
the best among monthly service providers. This rating is consistent with the 2008 Call Center
Survey where 39 percent rated the District as the best.
Resolution of problems that customers of the Otay Water District call about impacts satisfaction
more than does the number of calls required to achieve resolution. Further, overall satisfaction
parallels the lowest rated of service characteristics, thereby making each of these features critically
important to overall satisfaction.
Satisfaction with Field Service
Only 13 percent of customer service callers required a field visit to their property – a 5 percent
decrease from the findings of the 2008 Call Center Survey. In fact, there has been a steady decline
in the percentage of callers who required a field visit since 2006.
Over three-fourths of callers (76 percent) rate their overall experience with the service of field
representatives as either excellent or good. This is consistent with the rating in the 2008 Call Center
Survey where 77 percent rated overall field service as favorable.
Approximately three-fourths of those who required a field visit are either very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with the amount of time needed for service at the property (71 percent), the
time required to come to the property (71 percent), and the outcome of the field service (78 percent).
Satisfaction with field service is also more a function of the ultimate resolution of the problem than
the number of calls required to achieve resolution.
Purpose of Customer Calls
The main purpose of customer calls relates to billing issues (72 percent) while approximately one-
quarter of the call are associated with starting or stopping service. The remaining 4 percent are
repair related. Using the 2008 Call Center Survey as a baseline, calls about the billing process are
increasing (from 51 percent in 2008 to 72 percent in 2012); calls about starting and stopping service
have decreased from 33 percent to 24 percent over the same period of time. The percentage of
customers who called about pipeline breaks in the current survey is considerably greater than what
was reported in the 2008 survey where 24 percent called about pipeline breaks. There has been a
decline, however, since 2008, among customer callers who are concerned about leaks and
connecting the water supply to their home.
Of those customers who call about repairs, 34 percent call about suspected leaks, 40 percent call
about pipeline breaks, and the other 13 percent are concerned about the supply of water to their
home, including how to shut off their valve.
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey v
Non-repair calls as well as additional calls beyond the most recent one made by customers are
largely for paying the water bill by phone, starting service, clarification of the bill, and customer
concerns that too much was charged for the water used.
Issues Regarding the Bill Payment Process
Over three fifths (63 percent) of customers are either very satisfied (40 percent) or somewhat
satisfied (23 percent) with the new design of the water bill. This is highly consistent with the level
of satisfaction found in the 2012 General Survey of Customers conducted immediately prior to this
Call Center Survey. In the General Survey, 61 percent of all customers in the District are either
very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the new bill design.
Nearly one-quarter of callers pay their bill by sending a check in the mail, 35 percent pay on-line,
17 percent pay their bill through automatic bank deductions, 16 percent pay by credit card over the
telephone, and 4 percent pay in person at the Otay Water District offices or payment center. It is
noteworthy that 22 percent would prefer to use postal mail (2 percent less than actually do so) and
37 percent would prefer to pay on line (2 percent more than actually do so).
This pattern is substantially different from the findings of the 2008 Call Center Survey. In 2008,
19 percent of customer callers reported that they pay their bill on-line (16 percent less than in the
current survey). Also, in 2008, 50 percent of the customer callers paid their bill by sending a check
in the mail (15 percent more than in 2012). There is clearly a strong trend toward the use of the
Internet to pay their water bill among the customers of the Otay Water District.
The greatest opposition to paying on-line is among older customers, and, as they decrease in
number, it can be expected that the preference for on-line will continue to grow.
Nearly one-half of customer callers are interested in receiving their monthly bill by e-mail, and
over three-fifths (64 percent) indicate that it is likely they will be paying their various bills through
a paperless option within the next 2 years. Among those who say they are unlikely to use paperless
bill paying options within the next two years, over one-quarter (27 percent) indicate they do not
use the Internet and 17 percent want a paper record of their transactions.
Customer service callers are satisfied with the accuracy of the water bill (77 percent are either very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and are confident in the accuracy of their meter reading.
Communication with the Otay Water District
Among callers, 86 percent are unaware of the new telephone system that was implemented by the
Otay Water District within the last several months. Among those who are aware, 5 percent feel the
new system is better and another 3 percent feel the previous system is better.
Those who are aware of the new telephone system rated 4 features of that system quite highly. On
a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very effective and 5 = not at all effective. Ratings were provided for
quality of voice (1.87), clarity of the instructions (2.01), overall effectiveness of message (2.10),
and menu of options (2.13).
Well over one-quarter (29 percent) of callers have used the interactive features of the voice response
system. Among these 29 percent, 87 percent found it to be useful. The trend is clear – since the
2006 and 2008 Call Center Surveys, there is an increase in the percentage of customers who use
the Interactive Response Feature and a greater percentage of those who use this feature find it
useful.
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey vi
Of those customers in the current survey who found the system to be useful, 46 percent were able
to resolve their problem by using this automated system alone. This represents a decline since the
2008 Call Center Survey where nearly three-fifths (58 percent) achieved resolution of their problem
using the automated system alone.
Nearly one-third (30 percent) of the customer callers have used the Otay Water District website to
obtain information in the past 6 months. There has been a steady increase in the use of the website
since 2006 – 20 percent in 2006 and 23 percent in 2008).
Nearly 9 in 10 of these users (88 percent) are either very satisfied (71 percent) or somewhat satisfied
(17 percent) with the service provided through the website. This represents an increase in the
satisfaction level since 2008 where 82 percent were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
Conclusions
It is clear that customers of the Otay Water District who have made customer service calls to the District
are largely satisfied with the customer service they have received. Customers are generally more satisfied
with the Call Center services than ever and are increasingly accepting of efforts to move toward more
automated and paperless communications. There is considerable support for the efforts made by the Otay
Water District to address customer issues in a timely fashion and to resolve problems to the customers’
satisfaction.
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 1
Introduction and Methodology
In 1956, the Otay Water District was authorized by the State Legislature and gained its entitlement to
imported water. Today, the District serves the needs of approximately 208,000 people within 125.5 squares
miles in southern San Diego County by purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California through the San Diego County Water Authority and Helix Water District. Sewer services are
also provided to portions of the customer base. Since its inception, the Otay Water District also has
collected and reclaimed wastewater generated within the Jamacha Drainage Basin and pumped the
reclaimed water south to the Salt Creek Basin where it is used for irrigation and other non-potable uses.
The District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and satisfaction telephone
survey among those who have called customer service during the past 6 months. The purpose of the survey
is threefold – first, and foremost, to improve customer service, second, to provide information about the
volume and purpose of customer calls, to determine the level of satisfaction regarding customer and field
service, the bill payment process, and the communication efforts of the District (including the website and
the Interactive Voice Response System); and third, to compare the results of this 2012 Call Center Customer
Service Survey with the results of the 2008, 2006, and 2005 Customer Services Satisfaction Surveys and
the more general 2012 Residential Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey where the data are
comparable.
Specifically, the primary areas of interest are:
Volume and purpose of customer calls
Basic demographic statistics/sampling characteristics
Overall customer satisfaction
Satisfaction with services of telephone and field representatives
Satisfaction with the resolution of issues
Satisfaction with the bill payment process
Satisfaction with communication efforts including the new telephone system, the websiteand the Interactive Voice Response System
Rea & Parker Research was selected to conduct this study, as it was for the 2005, 2006 and 2008 Call Center
Customer Services Satisfaction Surveys. The purpose of the research is to:
Obtain scientifically reliable and sufficiently robust results to determine the level ofsatisfaction among those who seek customer service for critical service delivery features
Determine customer service call patterns with regard to the purpose and volume of calls.
Determine level of satisfaction with various issues, including:
Telephone and field representatives
Problem resolution
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 2
District communication efforts
Bill payment process
Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and crosstabulations of data that can result in new, optimally targeted and tailored public outreach programs.
Compare the results of this survey, as relevant and appropriate, with the results of the 2008,
2006, and 2005 Call Center Customer Services Satisfaction Survey and the 2012 Residential Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey (General Survey), where comparable and applicable. Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 303 respondents and secured a margin of error
of +/-5.4 percent @ the 95 percent confidence level. This figure represents the widest interval that occurs
when the survey question represents an approximate 50 percent-50 percent proportion of the sample. When
it is not 50 percent-50 percent, the interval is somewhat smaller. For example, in the survey findings that
follow, 49.2 percent of respondents would be interested in receiving their bill by e-mail. This means that
there is a 95 percent chance that the true proportion of those who actually would be interested is between
43.8 percent and 54.6 percent (49.2 percent +/- 5.4 percent).
The survey sample of 303 was randomly drawn from 5,184 customers who have made at least one customer
service call to the Otay Water District in the past 6 months. When respondents asked about who was
sponsoring the survey, they were told “this project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and it is about
issues related to improving customer service.” This information was provided to 60 percent of the
respondents.
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish. Spanish language respondents comprised
approximately 6 percent of the survey population. The distribution of respondents according to gender was
40 percent male and 60 percent female. Regarding the type of water customer, 99 percent are residential
customers and 1 percent is business customers.
The survey was conducted from March 23, 2012 to April 6, 2012. Cooperation among those eligible
respondents who were actually contacted was 54.2 percent (Table 1).
This report is divided into six essential information components as follows:
Demographic statistics/respondent characteristics
Overall satisfaction with customer service
Satisfaction with field service
Purpose of customer calls
Issues regarding the bill payment process
Communication with the Otay Water District
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 3
Table 1 Otay Water District 2012 Call Center Survey Telephone Call Disposition Report
Unknown Eligibility
No Answer 1872 Busy 43
Answering Machine 940
Call Back 378
Language Barrier 38 Total Unknown 3271
Ineligible
NQ No Service Call 275 Disconnect 122
Fax/Wrong Number 130
Refusal 256
Total Ineligible 783
Eligible
Complete 303
Cooperation Rate: Complete/Complete + Refusal 54.2%
Percent in Spanish 2.3%
Each section of the report will begin with a very brief abstract, or summary of highlights within the ensuing
section, in order to orient the reader to what is to follow. Charts have been prepared for each of these major
components depicting the basic survey results. Subgroup analyses for different age groups, various levels
of education, gender, home ownership/rental status, household size, and residential tenure in the
community, different income categories, and ethnicity of residents of the service area are presented in
succinct bulleted format when statistical significance and relevance warrants such treatment. Lists of open-
ended responses to survey questions are contained in the Appendices.
Survey Findings
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 4
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
Table 2 presents selected demographic and sampling characteristics of the survey respondents (customers
who made calls to the customer services unit of the Otay Water District during the past 6 months). These
characteristics are compared for three distinct Call Center Surveys: the current 2012 Survey, the 2008
Survey, and the 2006 Survey.
Table 2 Respondent Characteristics Call Center Surveys
Characteristic 2012 2008 2006 Ethnicity White 43% 33% 49%
Hispanic/Latino 41% 44% 34%
Asian/Pacific Islander 8% 13% 9%
Black/African-American 6% 9% 7%
Middle Eastern/Native American/Other 2% 1% 1%
Annual Household Income
Median $73.100 $66,400 $72,600 % over $100,000 29% 22% 14% under $25,000 8% 5% 4%
Age
Median 47 years 43 years 44 years
Years Customer of Otay Water District
Median 8 years 5 years 8 years Education
High School or Less 19% 20% 22% At Least One Year College, Trade, Vocational School 30% 34% 24%
Bachelor’s Degree 39% 35% 35%
At Least One Year of Graduate Work 12% 11% 18%
Own/Rent Homeowner 72% 69% 80%
Renter 28% 31% 20%
Persons per Household
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 5
In the current survey, respondents are predominantly White (43 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (41 percent)
and earn an annual median household income of $73,100 (29 percent earning $100,000 or more and 8
percent earning under $25,000). They have a median age of 47 years and have been customers of the Otay
Water District for a median of 8 years. Among these respondents, 51 percent possess a Bachelor’s degree
or more, with 19 percent having a high school education or less. Survey respondents are predominantly
homeowners (72 percent) with a mean household size of 3.72.
The following comparisons among the current survey respondent characteristics and those in the 2008 and 2006 Call Center Surveys are relevant: The proportions of Whites and Latinos are quite
similar in the current survey; in 2006 and 2008, there is considerable divergence within the White and Latino population proportions.
The proportion of respondents who earn over $100,000 and under $25,000 has grown since 2006.
The customer callers are becoming older and their tenure within the District has increased since 2008.
The population proportions associated with a high school education or less and the proportion of the population with a bachelor’s degree have stabilized over the last three survey periods.
Homeownership and household size remain stable since 2008.
Table 3 presents and compares selected demographic and sampling characteristics of the survey
respondents for two distinct 2012 Otay Water District surveys: the 2012 Call Center Survey and the 2012
General Customer Service Survey. The Call Center Survey is based upon customers who called the Otay
Water District Customer Services Center within the last 6 months while the latter survey represents the
entire customer base of the Otay Water District.
Respondents of the Call Center survey are 12 percent less White than is the general survey population and
correspondingly more Hispanic/Latino (14 percent more). Call Center survey respondents have a lower
annual income level than the general survey respondents ($73,100 median for Call Center respondents--
$6,800 lower than for the general survey. Call Center survey respondents have been customers of the Otay
Water District for a shorter period of time than the general population (median of 8 years for Call Center
and 12 years for general). Renters play a significantly greater role in Call Center activity (28 percent) than
they are represented in the total population (9 percent), and they have a higher mean household size of 3.72
versus 3.12 in the General Survey.
Mean 3.72 3.77 3.65
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 6
Table 3 Respondent Characteristics 2012 Call Center and 2012 General Customer Surveys Characteristic 2012 Call Center 2012 General Customer
Ethnicity
White 43% 55% Hispanic/Latino 41% 26% Asian/Pacific Islander 8% 10% Black/African-American 6% 5%
Middle Eastern/Native American/Other 2% 4%
Annual Household Income
Median $73.100 $79,900
% over $100,000 29% 28% % under $25,000 8% 6% Age Median 47 years 53 years
Years Customer of Otay Water District
Median 8 years 12 years Education
High School or Less 19% 17% At Least One Year College, Trade, Vocational School 30% 32%
Bachelor’s Degree 39% 34% At Least One Year of Graduate Work 12% 17%
Own/Rent
Homeowner 72% 91% Renter 28% 9% Persons per Household
Mean 3.72 3.12
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 7
Satisfaction with Customer Service
SUMMARY: According to the 2012 General Survey of all customers of the Otay Water District,
a survey conducted just prior to the 2012 Call Center Survey, it is reported that 9 percent of
customers have contacted customer services during the 6 months that immediately preceded the
survey. This is consistent with the results of the 2008 Call Center Survey where 10 percent
called Customer Service 6 months prior to the Survey but less than the percentage of callers in
the 2009 and 2011 General Surveys (17 percent each).
Customer service callers rate the overall quality of customer service as very high –83 percent
rate it as excellent (56 percent) or good (26 percent). This is consistent with the high rating
provided by customers in the 2008 Call Center Survey, where 82 percent of the callers rated
their satisfaction with customer services favorably. Based upon the 2012 General Survey,
customers who made calls to the Call Center were also highly satisfied with customer service
(80 percent in that same favorable range).
Between 81 and 87 percent of customer service callers feel very satisfied or somewhat satisfied
regarding the 4 service features presented in the survey: knowledge and expertise of the service
representative, courtesy of the service representative, ability to reach service representative, and
satisfaction in getting their problem solved. Similarly high levels of satisfaction were found
regarding these features in the 2005, 2006, and 2008 Call Center Surveys.
Callers make an average of 1.4 calls per issue to customer service (a decrease from the 1.6 calls
per issue reported in the 2008 Call Center Survey and 1.8 calls in 2006), with 77 percent of all
callers having their issue resolved in one call. Among the 23 percent who make more than one
call, 14 percent of them had their problem ultimately resolved, leaving 9 percent of callers with
unresolved issues. This represents an improvement over the findings of the 2008 survey where
about 21 percent of those who made one call had their problem ultimately resolved and 13
percent of callers were left with unresolved issues. Resolution of problems that customers of
the Otay Water District call about impacts satisfaction more than does the number of calls
required to achieve resolution. Further, overall satisfaction parallels the lowest rated of service
characteristics, thereby making each of these features critically important to overall satisfaction
Customer service callers to the Otay Water District compare the District very favorably to other
authorities and utilities that bill monthly, with 41 percent of the customer callers saying that the
District is the best among monthly service providers. This rating is consistent with the 2008 Call
Center Survey where 39 percent rated the District as the best.
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 8
Chart 1 shows that 9 percent of all customers in the Otay Water District called the Customer Service Call
Center in the past 6 months. This information is derived from the 2012 General Survey and is consistent
with the results in 2008 where 10 percent called customer service, but less than the General Surveys of
2009 and 2011 (years when no Call Center Survey was conducted—17 percent each). In these most recent
two survey periods where both surveys were conducted (2008 and 2012), the percentage of customers who
called customer service is about one-half the percentage of those who called in 2006 and 2005 –18 percent
and 19 percent respectively.
Chart 2 indicates that 83 percent of the customer service respondents rate the overall quality of customer
service as excellent (51 percent) or good (32 percent). These ratings are consistent with the high levels of
satisfaction expressed in the 2008 Call Center Survey, where 82 percent of the callers rated their satisfaction
with customer service favorably, and 2006 Call Center Survey (84 percent). Those who made such calls
among General Survey respondents were also highly satisfied with customer service with 80 percent in the
positive range (39 percent excellent, 23 percent very good, and 28 percent good). On a scale of 1-4, where
1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied, the mean rating is 1.73, which is slightly less favorable than,
but not statistically different from, the mean of 1.65 reported in the 2008 Survey.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012 2008 2006 2005
Yes, 9%
Yes, 10%
Yes,18%Yes, 19%
No, 91%No, 90%No, 82%No, 81%
Chart 1 Percent of District Customers Who Called Customer Service in Past 6 Months
Note: 2005 pertains to preceding 12 monthsSource: 2005, 2006, 2008, 2012 General Customer Surveys
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 9
Charts 3 through 6 show that there is a high level of satisfaction regarding four particular customer service
features. Specifically, at least 85 percent of those who made customer calls feel either very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with the following three features: courtesy of service representative (87 percent) (Chart
3), ability to reach representative (85 percent) (Chart 4), and the knowledge and expertise of service
representative (85 percent) (Chart 5). Customer callers also indicate a high level of satisfaction with the
issue of getting their problem resolved – 81 percent either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied (Chart 6).
Similarly high satisfaction ratings were expressed regarding these features in the 2005, 2006, and 2008 Call
Center Surveys.
The following subgroups are particularly satisfied with their ability to reach a service representative (scale
of 1 to 4, where 1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied).
Younger customers (18 – 34 – mean of 1.34) versus older customers (65 and over – mean of 1.81).
Larger households of 4 or more persons (mean of 1.39) versus smaller households of 1 to 3 persons (mean of 1.72).
Customers with higher income levels ($50,000 or more – mean of 1.42) versus customers with lower income levels (under $25,000 -- mean of 2.11).
More recent customers (2 years or less – mean of 1.36) versus longer term customers (6-10 years – mean of 1.78).
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2005
2006
2008
2012
41%
51%
56%
51%
47%
33%
26%
32%
8%
9%
9%
10%
2%
7%
6%
7%
2%
3%
Chart 2 Overall Satisfaction with Call Center
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
2012 General Survey: 39% Excellent and 23% Very Good and 18% Good
= 80% Good or Better
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
69%
18%
4%6%3%
70%
15%
3%7%5%
66%
19%
3%6%5%
61%
36%
2%1%
Chart 3
Satisfaction with Courtesy of Service Representative
2012 2008 2006 2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
64%
21%
5%8%
2%
67%
19%
3%6%5%
64%
21%
5%8%
2%
62%
27%
6%3%2%
Chart 4
Satisfaction with Ability to Reach Service Representative
2012 2008 2006 2005
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 11
The following subgroups are particularly satisfied with the knowledge and expertise of their service
representative (scale: 1 to 4, where 1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied).
Customers with higher income levels ($100,000 or more – mean of 1.30) versus customers with
lower income levels (under $25,000 – mean of 1.83).
Younger customers (18 – 34 years of age – mean of 1.40) versus older customers (65 and over –
men of 1.81).
Short term residents (2 years or less – mean of 1.32) versus longer term residents (6-15 years—mean of 1.70).
The following subgroups are particularly satisfied with getting their problem resolved through a Call Center
representative (scale 1 to 4, where 1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied):
Larger households of 4 or 5 persons (mean of 1.49) versus smaller households of 1 or 2 persons (mean of 1.91).
Customers with incomes of $25,000 or more (mean of 1.48) as opposed to customers with incomes of under $25,000 (mean of 3.17).
Customers with a bachelor’s degree or less (mean of 1.53) versus customers with at least one year of graduate work (mean of 2.10).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
65%
20%
4%7%4%
62%
20%
4%7%7%
58%
22%
6%
11%
3%
Chart 5
Satisfaction with Knowledge and Expertise of Service Representative
2012 2008 2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 12
Customers 64 years of age and younger (mean of 1.54) as opposed to customer who are 65 years of age and older (mean of 2.07).
Chart 7 indicates that customer callers make an average of 1.4 calls per issue to customer service. This
represents a steady decline in the mean number of calls reported in the 2006 and 2008 Call Center Surveys,
where callers indicated they made 1.8 and 1.6 calls per issue, respectively. Over three-fourths (77 percent)
of customer callers had their issue resolved in one call – an improvement over the results of the 2008 and
2006 Call Center Surveys where 72 percent and 71 percent respectively achieved resolution in one call.
Among the 23 percent who make more than one call, 14 percent of them had their problem ultimately
resolved, leaving only 9 percent of callers with unresolved issues. These findings represent an improvement
over the findings from the 2006 Call Center Survey where about 21 percent of those who made more than
one call had their problem ultimately resolved and 7 percent of callers were left with unresolved issues.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
65%
16%
6%
11%
2%
62%
18%
5%
9%6%
55%
20%
6%
13%
6%
58%
27%
6%6%
3%
Chart 6
Satisfaction with Problem Resolution
2012 2008 2006 2005
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 13
Table 4 shows that customer callers whose question/problem was resolved after one call or after two or
more calls are more likely to be satisfied with the customer service features than are customer callers whose
question/problem was not resolved. Most interesting within this finding is that it is resolution of the
problem that ultimately impacts satisfaction more than number of calls. The decline in satisfaction between
one call to resolution and two or more calls to resolution is considerably less than the drop-off when
resolution is not achieved. Also interesting is how much the overall satisfaction is impacted by and parallels
the lowest rated of the characteristics. (The means reported in Table 4 are based on a scale of 1-4, where
1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied). It is noteworthy that these findings are consistent with the
results of the 2008 Call Center Survey.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
One Call More Than One Call--Satisfaction Achieved More Than One Call--Satisfaction NotAchieved
77%
14%9%
72%
21%
7%
71%
16%13%
Chart 7 Number of Calls Required to Resolve Issue(Mean number of calls: 2012 = 1.4 2008 = 1.6 2006 = 1.8)
2012 2008 2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 14
Customer service callers also gave high ratings to the Otay Water District in comparison to other utilities
(e.g. cable service, electricity) that bill monthly. Chart 8 shows that over two-fifths (41 percent) of the
customer callers rate the customer services of the Otay Water District as the best. This rating is quite
consistent with the rating in the 2008 Call Center Survey (39 percent). However, both the 2008 and 2012
ratings are considerably higher than the 2006 rating, where 28 percent rated the Otay Water District as the
best. In the current survey, another 26 percent think highly of the District’s customer services relative to
the service provided by similar companies. The customers rate the Otay Water District well above average
with a mean of 2.01 on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = the best and 5 = the worst. These ratings represent an
improvement over the ratings in the 2006 and 2008 Call Center Surveys, where the overall mean rating was
2.35 and 2.05 respectively.
Satisfaction with Field Service
SUMMARY: Only 13 percent of customer service callers required a field visit to their property
– a 5 percent decrease from the findings of the 2008 Call Center Survey. This 13 percent equates
to only 41 field service visits reported by the survey participants. There has not only been a
decline in this number since 2008 but also from 2006. Over three-fourths of these callers who
required field service (76 percent) rate their overall experience with the service of field
representatives as either excellent or good. This is consistent with the rating in the 2008 Call
Table 4 Satisfaction with Service Characteristics Based upon Number of Calls and Resolution of Problem (1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied)
Service Characteristic
Problem resolved after one call
Problem resolved after 2 or more calls
Problem not resolved
Ability reach representative 1.38 1.73 2.62
Courtesy service representative 1.32 1.56 2.52
Knowledge of service representative
1.35 1.51 2.90
Getting problem resolved 1.43 1.57 3.34
Overall quality of service 1.53 1.84 3.14
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 15
Center Survey where 77 percent rated overall field service as favorable Approximately three-
fourths of callers who required a field visit are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with
the amount of time needed for service at the property (71 percent), the time required to come to
the property (71 percent), and the outcome of the field service (78 percent). Once again, lack of
resolution of the problem impacts satisfaction significantly more than does the number of calls
required to achieve resolution.
Only 13 percent of customer service callers (41 respondents) required a field visit to their property – a 5
percent decrease from the findings of the 2008 Call Center Survey (Chart 9). In fact, there has been a
steady decline in the percentage of callers who require a field visit since 2006, when over one-fourth (26
percent) required a field visit. In 2012, there were more field visits pertaining to service connection and
fewer for repairing leaks.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Best AmongMonthlyServices
HighlyRegardedAmongMonthlyServices
AverageAmongMonthlyServices
Below AverageAmongMonthlyServices
Worst AmongMonthlyServices
41%
26%
23%
6%
3%
39%
31%
20%
6%4%
28%
32%
22%
13%
5%
Chart 8 Comparative Ranking of Otay Water District Call Center Service
Against Other Monthly Services
2012 2008 2006
Scale 1-5: 1 = Best 5 = Worst2012 mean = 2.012008 Mean = 2.052006 Mean = 2.35
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 16
Among those 41 respondents who required a field visit, customers said that the field representative mostly
connected the service or turned on the water (44 percent) – a considerably higher percentage for this type
of service call than in either the 2006 Survey (25 percent) or the 2008 Survey (31 percent) (Chart 10).
Another 15 percent of callers called a field representative to fix a problem such as a leak or to inspect the
system. This percentage is much lower than the associated findings in 2006 and 2008 Surveys, where 30
percent and 36 percent respectively called a field representative for this purpose. In the 2012 Call Center
Survey, another 15 percent of those who called a field representative did so to have their meter checked –
a percentage that is consistent with the 2008 Call Center finding (11 percent) but much lower than the 2006
result (25 percent).
Chart 11 demonstrates that over three fourths (76 percent) of the 41 callers who required field service rate
their overall experience with the service of field representatives as either excellent (54 percent) or good (22
percent). This favorability rating is largely consistent with the results of the 2008 survey in that 77 percent
rated their overall satisfaction as either excellent or good.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2006
2008
2012
Yes , 26%
Yes , 18%
Yes , 13%
No, 72%
No, 77%
No, 85%
Unsure, 2%
Unsure, 5%
Unsure, 2%
Chart 9 Field Visit Required?
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 17
There are two considerations in Chart 11 that merit some mention. First, there is a decrease of 10 percent
since 2008 in the percentage who rated their field service experience as excellent and there is an increase
since 2008 in the percentage who rated this experience as poor -- from 6 percent in 2008 to 22 percent in
2012. Again, however, it must be noted that there are only 9 respondents who constitute this 22 percent (9
out of 41) and caution is urged before using so small a sample to draw reliable conclusions. On a scale of
1-4, where 1 = excellent and 4 = poor, the mean satisfaction rating in the current 2012 Survey is 1.93. This
represents a decline from the rating in the 2008 Call Center Survey where the mean satisfaction rating was
1.59. The current mean reverts to the satisfaction level of 2006 – mean of 2.14.
Customers with higher income levels are more likely to be generally satisfied with their field service experience than are customers with lower income levels ($100,000 - $150,000 – mean of 1.00); ($25,000 - $50,000 – mean of 2.33) (scale: 1 to 4, where 1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = somewhat dissatisfied, and 4 = very dissatisfied).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%44%
15%15%
2%2%
8%7%7%
31%
36%
11%
10%
2%
4%6%
25%
30%
25%
2%
6%5%7%
Chart 10Service Performed by Field Rep(among 13% that required field service --n = 41)
2012
2008
2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 18
Charts 12 to 14 show the level of satisfaction with specific features of field service experienced by this
limited number of customer callers that required field service. Chart 12 indicates that more than 7 in 10
callers (71 percent) feel either very satisfied (59 percent) or somewhat satisfied (12 percent) with the time
required to come to the property. This is consistent with the level of satisfaction found in the 2008 Call
Center Survey regarding this issue. Chart 13 shows that 71 percent of customer callers are also either very
satisfied (59 percent) or somewhat satisfied (12 percent) with regard to the amount of time needed for
service. This represents a decline in satisfaction since 2008, where over four-fifths (81 percent) of callers
expressed satisfaction on this issue. According to Chart 14, nearly four-fifths (78 percent) of customer
callers are either very satisfied (63 percent) or somewhat satisfied (15 percent) with the outcome of their
field service experience. This current result is slightly lower than the satisfaction level reported in the 2008
Call Center Survey (83 percent). The satisfaction ratings in both the 2012 and 2008 Call Center Surveys
regarding these specific features of field service are higher than the satisfaction ratings reported in the 2006
Call Center Surveys.
Customers with higher income levels are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome of their field service than are customers with lower income levels ($100,000 - $150,000 – mean of 1.00);
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2006
2008
2012
28%
64%
54%
34%
13%
22%
15%
13%
2%
13%
6%
22%
10%
4%
Chart 11Overall Satisfaction with Field Service(among 13% that required field service--n = 41)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 19
($25,000 - $50,000 – mean of 2.11) (scale: 1 to 4, where 1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied,
3 = somewhat dissatisfied, and 4 = very dissatisfied).
Customers with higher income levels are more likely to be satisfied with the amount of time the field service representative is needed at their property than are lower income levels ($100,000 to $150,000 – mean of 1.00); ($25,000 - $50,000 – mean of 2.13).
Charts 11-14, as has been discussed, do show higher degrees of dissatisfaction with field service than in
the past, and, although the small sub-sample does reduce significantly the extent to which this information
should be relied upon in policy decisions, it is worthwhile to further examine these respondents and their
responses. What is important to note is that these 9 respondents will be blended into the much larger
sample of 303 total respondents for questions that all respondents answer, but that they will be very evident
in small sub-samples such as the 41 persons who required field service. It is interesting, therefore, that
these 9 respondents do seem to be indiscriminant in their protestations. That is, they are dissatisfied with
everything in the survey and may be registering an ill-will against the District that is more general rather
than directed specifically at field services. For example,
6 of the nine rate overall call center service as poor and the other 3 as fair;
8 out of 9 are very dissatisfied with their field service outcome—the other somewhat dissatisfied;
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
59%
12%
7%
20%
2%
64%
8%
15%
6%7%
46%
19%
11%13%11%
Chart 12
Satisfaction with Time Required for Field Service to Come to Property
(among 13% that required field service --n = 41)
2012 2008 2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 20
7 out of 8 are very dissatisfied with the time that it took for a representative to come to their
property—the other somewhat dissatisfied;
4 out of 7 were very dissatisfied with the time that the representative spent at their property and
one other was somewhat dissatisfied;
7 out of 9 were very dissatisfied with the accuracy of their bill
4 out of 9 were not at all confident in the accuracy of their meter and 3 others were “not too
confident”;
5 of the 9 rated the Otay Water District as the worst of their monthly services, including gas and
electric, cable television, telephone, garbage collection, and so forth;
and not a single one of these 9 had noticed that the telephone system had changed.
It appears as if these responses, for whatever reason, are an attempt to deliver a broadside complaint without
any real discrimination among the questions.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
59%
12%
5%
12%12%
60%
21%
4%6%9%
34%
23%
9%11%
23%
Chart 13
Satisfaction with Time that Field Service Needed at Property
(among 13% that required field service --n =41)
2012 2008 2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 21
Table 5 demonstrates that customer callers who make one call to customer service before resolution are
more likely to be
satisfied with the
various features of
their field service
experience than are
callers who made 2
or more calls before
resolution, and that
callers who did not
get their problem
resolved are quite
dissatisfied. Once
again, resolution looms larger than number of calls. The means reported are based on a scale of 1-4, where
1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied. In 2008, a parallel result was found.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
63%
15%
2%
20%
70%
13%
6%9%
2%
36%
27%
11%15%11%
Chart 14
Satisfaction with Field Service Outcome
(among 13% that required field service --n = 41)
2012 2008 2006
Table 5 Satisfaction with Field Service Characteristics Based upon Number of Calls and Resolution of Problem (1 = very satisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied) Service Characteristic
Problem resolved after one call
Problem resolved after 2 or more calls
Problem not resolved
Field Service Outcome 1.16 1.54 3.44
Time Required to Come to Property 1.32 1.62 3.28
Time Spent at Property 1.42 1.67 4.00
Overall quality of service 1.37 1.62 3.56
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 22
Purpose of Customer Calls
SUMMARY: The main purpose of customer calls relates to billing issues (72 percent) while
approximately one-quarter of the callers are associated with starting or stopping service. The
remaining 4 percent are repair related. Using the 2008 Call Center Survey as a baseline, calls
about the billing process are increasing (from 51 percent in 2008 to 72 percent in 2012); calls
about starting and stopping service have decreased from 33 percent to 24 percent over the same
period of time, as might be expected in a period of slow home sales. The percentage of customers
who called about pipeline breaks in the current survey (54 percent) is considerably greater than
what was reported in the 2008 survey where 24 percent called about pipeline breaks. There has
been a decline, however, since 2008, among customer callers who are concerned about leaks
and water supply problems to their homes.
Of those customers who call about repairs, 34 percent call about suspected leaks, 40 percent call
about pipeline breaks, and 13 percent are concerned about the supply of water to their home,
including how to shut off their valve.
Non-repair calls as well as additional calls beyond the most recent one made by customers are
largely for paying the water bill by phone, starting service, clarification of the bill, and customer
concern that too much was charged for the water used.
Chart 15 shows that the main purpose of the most recent call relates to billing issues (72 percent); nearly
one-fourth (24 percent) are associated with starting or stopping service, and the remaining 4 percent are
repair related. Chart 15 also provides comparative information from previous survey periods. Since the
2008 survey, calls related to billing issues have increased by 21 percent (from 51 percent in 2008 to 72
percent in 2012). Conversely, calls related to the starting and stopping of service as well as repair related
calls have declined since 2008. The call patterns exhibited in the current survey are more closely associated
with the call patterns in the 2005 and 2006 Call Center Surveys.
With regard to billing issues as the main purpose of the last call made to the Otay Water District, the
following relationships are significant:
Females (77 percent) call about billing issues more so than do males (64 percent).
Customers whose income level is under $100,000 call about billing issues more so than do those whose income level is $100,000 and over.
Longer term residents of the Otay Water District are more likely to call about billing issues than are the most recent residents (3 or more years – 82 percent versus 2 years or less – 56 percent).
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 23
Chart 16 shows that among those customers who call about repairs, 40 percent call about pipeline breaks,
34 percent call about leaks, and another 13 percent are concerned about the supply of water to their home,
including how to shut off their valve. The percentage of customers who called about pipeline breaks in the
current survey is considerably greater than what was reported in the 2008 survey where 24 percent called
about pipeline breaks. There has been a decline, however, since 2008, among customer callers who are
concerned about leaks and connecting the water supply to their home.
Chart 17 indicates that, among those customers who made repair calls to the Otay Water District and those
who made non-repair calls, more than one-half (53 percent) made an additional non-repair related call. This
percentage has more than doubled since the 2006 and 2008 Call Center Surveys – 26 percent in 2006 and
23 percent in 2008.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2005200620082012
20%23%
33%
24%20%
11%16%
4%
60%
66%
51%
72%
Chart 15Main Purpose of Call
Start Service/Other Repair Billing
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 24
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Pipeline Break
Leak
Supply to Home
Another Problem/Do Not Know
54%
46%
39%
35%
13%
13%
24%
43%
19%
14%
40%
34%
13%
13%
Chart 16
Nature of Repair Call
2005 2006 2008 2012
2005 only included two categories--pipeline break (including leak) and supply to home
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2006
2008
2012
Yes, 26%
Yes, 23%
Yes, 53%
No, 74%
No, 77%
No, 47%
Chart 17
Make Non-Repair Call?(among 4% who made repair calls)
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 25
Chart 18 shows that the purposes for these additional non-repair calls included interest in paying the water
bill by phone (22 percent), starting service (19 percent), clarification of the bill (16 percent), and customer
concern that too much was charged for the water used (13 percent). In 2012, there is an increase over the
2008 percentage regarding callers who indicated that the purpose of their non-repair call was to pay their
bill by telephone (22 percent in 2012 versus 13 percent in 2008). Conversely, there is a 7 percent decline
since 2008 in calls made to clarify the bill (16 percent in 2012 versus 23 percent in 2008).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
22%
19%
16%
13%
9%
7%6%
2%2%2%1%
11%
18%
23%
6%
2%
9%8%
6%5%
3%
7%
13%12%
30%
16%
7%6%
3%2%
4%4%
Chart 18 Purpose of Non-Repair Call
(Among 93% of Callers Who Made Both Repair Calls and Non-Repair Calls or Only Non-Repair Calls)
2012
2008
2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 26
Chart 19 demonstrates that 16 percent of customer callers made yet another call (at least three calls if one
was a repair call or two calls if non-repair) in the past 6 months. This call rate confirms a slight but steady
decline in call rates for such additional calls made to the Call Center (from 24 percent in 2006 to 16 percent
in 2012). Nearly one-third (32 percent) of these callers wish to make payments or to make payment
arrangements. The relatively high percentage for this specific purpose (make payments) is unique to the
current survey period – no one indicated this purpose in 2008 and only 6 percent responded as such in 2006.
One-fourth (25 percent) of these callers wanted to clarify their bill and this is consistent with the 2008 Call
Center Survey (26 percent). It is interesting that bill clarification in 2008 and 2012 represented less than
one- half the call rate for this purpose reported in 2006 (56 percent). Others in the current survey made
these additional calls to voice their concern over being charged too much and expressing the desire to start
water service (11 percent each) (Chart 20).
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2006
2008
2012
Yes, 24%
Yes, 21%
Yes, 16%
No, 76%
No, 79%
No, 84%
Chart 19 Additional Calls Made to Customer Service?(among 93% who made repair and non-repair calls or only repair calls)
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 27
Issues Regarding the Bill Payment Process
SUMMARY: Over three fifths (63 percent) of customers are either very satisfied (40 percent)
or somewhat satisfied (23 percent) with the new design of the water bill. This is highly consistent
with the level of satisfaction found in the 2012 General Survey of Customers conducted just
prior to this Call Center Survey. In the General Survey, 61 percent of all customers in the
District are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the new bill design.
Nearly one-quarter of callers (24 percent) pay their bill by sending a check in the mail, 35
percent pay on-line, 17 percent pay their bill through automatic bank deductions, 16 percent
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
32%
25%
11%11%
7%5%5%2%2%
26%
17%
12%10%7%
12%
2%5%2%
7%6%
56%
15%
5%3%6%3%6%
Chart 20
Purpose of Additional Calls
(15% made additional calls)
2012
2008
2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 28
pay by credit card over the telephone, and 4 percent pay in person at a the Otay Water District
offices or payment center. It is noteworthy that 22 percent would prefer to use postal mail (2
percent less than actually do so) and 37 percent would prefer to pay on line (2 percent more
than actually do so). This pattern is substantially different from the findings of the 2008 Call
Center Survey. For example, in 2008, 19 percent of customer callers reported that they pay their
bill on-line (16 percent less than in the current survey). Also, in 2008, 50 percent of the customer
callers paid their bill by sending a check in the mail (15 percent more than in 2012). There is
clearly a strong trend toward the use of the Internet to pay their water bill among the customers
of the Otay Water District, especially as the older customers, who represent the strongest
opposition, become fewer in number. Among those who do not pay on-line and provided a
reason for not doing so, there is strong sentiment that there is nothing the District can do to
make on-line billing more appealing to them.
Approximately one-half of customer callers are interested in receiving their monthly bill by e-
mail. However, over three-fifths (64 percent) acknowledge that it is likely they will be paying
their various bills through a paperless option within the next 2 years. Among those who say
they are unlikely to be using paperless bill paying options within the next two years, over one-
quarter (27 percent) indicate they do not use the Internet and 17 percent want a paper record of
their transactions.
Customer service callers are satisfied with the following billing features: the accuracy of the
water bill (77 percent are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied), and three-fourths of
customer service callers are confident in the accuracy of their meter reading.
New Bill Design: Chart 21 shows that over three-fifths (63 percent) of customers are either very satisfied
(40 percent) or somewhat satisfied (23 percent) with the new design of the water bill. This is highly
consistent with the level of satisfaction found in the 2012 General Survey of customers conducted just prior
to this Call Center Survey. In the General Survey, 61 percent of all customers in the District are either very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the new bill design. Among those who are aware of the new bill design,
over one-third (34 percent) indicate that the previous bill design is easier to understand than the new design.
Another 35 percent do not think the previous design is more understandable, and 31 percent are uncertain
(Chart 22).
Customers who earn $25,000 or more (mean of 2.76) are more likely to be satisfied with the ease of understanding the new water bill than are customers who earn under $25,000 (mean of 4.21) (scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = somewhat dissatisfied, and 5 = very dissatisfied).
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 29
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%40%
23%
5%
2%2%
23%
5%
39%
22%
9%
2%2%
22%
4%
Chart 21
Satisfaction with New Bill Design
Call Center Respondents General Survey Respondents
Yes, 34%
No, 35%
Unsure, 31%
Chart 22
Is Previous Bill Easier to Understand?
(among 72 percent who are aware of new bill)
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 30
Method of Bill Payment: Chart 23 shows that 24 percent of the customer service callers pay their bill by
sending a check in the mail, 35 percent pay on-line, 17 percent pay their bill through automatic bank
deductions, 16 percent pay by credit card over the telephone, and 4 percent pay in person at the Otay Water
District offices or a payment center. It is noteworthy that 22 percent would prefer to use postal mail (2
percent less than actually do so) and 37 percent would prefer to pay on line (2 percent more than actually
do so). This pattern is substantially different from the findings of the 2008 Call Center Survey. For example,
in 2008, 19 percent of customer callers reported that they pay their bill on-line (16 percent less than in the
current survey). Also, in 2008, 50 percent of the customer callers paid their bill by sending a check in the
mail (15 percent more than in 2012). There is clearly a strong trend toward the use of the Internet to pay
their water bill among the customers of the Otay Water District, which can be expected to grow as the older
customers become fewer in number. There is also a trend toward less use of postal mail for bill payment.
In sum, this pattern represents a continued and sustained pattern of Internet use since the 2006 Call Center
Survey.
Consistent with the Call Center Survey findings, it is noteworthy that the 2012 General Survey of all District
customers shows that 41 percent state that they pay their bill on line at present and almost half (48 percent)
prefer the on-line option in the future.
The following subgroups pay their water bill by sending a check in postal mail:
Homeowners (26 percent) versus renters (15 percent).
Customers who are 55 years of age or older (38 percent) as opposed to those who are 54 years of age or younger (17 percent).
Smaller households of 1 or 2 persons (40 percent) versus larger households of 3 or more persons
(17 percent). The following subgroups pay their bill on-line:
Customers who are 54 years of age and younger (41 percent) versus those who are 55 years of age
and older (28 percent).
Asians (50 percent), Whites (40 percent), and Hispanics/Latinos (37 percent) as opposed to
African-Americans/Blacks (24 percent).
The following subgroups would prefer to pay their bill by sending a check in the mail no matter how they
presently pay their bill:
Customers who are 55 years of age and older (36 percent) versus those who are 54 years of age and
younger (15 percent).
Smaller households of 1 or 2 persons (34 percent) versus larger households of 3 persons or more (17 percent).
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
4%3%4%3%4%2%
7%5%
10%
7%
4%3%
14%13%
7%
8%
16%17%
8%9%
10%12%
17%
19%
53%
48%
50%
44%
24%22%
14%
22%19%
26%
35%37%
Chart 23
Payment Method for Water Bill: Actual and Preferred
In Person at Payment Center In Person at Otay WD Offices
Credit Card over the Telephone Automatic Bank Deduction
Send Check by Mail Online
2012 General Survey:
41% pay online
48% prefer online in future
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 32
The following subgroup would prefer to pay on-line no matter how they presently pay their bill:
Customers with income levels of $75,000 and above (50 percent) as opposed to those with income levels under $75,000 (33 percent).
The method by which customers actually pay their bill is strongly related to the method they prefer to use.
Moreover, when preferences deviate from actual behavior, the preference leans toward the use of the
Internet to make on-line bill payments. The following examples illustrate this finding:
85 percent of those who actually pay by sending a check by mail prefer that method, and only 6 percent of those who send a check by mail would prefer to pay on line.
80 percent of those who pay by credit card over the telephone prefer that method of payment, and only 12 percent of those who pay in person at the payment center would prefer to pay on-line.
Chart 24 shows that among the customers who do not pay on line and provide a reason for not doing so,
well over one-half (54 percent) of callers indicate that there is nothing the District can do to make on-line
bill paying more appealing to them. Furthermore, over one-quarter (26 percent) are uncertain about what
the District can do in this regard. Another 7 percent feel that offering discounts on the bill could motivate
them to move toward a paperless bill paying option. Comments about how the District can make
paperless/on-line billing more appealing are consistent with similar findings in the 2012 General Customer
Survey. That is, customers do not provide much encouragement that the District can do anything for them
in this regard.
Customers who feel that the Otay Water District can do nothing to make on-line bill paying a more
appealing option tend to be homeowners (79 percent) versus renters (48 percent).
Chart 25 indicates how likely it is that any of the small number of suggested improvements made by the
callers would cause them to move toward on-line bill payment. Over three-fifths, (64 percent) state that
they would be either very likely (50 percent) or somewhat likely (14 percent) to pursue on-line bill payment
if suggested improvements were made. It is important to note that these percentages are derived from only
49 respondents (16 percent of the sample).
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Nothing Discounts PreferPresentWay ofPaying
Make ItEasier NeedPaperRecord
PayVariousAccountsat Once
Unsure
54%
7%5%4%2%2%
26%
55%
10%
5%
20%
Chart 24
What Can District Do to Make Bill Paying Online or Paperless a
More Appealing Option
(among 63% who do not prefer to pay online)
Call Center Respondents General Survey Respondents
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 34
Chart 26 indicates that nearly one-half (49 percent) of callers are interested in receiving their monthly bill
by e-mail. The 2012 General Survey reports that 43 percent are inclined to receive their bill by e-mail – 6
percent less than what is found in the Call Center Survey. In the current survey, over three-fifths (64
percent) indicate that they are either very likely (50 percent) or somewhat unlikely (14 percent) to pay their
various accounts through a paperless option within the next year or two. Respondents in the General 2012
Survey similarly indicate that they are likely to pursue the paperless option within the next year or so (61
percent) (Chart 27).
Very Likely, 63%
Somewhat Likely, 14%Somewhat Unlikely, 2%
Very Unlikely, 21%
Chart 25
Likelihood of Paying Online if Suggested Improvements
Implemented
(among 12% who do not pay online and who offered suggestions)
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 35
Customers under the age of 65 (57 percent) tend to be interested in receiving their monthly bill by e-mail instead of through the Postal Service more so than are those who are 65 years old and over (29 percent). The following subgroups are more likely to go paperless in their bill paying to the District within the next
year or two (scale: 1 to 4, where 1 = very likely, 2 = somewhat likely, 3 = somewhat unlikely, and 4 = very
unlikely).
Customers with a higher level of education (bachelor’s degree – mean of 1.85) versus (high school or less – mean of 2.53).
Younger customers (18-34 – mean of 1.67) as opposed to older customers (65 and over – mean of 3.06).
More recent customers of the Otay Water District (less than 2 years – mean of 1.80) versus longer
term customers (11 years or more – mean of 2.32).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Call Center Respondents General Survey Respondents
Yes, 49%Yes, 43%
No, 48%No, 53%
Unsure, 3%Unsure, 4%
Chart 26
Interested in Receiving Monthly Bill by E-Mail
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 36
Chart 28 shows that among those who are unlikely to use paperless bill paying options within the next two
years, over one-quarter (27 percent) say they do not use the Internet and 17 percent want a paper record of
their transactions. Another 13 percent say they will forget to check on-line for a bill. Others feel they have
more control when they write checks (12 percent) and they do not trust the security of on-line transactions
(11 percent). There are considerable differences among customers in the 2012 General Survey. Customers
in the General Survey object much less to the use of the Internet and the possibility that they will forget to
check for a bill on-line and they are less likely to object because they feel they have more control when
they write checks. They are more likely to object because they want a paper record of their transactions
and they do not trust the security of on-line transactions.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Call Center Respondents
General Survey Respondents
50%
45%
14%
16%
9%
8%
27%
31%
Chart 27
Likelihood of Going Paperless and Electronic Payment (all bills)
in the Next 1-2 Years.Very Likely Somewhat Likely Somewhat Unlikely Very Unlikely
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 37
Chart 29 indicates that over two-fifths (42 percent) feel that the use of postcards are fine as a way to remind
customers that their bill has not been paid (This is the current method). Over one-quarter (27 percent) prefer
the use of e-mail and another 28 percent prefer either a telephone message (19 percent) or a text message
(9 percent) for purposes of reminding customers about late payments.
Confidence in the Accuracy of the Bill: Chart 30 indicates that three-fourths (75 percent) of customer
service callers are either very confident (39 percent) or somewhat confident (36 percent) in the accuracy of
their monthly meter reading. This overall high level of confidence is consistent with the confidence
expressed in the 2006 survey. However, it is noteworthy that the percentage of callers who are “very
confident” in 2008 is about 10 percent higher than in both 2012 and 2006.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
27%
17%
13%12%11%9%
4%3%4%
15%
43%
6%6%
19%
2%6%
Chart 28
Objection to Paperless
(among 36% unlikely to be paperless in 1-2 years)
Call Center Respondents General Survey Respondents
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 38
Postcards Are Fine, 42%
E-mail, 27%
Telephone Message, 19%
Text Message, 9%
Unsure, 3%
Chart 29
How Prefer to be Contacted by District When Payment is Late
0%20%40%60%80%100%
38%
48%
39%
38%
28%
36%
8%
9%
11%
8%
2%
7%
8%
13%
7%
Chart 30Confidence in Accuracy of Meter Reading
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Very Confident Not At All Confident Unsure
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 39
The following subgroups are particularly confident in the accuracy of their meter reading. The rating is
based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = somewhat dissatisfied and
4 = very dissatisfied:
Younger customers (18 – 34 -- mean of 1.65 versus older customers (65 and over – mean of 2.10).
More recent customers of the Otay Water District (2 years or less – mean of 1.46 versus longer term residents (3 or more years --- 2.00).
Chart 31 shows approximately three-fourths (77 percent) are either very satisfied (48 percent) or somewhat
satisfied (29 percent) in the accuracy of their water bill. This level of satisfaction is highly consistent with
the Call Center Surveys in 2006 and 2008 where both surveys reported a satisfaction level also of 77
percent.
The following subgroups regard the monthly bill as particularly accurate. The rating is based on a scale of
1 to 5, where 1 = very satisfied, 2 = somewhat satisfied, 3 = somewhat dissatisfied and 4 = very dissatisfied:
More recent residents of the Otay Water District (2 years or less – mean of 1.45) versus longer term customers (6 – 15 years – mean of 1.91).
Customers with less education (educational levels of a bachelor’s degree or less – mean of 1.60 as opposed to at least one year of graduate work beyond a bachelor’s degree – mean of 2.14).
Communication with the Otay Water District (including New Telephone System, Interactive
Voice Response System, and Website)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Very Satisfied SomewhatSatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied VeryDissatisfied Unsure
48%
29%
9%7%7%
50%
27%
8%4%
11%
43%
34%
7%10%7%
Chart 31
Satisfaction with Accuracy of Water Bill201220082006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 40
SUMMARY: Among customer callers, 86 percent are unaware of the new telephone system
that was implemented by the Otay Water District within the last several months. Of those who
are aware, 5 percent feel the new system is better and another 3 percent feel the previous system
is better. Those who are aware of the new telephone system rated 4 features of that system quite
highly. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very effective and 5 = not at all effective. Ratings were
provided for quality of voice (1.87), clarity of the instructions (2.01), overall effectiveness of
message (2.10), and menu of options (2.13).
Well over one-quarter (29 percent) of callers have used the interactive features of the voice response system. Among these 29 percent, 87 percent found it to be useful. The trend is clear – since the 2006 and 2008 Call Center Surveys, there is an increase in the percentage of customers who use the Interactive Response Feature and a greater percentage of those who use this feature find it useful. Of those customers in the current survey who found the system to be
useful, 46 percent were able to resolve their problem by using this automated system alone. This
represents a decline since the 2008 Call Center Survey where nearly three-fifths (58 percent) achieved resolution of their problem using the automated system alone. Nearly one-third (30 percent) of the customer callers have used the Otay Water District website
to obtain information in the past 6 months. There has been a steady increase in the use of the
website since 2006 – 20 percent in 2006 and 23 percent in 2008. Nearly 9 in 10 of these users (88 percent) are either very satisfied (71 percent) or somewhat satisfied (17 percent) with the service provided through the website. This represents an increase in the satisfaction level since 2008 where 82 percent were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
New Telephone System: The Otay Water District implemented a new telephone system in June 2011.
Nearly 9 in 10 customer callers (86 percent) are unaware of the new system. Chart 32 shows that among
those who are aware, 5 percent feel that the new system is better than the previous one, 3 percent feel that
the new system is worse, and 6 percent feel that the new system and the previous one are about the same.
Females (19 percent) are more aware of the new telephone system than are males (8 percent).
Customers who are 55 years old and over (26 percent) are more aware of the new telephone system than are customers who are 54 and younger (11 percent).
Chart 33 shows the effectiveness ratings of various features of the new telephone system on a scale of 1 to
5, where 1 = very effective and 5 = not at all effective. The ratings are high on each feature ranging from
1.87 for quality of voice providing instructions, followed by clarity of instructions (2.01), overall
effectiveness of message in guiding one to needed services (2.10), and menu of options (2.13).
Latinos (mean of 1.58) are more likely to rate the effectiveness of the clarity of instructions higher than are African-Americans (mean of 4.50).
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 41
Latinos (mean of 1.33) tend to rate the effectiveness of the quality of voice providing instructions higher than do African-Americans (mean of 3.50). The following subgroups rate the new telephone system as particularly effective in guiding the caller to
needed services (scale: 1 to 5, where 1 = very effective and 5 = not at all effective).
Latinos (mean of 1.58) versus African-Americans (mean of 4.00).
Middle age customers (35-54 – mean of 1.78) versus older customers (65 and over -- mean of 3.33).
Longer term customers of the Otay Water District (3 – 10 years -- mean of 1.62) versus the most recent customers – (2 years or less -- mean of 3.40).
The following subgroups rate the menu of options as particularly effective:
Aware--Better
than Previous
System, 5%
Aware--About
Same Quality as
Previous System,
6%
Aware--Worse
than Previous
System, 3%
Unaware of New
System, 86%
Chart 32
Awareness and Opinion about New Telephone System
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 42
Younger customers (18 – 34 – mean of 1.50) as opposed to older customers (65 and older – mean of 4.00).
Customers with higher income levels ($50,000 or more – mean of 1.63) versus customers with lesser income levels ($25,000 and under $50,000 – mean of 3.17).
Interactive Voice Response Features: In Chart 34, it is indicated that well over one-quarter (29 percent)
of callers have used the interactive features of the voice response system. Among these 29 percent, 87
percent found it to be useful (Chart 35). The trend is clear – since the 2006 and 2008 Call Center Surveys,
there is an increase in the percentage of customers who use the Interactive Response Feature and a greater
percentage of those who use this feature find it useful.
1.75 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.25 2.35 2.45
Menu of Options
Clarity of Instructions
Quality of Voice Providing Instructions
Overall Effectiveness Guiding to Needed Services
2.13
2.01
1.87
2.10
Chart 33
Ratings of Effectiveness of New Telephone System Features
(among 14% that are aware of new system)
(Scale: 1 = Very Effective and 5 = Not at all Effective)
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 43
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2006
2008
2012
Yes , 16%
Yes , 20%
Yes , 29%
No, 80%
No, 76%
No, 67%
Unsure, 4%
Unsure, 4%
Unsure, 4%
Chart 34
Used Interactive Voice Response Feature?
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2006
2008
2012
Yes, 81%
Yes, 82%
Yes, 87%
No, 19%
No, 18%
No, 13%
Chart 35 Usefulness Interactive Voice Response
(among 29 percent who have used it)
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 44
Improvements in the automated system were suggested by a few customers who use the system and find it
to be useful. These customers suggest making the system faster with less waiting, providing an account
balance, and looking up an account without the account number – each 7 percent. Paying by phone through
the automated system was suggested by a higher percentage of customers in 2008 than in the current survey
(Chart 36). Of those customers in the current survey who used the system, 46 percent were able to resolve
their problem by using this automated system alone (Chart 37). This represents a decline since the 2008
Call Center Survey where nearly three-fifths (58 percent) achieved resolution of their problem using the
automated system alone.
The following relationships associated with the use of the Interactive Voice Response Feature are
significant;
Renters (39 percent) tend to use the Interactive Voice Response Feature more so than do homeowners (26 percent).
Larger households of 3 persons or more (33 percent) are more likely to use the Interactive Voice
Response Feature than are smaller households of 1 or 2 persons (15 percent).
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Yes--Pay by Phone
Yes--Provide Easier Access to Representative
Yes--Make System Faster--Less Waiting
Yes--Provide Account Balance
Yes--Look Up Acct. w/o Acct. #
Yes--Other
No
3%
2%
7%
7%
7%
3%
71%
5%
5%
3%87%
9%
6%
3%
3%
1%
78%
Chart 36 Suggest Improvements to Interactive Voice Response System(among 29 percent who have used it)
2012 2008 2006
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 45
With regard to the achievement of problem resolution by using the automated system alone, the following
relationship is significant:
Customers who prefer to speak Spanish (100 percent) tend to achieve problem resolution by using the automated system alone more so than do those who prefer to speak English (43 percent).
Website: Chart 38 indicates that 30 percent of the customer callers have used the Otay Water District
website to obtain information in the past 6 months. There has been a steady increase in the use of the
website since 2006 – 20 percent in 2006 and 23 percent in 2008). Chart 39 shows that 88 percent of these
users are either very satisfied (71 percent) or somewhat satisfied (17 percent) with the service provided
through the website. This represents an increase in the satisfaction level since 2008 where 82 percent were
either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. The satisfaction level in the 2012 Call Center Survey also
represents a return to 2006 levels where the satisfaction rating was also 88 percent. It is noted that the
rating of the Otay Water District website in the 2012 General Survey is 73 percent – 15 percent less than
the rating in the 2012 Call Center Survey.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200620082012
Yes , 47%Yes , 58%
Yes , 46%
No, 50%
No, 40%No, 54%
Unsure, 3%Unsure, 2%
Chart 37
Resolution by Interactive Voice Response Only
(among 29 percent who have used it)
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 46
Customers with a bachelor’s degree or more education (40 percent) are more likely to use the Otay District website to obtain information than are those who have some college or less (26 percent).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200620082012
Yes , 20%Yes , 23%Yes , 30%
No, 80%No, 77%No, 70%
Chart 38 Use of Website
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2006
2008
2012
56%
63%
71%
32%
19%
17%
10%
10%
8%
2%
8%
4%
Chart 39
Satisfaction with Web Service
(among 30% who have used website)
Very Satisfied
SomewhatSatisfied
SomewhatDissatisfied
VeryDissatisfied
2012 General Survey Rating of Website :29% Excellent and 44% Good
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 47
Conclusions
It is clear that customers of the Otay Water District who have made customer service calls to the District
are largely satisfied with the customer service they have received. Customers are generally more satisfied
with the Call Center services than ever and are increasingly accepting of efforts to move toward more
automated and paperless communications. There is considerable support for the efforts made by the Otay
Water District to address customer issues in a timely fashion and to resolve problems to the customers’
satisfaction.
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 48
APPENDIX
Questionnaire
Frequencies
Open-Ended Responses
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 49
Otay Water District Survey
Call Center Customer Service--2012
INT. Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling on behalf of the Otay Water District. We are conducting a study about some issues having to do with the service you have received from the District. We are interested in your opinions. [IF NEEDED:] Are you at least 18 years of age or older? [IF 18+ HOUSEHOLDER NOT AVAILABLE NOW,
ASK FOR FIRST NAME AND MAKE CB ARRANGEMENTS]
VER. [VERSION OF INTERVIEW:] 1 - VERSION A 2 - VERSION B*
* = RESPONSE OPTIONS REVERSED ON VERSION B FOR ALL QUESTIONS INDICATED
IC. Let me assure you that no names or addresses are associated with the telephone numbers, and all of your responses are completely anonymous. The questions take
about ten minutes. To ensure that my work is done honestly and correctly, this call may be monitored. Do you have a few minutes right now?
[IF ASKED ABOUT MONITORING:] My supervisor randomly listens to interviews to
make sure we're reading the questions exactly as written and not influencing answers in any way.
TOP. [ONLY IF ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT TOPIC OR WHO'S SPONSORING IT?:] This project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and it's about
some issues related to improving customer service. [IF SPONSOR INFORMATION GIVEN TO RESPONDENT, "TOPIC"=1]
SEX. [RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT:]
1 - MALE
2 - FEMALE
LP. [IF INDICATED BY ACCENT:] Would you prefer that we speak in...
1 - English or
2 - Spanish?
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 50
Q1. Have you or anyone in your household or business called the Otay Water District for service or other help during the past 6 months [EMPHASIZE 6 MONTHS]?
1 - YES
2 - NO –THANK AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW
9 - DK/REF –THANK AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW
Q1a—Please indicate the type of customer you are
1—Residential
2—Business
3—Irrigation
4—Other, SPECIFY ________________________________________
Q1b. [IF YES:] Was the main purpose of your last call…
1 - a repair issue,
2 - a billing issue, or ------------> GO TO Q2
3 - another issue? ---> GO TO Q2
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ ------------> GO TO Q3
Q1c. [IF REPAIR ISSUE:] What type of repair did you call about? Was it...
1 - a pipeline break,
2 - a problem with supply to your home,
3—a suspected leak
4 - another problem? [SPECIFY:]______________________
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q1d. Did you make any other calls to customer service in the past 6 months that were not repair related?
1—YES
2—NO—GO TO Q3
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ –GO TO Q3
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 51
Q2. What was the reason for your last non-repair related customer service call?
1—Did not understand bill—[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3—IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
2 – Need Assistance with online account ——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
3—Thought I was charged too much for the amount of water I used——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
4—Thought I used less water than bill indicated/Meter misread——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
5---Why different amount from same month last year——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
6—Question about message box on bill——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
7—Address change——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
8---Start service——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
9---Stop Service——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
10—Reconnect Service after shutoff——[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
15—Other? SPECIFY_______________________ —[IF Q1b = 1--GO TO Q3— IF Q1b=2 or 3, GO TO Q2a]
20—DK/REF—DO NOT READ [Go to Q3]
Q2a. [IF Q2 = 1-15] Beyond the customer service call you just mentioned, did you make any other calls to customer service in the past 6 months?
1—YES
2—NO—GO TO Q3
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ –GO TO Q3
Q2b. What was the reason for this other customer service call? [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
1—Did not understand bill
2—Thought I was charged too much for the amount of water I used
3—Thought I used less water than bill indicated/Meter misread
4---Why different amount from same month last year
5—Question about message box on bill
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 52
6—Address change
7---Start service
8---Stop Service
9—Reconnect Service after shutoff
10-- a pipeline break,
11 - a problem with supply to your home
15—Other? SPECIFY_______________________
20—DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q3. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the service you received as far as….
a. your ability to reach a service representative? Were you…*
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
b. the courtesy of the service representative? Were you…*
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
c. the knowledge and expertise of your service representative? Were you…*
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied? 9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
d. getting your problem resolved? Were you...*
1 - very satisfied,
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 53
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q4. Overall, how would you rate the quality of service that you received? Would you say
1 - excellent,
2 - good,
3 - fair
4 –poor
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q5. With regard to the problem or question you called about in the first call you mentioned, how many calls did it take to get your issue resolved?
_____________
Q5a. [IF Q5 >1—OTHERWISE, GO TO Q6] Was your question or problem
ultimately resolved to your satisfaction?
1-YES
2-NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q6. The Otay Water District implemented a new telephone system in June 2011. Have you
noticed that the system has changed?
1 – Yes
2 - No [GO TO Q7]
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ [GO TO Q7]
Q6a. Would you say that this new system is …? [REVERSE]
1. Better than the previous system? 2. About the same as the previous system? 3. Worse than the previous system?
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 54
Q6b. Please rate the following features of the new phone system on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very effective and 5 = not at all effective.
1 2 3 4 5
Q6b-1. Menu of options
Q6b-2 Clarity of instructions
Q6b-3 Quality of voice providing instructions
Q6b-4 Overall effectiveness of the telephone message
in guiding you to the services that you needed
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q7. The Otay Water District has an Interactive Voice Response feature in their telephone system. This feature provides the customer with account information, total amount due, and last payment received. Have you used this feature?
1—YES
2—NO-----------GO TO Q8
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ-----------GO TO Q8
Q7a. [IF Q7= 1] Did you find this feature to be useful?
1—YES
2—NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q7b. When you last called the Otay Water District for customer service, were you able to resolve your question or problem using the automated system only?
1—YES
2—NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q7c. Are there any other features that you would like to have offered by the Interactive Voice Response system?
1—Yes
2—No ---[GO TO Q7e]
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 55
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ---[GO TO Q7e]
Q7d. What is one such additional feature you would like to have offered by the
automated system?
99= DK/REF
Q8. Did your call require a field visit to your property?
1-YES
2-NO -------------[GO TO Q14]
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ ------------------[GO TO Q14]
Q9. [IF Q8 = 1] What did the field representative do?
_________________________________________________________
[USE THE FOLLOWING CODES BUT DO NOT READ THEM. ENTER ALL OTHER ANSWERS ABOVE—DK/REF = 99]
1. Checked meter
2. Check/Fix leak
3. Reconnect/turn water on
Q10. How satisfied were you with the field service outcome? Were you*
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied?
9 - DK/REF
Q11. How satisfied were you with the time required to come to your property to provide the field service? Were you*
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 56
4 - very dissatisfied?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q12. How satisfied were you with the amount of time the field service representative needed at your property? Were you*
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q13. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the field service you received.
1 - excellent,
2 - good,
3 - fair, or
4 - poor?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q14. How do you pay your water bill most months?
1—Send check by mail
2—Automatic bank deduction
3—Credit card over the telephone
4—In person at the Otay Water District office
5—In person at payment center
6—On-line (Internet)
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 57
Q15. No matter how you presently pay your bill, how would you prefer to pay your bill most of the time?
1—Send check by mail
2—Automatic bank deduction
3—Credit card over the telephone
4—In person at the Otay Water District office
5—In person at payment center
6—On-line (Internet) ---------GO TO Q16
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q15a. [IF Q15 NOT = 6] What can the District do to make paying online or make paperless billing a more appealing option for you?
_______________________________________________________________
DK/REF = 99
[USE THE FOLLOWING CODES BUT DO NOT READ THEM. ENTER ALL OTHER ANSWERS VERBATIM]
1. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD MAKE ME PAY ONLINE 2. OFFER DISCOUNTS ON THE BILL
[IF Q15a = 99, GO TO Q16]
Q15b. [IF any answer given to Q15a] If the District were to do that, how much more likely would you be to pay on-line? Would you say..
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely 3. Somewhat unlikely
4. Very unlikely 9. DK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 58
Q16. Would you be interested in receiving your monthly bill from the Otay Water District by e-mail instead of through the Postal Service?
1 - YES
2 - NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q17. How likely are you to choose to go paperless in your bill paying to the District and other regular monthly accounts within the next year or two? That is, you would receive your bill by e-mail and would make your payments in one of several ways (phone, online, automatic deduction) but not by check or cash.
1. Very likely—GO TO Q18
2. Somewhat likely—GO TO Q18 3. Somewhat unlikely 4. Very unlikely 5. DK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]—GO TO Q18
Q17a. [IF Q17 =3 or 4] What is your major objection to the District going
paperless?
1. I do not trust that my banking data is secure
2. I do not use the Internet
3. I feel more in control of my money when I write the checks.
4. Easier for my own accounting/taxes
5. Other, ___________________________
9. DK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
Q18. Regarding your monthly billing, how satisfied are you with the accuracy of your water bill?
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q19. How confident are you in the accuracy of your monthly meter reading?
1 - very confident,
2 - somewhat confident,
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 59
3 – not too confident, or
4 – not at all confident?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q20. The Otay Water District has recently implemented a new bill design. It was first mailed to customers in September 2011. How satisfied are you with the ease of understanding this new water bill?
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3—Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
5 - very dissatisfied? 6 – I am not aware of the new bill design –GO TO Q21
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ—GO TO Q21
Q20a. [IF Q20 NOT = 6 or 9] Do you think that the previous water bill design is easier to understand than the new bill design?
1 –Yes
2 --No
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q21. The Otay Water District sends postcards to remind their customers that their water bill has not been paid. How would you prefer to be contacted by the Otay Water District under these circumstances? (select one)
1 – the postcards are fine
2- e-mail
3 - text message
4 – telephone message
8 – other (please specify) ______________________
9 –DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 60
Q22. In comparison to other companies that bill you monthly (for example. gas and electric, cable TV, trash collection, among others), how would you rate your overall customer experience
with the Otay Water District on a scale of 1-5, where 1 means that the Otay Water District provides the best customer experience in comparison to these other companies and 5 means that the Otay Water District provides the worst experience.
__________________
Q23. In the past 6 months, have you used the Otay Water District website to obtain information or other services from the Otay Water District?
1—YES
2—NO-----------GO TO CUST
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ-----------GO TO CUST
Q23a. [IF Q23=1] How satisfied were you with the web service you received? Were you*
1 - very satisfied,
2 - somewhat satisfied,
3 - somewhat dissatisfied, or
4 - very dissatisfied?
IN CLOSING, THESE NEXT QUESTIONS ARE FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY.
CUST. How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District?
_____________YEARS
PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
___________
99 - DK/REF
TEN. Is your residence owned by someone in your household, or is it rented?
1 - OWN
2 - RENT/OTHER STATUS
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 61
EDU. What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit for...
1 - high school or less,
2 - at least one year of college, trade or vocational school,
3 - graduated college with a bachelor's degree, or
4 - at least one year of graduate work beyond a bachelor's degree?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
AGE. Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age...
1 - 18 to 24,
2 - 25 to 34,
3 - 35 to 44,
4 - 45 to 54,
5 - 55 to 64, or
6 - 65 or over?
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
ETH. Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background...
1 - white, not of Hispanic origin;
2 - black, not of Hispanic origin;
3 - Hispanic or Latino;
4 - Asian or Pacific Islander;
5 - Native American;
6 – Middle Eastern
15 - another ethnic group? [SPECIFY:] __________________________________
20 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 62
INC. Now, we don't want to know your exact income, but just roughly, could you tell me if your annual household income before taxes is...
1 - under $25,000,
2 - $25,000 up to but not including $50,000,
3 - $50,000 up to (but not including) $75,000,
4 - $75,000 up to (but not including) $100,000,
5 - $100,000 up to (but not including) $150,000
6. $150,000 and over
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
LAN. [LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW:] 1 - ENGLISH 2 - SPANISH
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 63
Frequency Tables
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 120 39.6 39.6 39.6
Female 183 60.4 60.4 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Q1 - Have you or anyone in your household or business called the Otay
Water District for service or other help during the past 6 months
[EMPHASIZE 6 MONTHS]?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 303 100.0 100.0 100.0
Q1a - Are you primarily a residential, business, irrigation, or another type water
customer?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Residential 301 99.3 99.3 99.3
Business 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 64
Q1b - Was the main purpose of your last call to Otay Water District...?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid A repair issue 13 4.3 4.3 4.3
A billing issue 215 71.0 71.7 76.0
Another issue 72 23.8 24.0 100.0
Total 300 99.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
Total 303 100.0
Q1c - What type of repair did you call about? Was it...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid A pipeline break 6 2.0 40.0 40.0
A problem with supply to
your house
2 .7 13.3 53.3
A suspected leak 5 1.7 33.3 86.7
Another problem 2 .7 13.3 100.0
Total 15 5.0 100.0
Missing System 288 95.0
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 65
Q1d - Did you make any other calls to customer service in the past 6 months
that were not repair related?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 8 2.6 53.3 53.3
No 7 2.3 46.7 100.0
Total 15 5.0 100.0
Missing System 288 95.0
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 66
Q2. What was the reason for your last non-repair related customer service call?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Did not understand bill 43 14.2 15.6 15.6
Need Assistance with online
account
26 8.6 9.4 25.0
Thought I was charged too
much for the amount of
water I use
37 12.2 13.4 38.4
Thought I used less water
than bill indicated/Meter
misread
5 1.7 1.8 40.2
Why different amount from
same month last year
2 .7 .7 40.9
Question about message
box on bill
1 .3 .4 41.3
Address change 5 1.7 1.8 43.1
Start service/transfer acct
name
52 17.2 18.8 62.0
Stop service 6 2.0 2.2 64.1
Reconnect service after
shutoff
16 5.3 5.8 69.9
Other 1 .3 .4 70.3
Make
payment/arrangements
60 19.8 21.7 92.0
Find out balance 18 5.9 6.5 98.6
Get rate reduction 4 1.3 1.4 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 67
Total 276 91.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 5 1.7
System 22 7.3
Total 27 8.9
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 68
Q2a - Beyond the customer service call you just mentioned, did you make any
other calls to customer service in the past 6 months?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 45 14.9 16.2 16.2
No 233 76.9 83.8 100.0
Total 278 91.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .7
System 23 7.6
Total 25 8.3
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 69
Q2b - What was the reason for this other customer service call?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Did not understand bill 11 3.6 25.0 25.0
Thought I was charged too
much for the amount of
water I use
5 1.7 11.4 36.4
Thought I used less water
than bill indicated/Meter
misread
2 .7 4.5 40.9
Address change 1 .3 2.3 43.2
Start service 5 1.7 11.4 54.5
Stop service 1 .3 2.3 56.8
Reconnect service after
shutoff
2 .7 4.5 61.4
Problem with supply to my
home
3 1.0 6.8 68.2
Make
payment/arrangements
14 4.6 31.8 100.0
Total 44 14.5 100.0
Missing System 259 85.5
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 70
Q3a. your ability to reach a service representative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 195 64.4 65.9 65.9
Somewhat satisfied 63 20.8 21.3 87.2
Somewhat dissatisfied 15 5.0 5.1 92.2
Very dissatisfied 23 7.6 7.8 100.0
Total 296 97.7 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 7 2.3
Total 303 100.0
Q3b. the courtesy of the service representative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 209 69.0 71.1 71.1
Somewhat satisfied 54 17.8 18.4 89.5
Somewhat dissatisfied 12 4.0 4.1 93.5
Very dissatisfied 19 6.3 6.5 100.0
Total 294 97.0 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 9 3.0
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 71
Q3c. the knowledge and expertise of your service representative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 198 65.3 67.8 67.8
Somewhat satisfied 60 19.8 20.5 88.4
Somewhat dissatisfied 12 4.0 4.1 92.5
Very dissatisfied 22 7.3 7.5 100.0
Total 292 96.4 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 11 3.6
Total 303 100.0
Q3d. getting your problem resolved
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 197 65.0 66.1 66.1
Somewhat satisfied 48 15.8 16.1 82.2
Somewhat dissatisfied 19 6.3 6.4 88.6
Very dissatisfied 34 11.2 11.4 100.0
Total 298 98.3 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 5 1.7
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 72
Q4 - Overall, how would you rate the quality of service that you received?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Excellent 153 50.5 50.7 50.7
Good 98 32.3 32.5 83.1
Fair 31 10.2 10.3 93.4
Poor 20 6.6 6.6 100.0
Total 302 99.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .3
Total 303 100.0
Q5 - First call: how many calls did it take to get your issue resolved?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 230 75.9 77.2 77.2
2 37 12.2 12.4 89.6
3 19 6.3 6.4 96.0
4 5 1.7 1.7 97.7
5 7 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 298 98.3 100.0
Missing DK/REF 5 1.7
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 73
Q5a - Was your question or problem ultimately resolved to your satisfaction?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 43 14.2 59.7 59.7
No 29 9.6 40.3 100.0
Total 72 23.8 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .7
System 229 75.6
Total 231 76.2
Total 303 100.0
Q6 - The Otay Water District implemented a new telephone system in June
2011. Have you noticed that the system has changed?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 39 12.9 14.2 14.2
No 235 77.6 85.8 100.0
Total 274 90.4 100.0
Missing DK/REF 29 9.6
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 74
Q6a. Would you say that this new system is...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Better than the previous
system
15 5.0 38.5 38.5
About the same as the
previous system
17 5.6 43.6 82.1
Worse than the previous
system
7 2.3 17.9 100.0
Total 39 12.9 100.0
Missing System 264 87.1
Total 303 100.0
Q7e1-Rate Menu of options
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very effective 18 5.9 50.0 50.0
2 5 1.7 13.9 63.9
3 8 2.6 22.2 86.1
4 2 .7 5.6 91.7
Not at all effective 3 1.0 8.3 100.0
Total 36 11.9 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
System 264 87.1
Total 267 88.1
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 75
Q6a. Would you say that this new system is...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Better than the previous
system
15 5.0 38.5 38.5
About the same as the
previous system
17 5.6 43.6 82.1
Worse than the previous
system
7 2.3 17.9 100.0
Total 39 12.9 100.0
Missing System 264 87.1
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 76
Q7e2-Rate Clarity of instructions
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very effective 21 6.9 55.3 55.3
2 5 1.7 13.2 68.4
3 6 2.0 15.8 84.2
4 3 1.0 7.9 92.1
Not at all effective 3 1.0 7.9 100.0
Total 38 12.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .3
System 264 87.1
Total 265 87.5
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 77
Q7e3-Rate Quality of voice providing instructions
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very effective 22 7.3 57.9 57.9
2 8 2.6 21.1 78.9
3 2 .7 5.3 84.2
4 3 1.0 7.9 92.1
Not at all effective 3 1.0 7.9 100.0
Total 38 12.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .3
System 264 87.1
Total 265 87.5
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 78
Q7e4-Rate Overall effectiveness of the telephone message in guiding you to the services
that you needed
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very effective 19 6.3 50.0 50.0
2 6 2.0 15.8 65.8
3 6 2.0 15.8 81.6
4 4 1.3 10.5 92.1
Not at all effective 3 1.0 7.9 100.0
Total 38 12.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .3
System 264 87.1
Total 265 87.5
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 79
Q7 - Interactive Voice Response feature: Have you used this feature?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 88 29.0 30.1 30.1
No 204 67.3 69.9 100.0
Total 292 96.4 100.0
Missing DK/REF 11 3.6
Total 303 100.0
Q7a - Did you find Interactive Voice Response to be useful?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 75 24.8 87.2 87.2
No 11 3.6 12.8 100.0
Total 86 28.4 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .7
System 215 71.0
Total 217 71.6
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 80
Q7b - When you last called the Otay Water District for customer service, were
you able to resolve your question or problem using the automated system
only?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 39 12.9 45.9 45.9
No 46 15.2 54.1 100.0
Total 85 28.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
System 215 71.0
Total 218 71.9
Total 303 100.0
Q7c - Are there any other features that you would like to have offered by the
Interactive Voice Response system?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 24 7.9 29.6 29.6
No 57 18.8 70.4 100.0
Total 81 26.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 7 2.3
System 215 71.0
Total 222 73.3
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 81
Q8. Did your call require a field visit to your property?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 41 13.5 13.8 13.8
No 257 84.8 86.2 100.0
Total 298 98.3 100.0
Missing DK/REF 5 1.7
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 82
Q9 - What did the field representative do?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Checked meter 5 1.7 13.2 13.2
Check/fix leak 6 2.0 15.8 28.9
Reconnect/turn water on 18 5.9 47.4 76.3
Other 9 3.0 23.7 100.0
Total 38 12.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
System 262 86.5
Total 265 87.5
Total 303 100.0
Q10. How satisfied were you with the field service outcome?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 26 8.6 63.4 63.4
Somewhat satisfied 6 2.0 14.6 78.0
Somewhat dissatisfied 1 .3 2.4 80.5
Very dissatisfied 8 2.6 19.5 100.0
Total 41 13.5 100.0
Missing System 262 86.5
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 83
Q11. How satisfied were you with the time required to come to your property to provide the
field service?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 24 7.9 60.0 60.0
Somewhat satisfied 5 1.7 12.5 72.5
Somewhat dissatisfied 3 1.0 7.5 80.0
Very dissatisfied 8 2.6 20.0 100.0
Total 40 13.2 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 1 .3
System 262 86.5
Total 263 86.8
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 84
Q12. How satisfied were you with the amount of time the field service representative needed
at your property?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 24 7.9 66.7 66.7
Somewhat satisfied 5 1.7 13.9 80.6
Somewhat dissatisfied 2 .7 5.6 86.1
Very dissatisfied 5 1.7 13.9 100.0
Total 36 11.9 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 5 1.7
System 262 86.5
Total 267 88.1
Total 303 100.0
Q13 - Please rate your overall satisfaction with the field service you received:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Excellent 22 7.3 53.7 53.7
Good 9 3.0 22.0 75.6
Fair 1 .3 2.4 78.0
Poor 9 3.0 22.0 100.0
Total 41 13.5 100.0
Missing System 262 86.5
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 85
Q14 - How do you pay your water bill most months?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Send check by mail 71 23.4 23.6 23.6
Automatic bank deduction 52 17.2 17.3 40.9
Credit card over the
telephone
49 16.2 16.3 57.1
In person at the Otay Water
District office
12 4.0 4.0 61.1
In person at payment center 13 4.3 4.3 65.4
On-line (Internet) 104 34.3 34.6 100.0
Total 301 99.3 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .7
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 86
Q15. No matter how you presently pay your bill, how would you prefer to pay your bill most of
the time?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Send check by mail 66 21.8 21.9 21.9
Automatic bank deduction 56 18.5 18.5 40.4
Credit card over the
telephone
52 17.2 17.2 57.6
In person at the Otay Water
District office
8 2.6 2.6 60.3
In person at payment center 7 2.3 2.3 62.6
On-line (Internet) 113 37.3 37.4 100.0
Total 302 99.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .3
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 87
Q15a - What can the District do to make paying online or make paperless billing a more
appealing option for you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid There is nothing that would
make me pay online
94 31.0 72.3 72.3
Offer discounts on the bill 13 4.3 10.0 82.3
Other 1 .3 .8 83.1
Like present way of paying 8 2.6 6.2 89.2
Want paper record/not
confident online
4 1.3 3.1 92.3
Make it easier 7 2.3 5.4 97.7
Various properties at
once/Access multiple
banks/mobile app
3 1.0 2.3 100.0
Total 130 42.9 100.0
Missing DK/REF 45 14.9
System 128 42.2
Total 173 57.1
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 88
Q15b - If the District were to do that, how much more likely would you be to pay on-line?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very likely 31 10.2 63.3 63.3
Somewhat likely 7 2.3 14.3 77.6
Somewhat unlikely 1 .3 2.0 79.6
Very unlikely 10 3.3 20.4 100.0
Total 49 16.2 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .7
System 252 83.2
Total 254 83.8
Total 303 100.0
Q16 - Would you be interested in receiving your monthly bill from the Otay
Water District by e-mail instead of through the postal service?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 149 49.2 50.7 50.7
No 145 47.9 49.3 100.0
Total 294 97.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 9 3.0
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 89
Q16 - Would you be interested in receiving your monthly bill from the Otay
Water District by e-mail instead of through the postal service?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 149 49.2 50.7 50.7
No 145 47.9 49.3 100.0
Total 294 97.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 9 3.0
Q17. How likely are you to choose to go paperless in your bill paying to the District and
other regular monthly accounts within the next year or two?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very likely 149 49.2 49.7 49.7
Somewhat likely 43 14.2 14.3 64.0
Somewhat unlikely 28 9.2 9.3 73.3
Very unlikely 80 26.4 26.7 100.0
Total 300 99.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 90
Q17a - What is your major objection to the District going paperless?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I do not trust that my
banking data is secure
12 4.0 11.8 11.8
I do not use the Internet 28 9.2 27.5 39.2
I feel more in control of my
money when I write the
checks
13 4.3 12.7 52.0
Easier for my own
accounting/taxes
10 3.3 9.8 61.8
Other 1 .3 1.0 62.7
Want paper confirmation of
payment
18 5.9 17.6 80.4
I will forget to check e-mail 14 4.6 13.7 94.1
Not confident with
computers/e-mail
4 1.3 3.9 98.0
Renters pay 2 .7 2.0 100.0
Total 102 33.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.3
System 197 65.0
Total 201 66.3
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 91
Q18. Regarding your monthly billing, how satisfied are you with the accuracy of your water
bill?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 147 48.5 51.9 51.9
Somewhat satisfied 88 29.0 31.1 83.0
Somewhat dissatisfied 28 9.2 9.9 92.9
Very dissatisfied 20 6.6 7.1 100.0
Total 283 93.4 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 20 6.6
Total 303 100.0
Q19. How confident are you in the accuracy of your monthly meter reading?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very confident 117 38.6 41.5 41.5
Somewhat confident 108 35.6 38.3 79.8
Not too confident 34 11.2 12.1 91.8
Not at all confident 23 7.6 8.2 100.0
Total 282 93.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 21 6.9
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 92
Q20 - The Otay Water District has recently implemented a new bill design. It was first mailed to
customers in September 2011. How satisfied are you with the ease of understanding this new
water bill?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 120 39.6 40.4 40.4
Somewhat satisfied 69 22.8 23.2 63.6
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
16 5.3 5.4 69.0
Somewhat dissatisfied 7 2.3 2.4 71.4
Not aware of the new bill
design
71 23.4 23.9 95.3
DK/REF 14 4.6 4.7 100.0
Total 297 98.0 100.0
Missing Very dissatisfied 6 2.0
Total 303 100.0
Q20a - Do you think that the previous water bill design is easier to understand
than the new bill design?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 74 24.4 49.0 49.0
No 77 25.4 51.0 100.0
Total 151 49.8 100.0
Missing DK/REF 67 22.1
System 85 28.1
Total 152 50.2
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 93
Q21 -- How would you prefer to be contacted by the Otay Water District when bill has not
been paid?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid The postcards are fine 127 41.9 43.5 43.5
E-mail 81 26.7 27.7 71.2
Text message 27 8.9 9.2 80.5
Telephone message 57 18.8 19.5 100.0
Total 292 96.4 100.0
Missing DK/REF 9 3.0
System 2 .7
Total 11 3.6
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 94
Q22 - In comparison to other companies that bill you monthly, how would you
rate your overall customer experience with the Otay Water District?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Best 123 40.6 41.0 41.0
2 78 25.7 26.0 67.0
3 69 22.8 23.0 90.0
4 20 6.6 6.7 96.7
Worst 10 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 300 99.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
Total 303 100.0
Q23 - In the past 6 months, have you used the Otay Water District website to
obtain information or other services from the Otay Water District?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 91 30.0 30.4 30.4
No 208 68.6 69.6 100.0
Total 299 98.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.3
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 95
Q23a - How satisfied were you with the web service you received? Were you...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 65 21.5 71.4 71.4
Somewhat satisfied 15 5.0 16.5 87.9
Somewhat dissatisfied 7 2.3 7.7 95.6
Very dissatisfied 4 1.3 4.4 100.0
Total 91 30.0 100.0
Missing System 212 70.0
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 96
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 97
CUST. How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 48 15.8 15.9 15.9
1 11 3.6 3.7 19.6
2 16 5.3 5.3 24.9
3 21 6.9 7.0 31.9
4 8 2.6 2.7 34.6
5 18 5.9 6.0 40.5
6 14 4.6 4.7 45.2
7 9 3.0 3.0 48.2
8 19 6.3 6.3 54.5
9 4 1.3 1.3 55.8
10 24 7.9 8.0 63.8
11 10 3.3 3.3 67.1
12 13 4.3 4.3 71.4
13 6 2.0 2.0 73.4
14 2 .7 .7 74.1
15 12 4.0 4.0 78.1
16 6 2.0 2.0 80.1
17 2 .7 .7 80.7
18 1 .3 .3 81.1
19 2 .7 .7 81.7
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 98
20 19 6.3 6.3 88.0
21 3 1.0 1.0 89.0
22 1 .3 .3 89.4
23 1 .3 .3 89.7
25 5 1.7 1.7 91.4
26 2 .7 .7 92.0
30 3 1.0 1.0 93.0
31 2 .7 .7 93.7
32 3 1.0 1.0 94.7
33 1 .3 .3 95.0
36 2 .7 .7 95.7
37 2 .7 .7 96.3
40 6 2.0 2.0 98.3
42 1 .3 .3 98.7
43 1 .3 .3 99.0
44 1 .3 .3 99.3
45 1 .3 .3 99.7
53 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 301 99.3 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .7
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 99
PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 13 4.3 4.3 4.3
2 65 21.5 21.7 26.1
3 61 20.1 20.4 46.5
4 80 26.4 26.8 73.2
5 47 15.5 15.7 89.0
6 12 4.0 4.0 93.0
7 14 4.6 4.7 97.7
8 6 2.0 2.0 99.7
12 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 299 98.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.3
Total 303 100.0
TEN. Is your residence owned by someone in your household, or is it rented?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Owned 216 71.3 72.0 72.0
Rented/Other status 84 27.7 28.0 100.0
Total 300 99.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 100
PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 13 4.3 4.3 4.3
2 65 21.5 21.7 26.1
3 61 20.1 20.4 46.5
4 80 26.4 26.8 73.2
5 47 15.5 15.7 89.0
6 12 4.0 4.0 93.0
7 14 4.6 4.7 97.7
8 6 2.0 2.0 99.7
12 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 299 98.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.3
EDU. What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit
for?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid High school or less 52 17.2 19.0 19.0
At least one year of college,
trade or vocational school
83 27.4 30.3 49.3
Graduated college with a
bachelor's degree
107 35.3 39.1 88.3
At least one year of
graduate work beyond a
bachelor's degree
32 10.6 11.7 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 101
PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 13 4.3 4.3 4.3
2 65 21.5 21.7 26.1
3 61 20.1 20.4 46.5
4 80 26.4 26.8 73.2
5 47 15.5 15.7 89.0
6 12 4.0 4.0 93.0
7 14 4.6 4.7 97.7
8 6 2.0 2.0 99.7
12 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 299 98.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.3
Total 274 90.4 100.0
Missing DK/REF 29 9.6
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 102
AGE. Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18 to 34 45 14.9 16.2 16.2
35 to 44 82 27.1 29.5 45.7
45 to 54 77 25.4 27.7 73.4
55 to 64 43 14.2 15.5 88.8
65 or over 31 10.2 11.2 100.0
Total 278 91.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 25 8.3
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 103
ETH. Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid White, not of Hispanic origin 117 38.6 43.3 43.3
Black, not of Hispanic origin 17 5.6 6.3 49.6
Hispanic or Latino 110 36.3 40.7 90.4
Asian or Pacific Islander 20 6.6 7.4 97.8
Native American 1 .3 .4 98.1
Middle Eastern 4 1.3 1.5 99.6
Other 1 .3 .4 100.0
Total 270 89.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 33 10.9
Total 303 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 104
Total Household Income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Under $25,000 19 6.3 7.7 7.7
$25,000 up to (but not
including) $50,000
57 18.8 23.1 30.8
$50,000 up to (but not
including) $75,000
52 17.2 21.1 51.8
$75,000 up to (but not
including) $100,000
47 15.5 19.0 70.9
$100,000 up to (but not
including $150,000
47 15.5 19.0 89.9
$150,0000 or more 25 8.3 10.1 100.0
Total 247 81.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 56 18.5
Total 303 100.0
Language of survey
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid English 296 97.7 97.7 97.7
Spanish 7 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 105
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 106
Q2--other reason for non-repair call
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 203 67.0 67.0 67.0
A payment arrangement 1 .3 .3 67.3
A water leak on outside. I
didn't make my payment so I
called to schedu
1 .3 .3 67.7
About my bill. 1 .3 .3 68.0
Acct balance 1 .3 .3 68.3
Ask about billing cycle 1 .3 .3 68.6
Automatic bill pay didn't
transfer after move.
1 .3 .3 69.0
Automatic payment 1 .3 .3 69.3
Balance 2 .7 .7 70.0
Bill arrangement 1 .3 .3 70.3
Bill extension 1 .3 .3 70.6
Billing 1 .3 .3 71.0
Billing seems too high. I am
the property manager for
this building
1 .3 .3 71.3
Billing and verifying account 1 .3 .3 71.6
Billing arrangement 2 .7 .7 72.3
Billing arrangements. 1 .3 .3 72.6
Bought new washer and
wanted a state refund
1 .3 .3 72.9
Call to see if here was a
special reduce rate for
seniors
1 .3 .3 73.3
Called to find out how much
I owed.
1 .3 .3 73.6
Called to notify that I was
going to be late with my
payment
1 .3 .3 73.9
Change account name. 1 .3 .3 74.3
Change acct info 1 .3 .3 74.6
Check on my bill 1 .3 .3 74.9
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 107
Clarify amount due and
when.
1 .3 .3 75.2
Credit issue 1 .3 .3 75.6
Current amt due 1 .3 .3 75.9
Discrepancy in the bill.
Moved residences.
1 .3 .3 76.2
Find a location to pay your
bill.
1 .3 .3 76.6
For extension 1 .3 .3 76.9
Forgot 2 pay the bill 1 .3 .3 77.2
Get the account to make a
payment.
1 .3 .3 77.6
Got a notice, needed
balance
1 .3 .3 77.9
Had to pay bill 1 .3 .3 78.2
Help with paying the bill 1 .3 .3 78.5
How someone could put the
water bill in my name
1 .3 .3 78.9
I did not have a bill 1 .3 .3 79.2
I had paid in advance and
was not aware it was due
again
1 .3 .3 79.5
I had received a sort of
collection letter.
1 .3 .3 79.9
I needed to pay the bill. 1 .3 .3 80.2
I wanted to see if they would
accept my payment over the
phone.
1 .3 .3 80.5
Just to pay bill 1 .3 .3 80.9
Late on bill 1 .3 .3 81.2
Late on my bill so I was
making a payment
arrangement.
1 .3 .3 81.5
Lifeline benefits 1 .3 .3 81.8
Low water pressure. 1 .3 .3 82.2
Made a payment. 1 .3 .3 82.5
Make a payment 1 .3 .3 82.8
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 108
Make a payment
arrangement.
1 .3 .3 83.2
Make a payment. 1 .3 .3 83.5
Make payment
arrangements
1 .3 .3 83.8
Make sure I was going to
pay on time.
1 .3 .3 84.2
Making payment
arrangement/extension
1 .3 .3 84.5
Meter is under water 1 .3 .3 84.8
Needed a copy of a bill 1 .3 .3 85.1
Needed a current statement 1 .3 .3 85.5
Needed account number to
pay the bill
1 .3 .3 85.8
Needed both spouse names
on bill for school
1 .3 .3 86.1
Notice of payment 1 .3 .3 86.5
Online billing 1 .3 .3 86.8
Over charged 1 .3 .3 87.1
Overdue bill. 1 .3 .3 87.5
Pay a bill 1 .3 .3 87.8
Pay bill. 1 .3 .3 88.1
Payment 3 1.0 1.0 89.1
Payment arrangement 1 .3 .3 89.4
Payment arrangements 3 1.0 1.0 90.4
Payment options 1 .3 .3 90.8
Question about service
charges
1 .3 .3 91.1
Rental property 1 .3 .3 91.4
Scheduled payment 1 .3 .3 91.7
See when it was going to be
disconnected
1 .3 .3 92.1
Sent a fax about a pipe
break & invoice-received no
call
1 .3 .3 92.4
Sent notice after I paid the
bill
1 .3 .3 92.7
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 109
Sold property and needed
the balance
1 .3 .3 93.1
They turned my water off I
was not aware my bill had
not been paid.
1 .3 .3 93.4
To arrange payments 1 .3 .3 93.7
To ask for an extension on
payment.
1 .3 .3 94.1
To check my balance 1 .3 .3 94.4
To have the exact amount I
owed.
1 .3 .3 94.7
To make a payment. 4 1.3 1.3 96.0
To make sure they didn't cut
the water off.
1 .3 .3 96.4
To pay bill 1 .3 .3 96.7
To pay bill over the phone. 1 .3 .3 97.0
To pay bill. 1 .3 .3 97.4
To transfer service 1 .3 .3 97.7
To transfer the name of an
account.
1 .3 .3 98.0
Wanted to check on
balance.
1 .3 .3 98.3
Wanted to find out why I was
billed for sewer. Why it has
increased.
1 .3 .3 98.7
Wanted to get the total of my
bill.
1 .3 .3 99.0
Wanted to know if they could
reduce rates as I am now on
disability
1 .3 .3 99.3
Wanted to make payment
arrangements
1 .3 .3 99.7
Wanted to make sure we
received the payment
1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 110
Q2b--other reason for other call
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 274 90.4 90.4 90.4
Because of them shutting off
the water, pump system was
destroyed
1 .3 .3 90.8
Bill to high 1 .3 .3 91.1
Billing 3 1.0 1.0 92.1
Billing inquiry 1 .3 .3 92.4
Billing payment 1 .3 .3 92.7
Billing question- current amt 1 .3 .3 93.1
Broken pipe, adjusted water
to baseline
1 .3 .3 93.4
Called to pay bill 1 .3 .3 93.7
Change billing name
temporarily
1 .3 .3 94.1
Cut off water, to stop leaking
into canyon
1 .3 .3 94.4
Had a leaky meter. I don't
want the bubbler in my front
yard
1 .3 .3 94.7
I needed an extension 1 .3 .3 95.0
I was behind on my water
bill and I called to make
payment on a date.
1 .3 .3 95.4
Keep putting a wrong $25.00
lockout charge on my bill 3
times.
1 .3 .3 95.7
Late on my bill so I was
making a payment
arrangement.
1 .3 .3 96.0
Make a payment 1 .3 .3 96.4
Make payment options
because the bill is too high
1 .3 .3 96.7
Pay bill 2 .7 .7 97.4
Pay them. 1 .3 .3 97.7
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 111
There was a leak 1 .3 .3 98.0
They accidentally shut off
water
1 .3 .3 98.3
To lower my bill 1 .3 .3 98.7
To make my payment 1 .3 .3 99.0
To make sure they didn't cut
the water off.
1 .3 .3 99.3
To pay the bill 1 .3 .3 99.7
To pay the bill. 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 112
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 113
Q7d - What is one such additional feature you would like to have offered by the automated
system?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 286 94.4 94.4 94.4
A quicker operator prompt. 1 .3 .3 94.7
An alternative way to get
into account if you don't
have your account #.
1 .3 .3 95.0
An early prompt to transfer
to customer service rep
1 .3 .3 95.4
An option to connect to
customer service directly
1 .3 .3 95.7
I need to know the amount
due for the last statement.
1 .3 .3 96.0
I want to be able to pay my
water bill over the phone
with something other than
my account number like
using the last 4 of my SSI or
my phone number.
1 .3 .3 96.4
I would like access to annual
report.
1 .3 .3 96.7
I would like the Interactive
Voice Response to be
available also on weekends,
not only during week days.
1 .3 .3 97.0
Look up bill by name or
address
1 .3 .3 97.4
Option which states what
cycle, balance of previous
bill and current balance.
1 .3 .3 97.7
Pay by card and not use
your routing number.
1 .3 .3 98.0
Pay with a card. 1 .3 .3 98.3
They should talk to customer 1 .3 .3 98.7
Total bal due & what needs
to be paid before disconnect
1 .3 .3 99.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 114
Use address, or phone#,
ss#, pin #
1 .3 .3 99.3
Voice or touch tone option 1 .3 .3 99.7
Yes, pay by phone. 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 115
Q9-other function performed by field rep
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 294 97.0 97.0 97.0
Checked on property lines,
was on house side
1 .3 .3 97.4
Checked to see if the water
was off.
1 .3 .3 97.7
He checked the meter and
installed a bubbler
1 .3 .3 98.0
He did a sewer mark out. 1 .3 .3 98.3
No one showed up, they
refused to come out.
1 .3 .3 98.7
They cut off the water 1 .3 .3 99.0
They did not come out. 1 .3 .3 99.3
They said I had to get a
plumber
1 .3 .3 99.7
They said they showed but
never spoke to anyone
1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 116
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 117
Q15a--other incentive to pay online
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 276 91.1 91.1 91.1
Can all my roommates pay
their own potion of the bill by
their own checking account?
1 .3 .3 91.4
Connect to his local banks 1
place
1 .3 .3 91.7
Difficulty finding the login. 1 .3 .3 92.1
Give me a senior discount 1 .3 .3 92.4
Hubby likes working w/ wife 1 .3 .3 92.7
I do like to get the paper
statement
1 .3 .3 93.1
I want paper for a record 1 .3 .3 93.4
I'm not very good at the
internet
1 .3 .3 93.7
It bothers me that I pay more
for the water than the sewer
1 .3 .3 94.1
It's easier to make payment
on the phone
1 .3 .3 94.4
Like automatic deduction 1 .3 .3 94.7
Lower the water rates and I
would have the money on
time
1 .3 .3 95.0
Make it cheaper. 1 .3 .3 95.4
Make it easier to navigate
the system
1 .3 .3 95.7
More payment centers. 1 .3 .3 96.0
Need hard copies 1 .3 .3 96.4
Never charge to press a
button
1 .3 .3 96.7
Never tried it but would like
to do that. It would be
easier.
1 .3 .3 97.0
Not confident in paperless 1 .3 .3 97.4
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 118
Not too friendly, two screens
to go through. Make it
simple
1 .3 .3 97.7
Rather pay on the phone 1 .3 .3 98.0
Satisfied the way it presently
is.
1 .3 .3 98.3
Some kind of mobile app. 1 .3 .3 98.7
Telephone payment is better 1 .3 .3 99.0
Time wise sometimes is not
good
1 .3 .3 99.3
We don't trust the internet
that well.
1 .3 .3 99.7
Would like it to be broken
down for each address.
1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 119
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 120
Q17a-other objection to paperless
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 260 85.8 85.8 85.8
Because you can miss the
bill on the email.
1 .3 .3 86.1
Don't get too much email. 1 .3 .3 86.5
Don't like using the pc 1 .3 .3 86.8
Filing 1 .3 .3 87.1
Forget when bill is due 1 .3 .3 87.5
Getting monthly bill is a
reminder
1 .3 .3 87.8
Hard copy 1 .3 .3 88.1
I am used to getting paper
bill.
1 .3 .3 88.4
I don't check my email
enough to be compatible
with my lifestyle.
1 .3 .3 88.8
I forget to pay otherwise. 1 .3 .3 89.1
I like having a record 1 .3 .3 89.4
I like the record on file 1 .3 .3 89.8
I like the written documents 1 .3 .3 90.1
I might forget to check on
that.
1 .3 .3 90.4
I might forgot 1 .3 .3 90.8
I need a record. I like to see
the paper
1 .3 .3 91.1
I pay cash 1 .3 .3 91.4
I prefer to have you bill on
hand
1 .3 .3 91.7
I want paper bill for
documentation
1 .3 .3 92.1
I want proof that I paid 1 .3 .3 92.4
I want to see my bill, not
look it up on the internet.
1 .3 .3 92.7
I will forget to look at my
email
1 .3 .3 93.1
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 121
I would like to keep a paper
record
1 .3 .3 93.4
I'm totally against it I think
mail is better.
1 .3 .3 93.7
Lack of responsibility 1 .3 .3 94.1
Like to get paper
confirmation in mail. Don't
like ads just basic bill
1 .3 .3 94.4
Need the paper record 1 .3 .3 94.7
Need the paper reminder 1 .3 .3 95.0
Not always paid from the
same account
1 .3 .3 95.4
Not confident in paperless 1 .3 .3 95.7
Not too good on computer 1 .3 .3 96.0
Paper file record 1 .3 .3 96.4
Physical reminder. 1 .3 .3 96.7
Possibly forget if online. 1 .3 .3 97.0
Prefer having physical bill 1 .3 .3 97.4
Problems with other
companies in the past.
1 .3 .3 97.7
Renters are now paying bill 1 .3 .3 98.0
Tangible in your hand
reminder of the amount you
owe and the date you o
1 .3 .3 98.3
The current tenants have
been paying the bill
1 .3 .3 98.7
The paper bill is a good
reminder
1 .3 .3 99.0
Two people do it, and we
have a record
1 .3 .3 99.3
We have a house of five
children we keep track of our
expenses.
1 .3 .3 99.7
When you think about the
email is just more
advertising
1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Rea & Parker Research Otay Water District Call Center
July, 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey 122
Q21--other method to contact when bill not paid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 301 99.3 99.3 99.3
Email or text before the bill
is due
1 .3 .3 99.7
Regular mail 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
ETH-other: other ethnicity
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 300 99.0 99.0 99.0
Italian and Swedish 1 .3 .3 99.3
Mixed 1 .3 .3 99.7
Spanish & Jewish 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 303 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report April, 2012
2015
Rea & Parker Research
October, 2015
Otay Water District Customer Awareness and Opinion Survey Report
Attachment D
Otay Water
District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
i
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ii
Introduction and Methodology 1
Sample 2
Survey Findings 4
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics 4
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability 8
Comparative Rating of Utilities and the Cost of Water 14
Outdoor Watering and Landscaping 17
Water Conservation 20
Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College 23
Alternative Water Supplies: Desalination 26
Bill Payment 29
Information about Water Issues 36
Conclusions 42
Appendix 43
Questionnaire 44
Frequencies 56
Open-Ended Responses 83
Otay Water
District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
ii
Otay Water District 2015 Residential Customer Opinion and
Awareness Survey
Executive Summary
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and
customer awareness telephone survey among residential customers. The purpose of the survey is
twofold – first, to provide information concerning customer satisfaction and customer awareness
of water issues and secondly to compare the results of this 2015 study with the results of the 2005,
2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Surveys as well
as the 2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey where data are comparable for a limited
number of questions only.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 314 respondents, which equates to a
margin of error of +/- 5.5% at the 95% confidence level. Among these respondents, 100 were
customers who provided cell phone contact information to the District.
Respondents were a plurality of White customers (43 percent), with another 35 percent being
Hispanic/Latino. Survey respondents earn an annual median household income of $83,800, with
33 percent earning $100,000 or more and 20 percent earning under $50,000, including 6 percent
under $25,000. Respondents have a median age of 51 years and have been customers of the Otay
Water District for a median of 10 years. Among these respondents, 58 percent possess a Bachelor’s
degree or higher, with 13 percent having a high school education or less. Survey respondents are
mostly homeowners (80 percent) with a mean household size of 3.52.
Survey Findings
This survey report has been divided into nine essential information components as follows:
• Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
• Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
• Comparative Rating of Utilities and the Cost of Water
• Outdoor Watering the Landscaping
• Water Conservation
• Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca
• Alternative Water Supply: Desalination
• Bill Payment
• Information about Water Issues
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
• Otay Water District customers demonstrate a very high level of satisfaction with the
District as their provider of water service with almost three-fourths (74 percent) rating the
District as excellent (53 percent) or very good (21 percent). These ratings are substantially
higher than those recorded in the 2012 survey where 64 percent of respondents rated their
Otay Water
District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
iii
level of satisfaction as either excellent (29 percent) or very good (35 percent). This rating
also greatly exceeds the satisfaction recorded in all previous surveys dating back to 2005.
• Respondents feel that the Otay Water District has responded well to issues related to the
recent drought. Specifically, 70 percent of respondents agree that the District has been a
good partner in helping conserve water. Nearly three-fourths (74 percent) acknowledge
that the District has provided its customers with adequate and timely information about the
drought. Nearly three-fifths (59 percent) state that the District is not at fault when it comes
to the drought.
• Nearly four-fifths of respondents (84 percent) have a substantial amount of trust in the
ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe, water for its customers (53 percent
a great deal of trust and 31 percent a good amount of trust). Only 4 percent expressed a
lack of trust. These ratings represent, again, a noteworthy increase in the amount of trust
respondents have in the ability of the District to provide clean, safe, water reversing the
ratings portrayed in previous General Surveys.
• Well over one-half (55 percent) of customers have either a great deal of trust (32 percent)
or a good amount of trust (23 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain
water at reasonable prices. This level of trust is higher than the comparable trust ratings in
previous General Surveys (ranging from 39 percent in 2009 and 2012 to 49 percent in
2010).
• Among the 21 percent who called the Otay Water District for service in 2015, 76 percent
indicated that their service was either excellent (59 percent) or very good (17 percent). This
level of satisfaction is similar to the satisfaction level found in the 2012 General Survey.
Further, the satisfaction levels in both the 2015 and 2012 Surveys substantially exceed the
satisfaction levels recorded in 2009 and 2011.
Comparative Rating of Utilities and the Cost of Water
• Nearly two-fifths (37 percent) of Otay Water District customers rate trash collection as the
utility with the best value for the money paid. Water (30 percent) and gas and electric (18
percent) follow trash collection in perceived value. This represents a reversal from the
2012 ratings where water was rated slightly above trash collection as the utility with the
best value.
• Using a composite ranking that takes first, second, and third rankings for each utility into
account, water becomes the utility with the best value followed by trash collection and gas
and electric.
Outdoor Watering and Landscaping
• Over two-thirds (68 percent) of respondents have a lawn or grass area at their residence for
which someone in their household has direct responsibility. Among these customers, nearly
two-fifths (37 percent = 25 percent of all customers) have already replaced this grass area
with a water-conserving alternative. Another 12 percent (8 percent of total customers) plan
to make some type of lawn replacement.
• Among those customers who have replaced their grass area and among those who plan to
do so, one-fourth (25 percent) are making use of water-wise, drought resistant plants.
Another 23 percent view rocks and stones as an appropriate ground cover and one-fifth (20
percent) are replacing their lawns with artificial turf.
• Over two-fifths (44 percent) of those who do not plan to replace their grass area cite cost
as the main barrier.
Otay Water
District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
iv
Water Conservation
• More than 9 in 10 customers (93 percent) have familiarity with mandatory water-use
restrictions that are in effect across the Otay Water District’s service area. In fact, nearly
one-half (48 percent) report that they are very familiar with such restrictions.
• Among the 93 percent of customers who express familiarity with mandatory water
restrictions, 92 percent (86 percent of all District customers) have taken specific actions
to reduce water use. One-half (50 percent) of the actions taken involve reducing water use
outdoors, including less time watering outdoors (23 percent), fewer days per week
watering outdoors (11 percent), and letting lawn/plants die (8 percent).
• These conservation actions are motivated very strongly by the drought with which
California is presently confronted.
• Just over two-fifths (44 percent) of customers are aware that the Otay Water District offers
conservation rebates and incentives.
Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College
• Nearly one-half (49 percent) have seen or heard about the Water Conservation Garden at
Cuyamaca College. Nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of all respondents have, in fact, visited
the Garden. This visitation pattern is consistent with the patterns found in the 2008 survey
(22 percent), the 2009 survey (28 percent), and the 2012 survey (27 percent).
• Over one-half (52 percent = 12 percent of all customers) of those who visited the Water
Conservation Garden made changes to their landscaping that resulted from that visit.
• As a result of visiting the Water Conservation Garden, the most significant change
customers made was an effort to use more water-wise/drought tolerant plants (45 percent).
This change is followed by adjusting sprinklers and reducing outdoor water use (22
percent) and replacing lawn with low-water plants (14 percent). These adjustments are
consistent with changes made in previous survey periods.
Alternative Water Supply: Desalination
• Nearly three-fifths (59 percent) of District customers favor an international agreement to
purchase desalinated water from a proposed Rosarito Beach desalination facility in
Mexico. This represents an increase of 2 percent from the results of the 2012 survey and
13 percent from the results of the 2011 survey where 46 percent favored such an agreement.
• The median percentage of the District’s water that customers feel should derive from the
proposed desalination plant is 50 percent.
• Among the 28 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico or are unsure
(13 percent) about it, two fifths (40 percent = 16 percent of all customers) say they need
more information about the Project and just over one-quarter (27 percent = 11 percent of
all customers) indicates that they do not trust the quality of water in Mexico and/or they do
not trust the Mexican government. Another 13 percent (5 percent of all customers) feels
that the plant should be located in the United States in order to create jobs domestically.
o These recent survey results affirm a positive trend in that a fairly large proportion
of respondents who feel negatively about the project are requesting more
information about it and presumably are showing more interest in it. Further, a
smaller percentage of respondents exhibits distrust for the Mexican government –
down from 55 percent in 2012.
Otay Water
District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
v
Bill Payment
• Nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of respondents receive their monthly bill by mail in paper
format. Among the 66 percent who receive their bill by mail, over two-fifths (44 percent)
object to paperless billing because they want a paper record for bookkeeping and taxes.
• Nearly one- half (48 percent) of respondents examine their bill for water usage or other
factors every time. Nearly one-fifth (17 percent) examine their bill most times and 24
percent do so sometimes.
• Over two fifths (41 percent) of customers pay their bill online, 26 percent pay their bill
through automatic bank deductions, one-fourth (25 percent) pay by sending a check in the
mail and others pay by credit card over the telephone (6 percent) and in person at District
offices (2 percent). It is noteworthy that 46 percent of customers would prefer to pay online
(5 percent more than actually do so) and 20 percent would prefer to use postal mail (5
percent less than actually do so).
• Respondents in 2015 demonstrate a decrease in the use of paying their bill by check through
postal mail (36 percent in 2012 to 25 percent in 2015). The use of automatic bank
deductions to pay bills increased from 18 percent in 2012 to 26 percent in 2015. There is,
therefore, some evidence that customers of the Otay Water District are using or considering
using electronic methods of bill paying and relying less on postal mail.
• About 7 in 10 respondents (71 percent) who currently do not pay their bill online would
still not do so even if a chat function were available to interact directly with a customer
service representative.
• Among customers who do not pay online and indicate a reason for not doing so, nearly
one-half (45 percent) indicate that there is nothing the District can do to make paying on
line more appealing. In 2012, customers who did not wish to pay online were even firmer
in their resolve that the District can do nothing to motivate them to do so (55 percent). Both
years show that three-fourths of those disinclined to pay on-line are not going to be easily
swayed.
Information about Water Issues
• More than one-half (55 percent) of customers obtain information about water issues from
television (38 percent) and the Internet (17 percent---other than Water District websites).
One fifth (20 percent) receive information from sources associated with the Otay Water
District (Otay Water District website and Otay Water District newsletters – each 7 percent
– and informational stuffers in the water bill – 6 percent).
• Over three-fifths (62 percent) of customers have visited the Otay Water District website.
This represents an increase over the 2012 survey results where 52 percent indicated that
they had visited the website.
• Website visitors give the District Website very good ratings – 73 percent excellent or very
good, 24 percent fair, and 6 percent poor.
• More than one-fourth of customers (26 percent) always read the newsletter or bill inserts
that come in the mail with the monthly water bill, 23 percent read these materials most
months, and another 33 percent read them sometimes, leaving 18 percent who never read
the newsletter or bill inserts. Survey results show a consistent increase in readership
patterns since 2008.
• English is not the first language of 20 percent of the survey respondents. Among these 20
percent, 18 percent can read newsletters and reports in English and nearly 2 percent cannot
Otay Water
District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
vi
read newsletters and reports in English but they have someone available who can translate
this information for them. This material is inaccessible to less than 0.5 percent who cannot
read English and do not have someone available to help them translate it for them.
Conclusions
The results of the 2015 General Survey not only demonstrate that there are strong indications of
continued customer support for the work of the Otay Water District, but also that support has
reached a higher level than has been recorded during the past decade. That is, the overall
satisfaction with the District as a water service provider is notably higher than every survey period
since this series of surveys began in 2005. The level of trust and confidence in the ability of the
District to provide clean, safe water and to provide it at reasonable prices is also higher than in
previous surveys.
Water and trash collection have been the top two utilities in the District’s surveys since the
inception of these surveys. That is, these two utilities represent to customers the best value that
they perceive for the money paid among the most commonly used utilities.
There is considerable awareness of water conservation issues and much action has been undertaken
by customers in this regard, driven primarily by the drought. The desalination agreement for use
of desalinated water from Rosarito Beach has seen support to continue to increase, albeit slowly.
Opposition is weakening in that there is indicated that more information is needed in contrast to
earlier surveys that showed more distrust of the international nature of the agreement.
Use of online services for bill payment has remained relatively unchanged, with older and lower
income customers indicating less frequent computer use than other groups.
The results of this survey should be viewed as a very powerful ratification by the public of the
importance and quality of the work done by the District and as an expression of the high value to
the customers of the District of the work in which the Otay Water District is engaged.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
1
Introduction and Methodology
In 1956, the Otay Water District was authorized by the State Legislature and gained its entitlement to water
that was imported into the region. Today, the District serves the needs of more than 200,000 people within
125.5 squares miles in southern San Diego County by purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California through the San Diego County Water Authority and Helix Water District.
Sewer services are also provided to portions of the customer base. Since its inception, the Otay Water
District also has collected and reclaimed wastewater generated within the Jamacha Drainage Basin and
pumps the reclaimed water south to the Salt Creek Basin where it is used for irrigation and other non-
potable uses, such as golf courses, playing fields, parks and roadside landscape.
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and customer
awareness telephone survey among its residential customers. The purpose of the survey is twofold – first,
to provide information concerning customer satisfaction and customer awareness of water issues and
secondly to compare the results of this 2015 study with the results of the 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011,
and 2012 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Surveys (referred to throughout this report as
General Surveys) as well as the 2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey where data are comparable
for a limited number of questions only.
Rea & Parker Research was selected to conduct the 2015 study, as it was for the 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011, and 2012 studies. The purpose of the research is to:
• Determine overall satisfaction with the services of the Otay Water District including the level of
trust in the District to provide enough water at reasonable rates;
• Determine opinions and perceptions of various issues, including:
Overall satisfaction with the District
Effect of the drought and mandatory water restrictions on landscape choices
Cost of water
Awareness and interest in water conservation
Attitudes toward desalination
Formal district communication efforts including the official website
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
2
Monthly billing alternatives
Customer service
Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College
Sources of information about water issues
Relative value of water service in comparison to other utilities
• Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and crosstabulations
of data that can result in new, optimally targeted and tailored public awareness programs.
• Compare the results of this survey with the results of the 2005, 2006, and 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
and 2012 surveys of District customers.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 314 respondents in order to secure a margin
of error not to exceed +/-5.5 percent @ 95 percent confidence1. This figure represents the widest interval
that occurs when the survey question represents an approximate 50 percent-50 percent proportion of the
sample. When it is not 50 percent-50 percent, the interval is somewhat smaller. For example, in the survey
findings that follow, 48.0 percent of respondent households indicate that they are “very familiar” with
existing mandatory water use restrictions due to the drought. This means that there is a 95 percent chance
that the true proportion of the total population of the District’s service area that has not seen or heard these
messages is between 42.5 percent and 53.5 percent (48.0 percent +/- 5.5 percent).
Survey respondents were screened to exclude those customers who have not lived in San Diego County for
at least one year. When respondents asked about who was sponsoring the survey, they were told “this
project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and it’s about issues related to your household water
supply.” The survey sample included, within the 314 respondents, 100 customers who indicated that they
regularly use cell phones. These cell phone users were weighted back into the over data that follow to
reflect 90.4 percent of Otay Water District customers who have provided a landline telephone number only
to the District and 9.6 percent who provided cell phone contact information.
1 Past years’ general surveys have mostly been conducted with 300 respondents and a +/- 5.7 percent margin of error
at 95 percent confidence. In 2012, 480 respondents were obtained with a margin of error of +/- 4.5% at 95%
confidence.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
3
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish. Spanish language respondents comprised 4.4
percent of the survey population, including 6 percent of cell phone users. The distribution of respondents
according to gender was 52 percent male and 48 percent female.
The survey was conducted from August 31, 2015 to September 9, 2012. The total survey cooperation rate
was 47.6 percent, as indicated in Table 1 and mean survey length was 16.7 minutes. This survey report
has been divided into nine essential information components as follows:
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
Comparative Rating of Utilities and the Cost of Water
Outdoor Watering and Landscaping
Water Conservation
Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College
Alternative Water Supplies: Desalination
Bill Payment
Information about Water Issues
Charts have been prepared for each of these major components depicting the basic survey results. Subgroup
analyses for different age groups, various levels of education, gender, home ownership/rental status,
household size, residential tenure in the community, different income categories, ethnicity of residents of
the service area, and cell phone versus land line customers will be presented in succinct bulleted format
when statistical significance and relevance warrants such treatment.
Frequency distributions for the weighted responses and verbatim listings of open-ended responses to survey
questions as well as the survey instrument, itself, are contained in the Appendix.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
4
Table 1
Otay Water District 2015 Customer Survey
Telephone Call Disposition Report
Unknown Eligibility
No Answer/Busy 1238
Answering Machine 1579
Not Home—Call Back 380
Language Barrier 34
Refusal/Mid-term Termination 345
Total Unknown 3576
Ineligible
Disconnect 551
Fax/Wrong Number 210
Total Ineligible 761
Not Qualified—less than one year 58
Eligible
Complete 314
Total Attempts 4,709
Cooperation Rate (Complete/(Complete + Refusal)) 47.6%
Survey Findings
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
Table 2 presents selected demographic characteristics of the survey respondents. Respondents are a White
plurality (43 percent), with another 35 percent being Hispanic/Latino. This is the least White and most
Hispanic/Latino survey for the Otay Water District since this series of surveys began in 2005. Survey
respondents earn an annual median household income of $83,800—the highest in the series of surveys, with
33 percent earning $100,000 or more and 20 percent earning under $50,000, including 6 percent under
$25,000).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
5
2 Data from 2005 and 2006 for Table 1 and all charts are available in the 2012 and prior survey reports.
3 This new category was added to Table 2 to demonstrate that 20 percent of survey respondent households earn less
than $50,000 annually. This 20 percent under $50,000 was established as a quota that the survey sample was required
to achieve.
Otay Water District General Survey Respondent Characteristics2
(weighted for cell phone and landline usage)
Characteristic 2015
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
Ethnicity
White 43% 55% 56% 44% 55% 52% Hispanic/Latino 35% 26% 26% 29% 28% 30% Asian/Pacific Islander 13% 10% 14% 15% 8% 8%
Black/African-American 7%
5%
2%
8%
6%
6% Native American/ Middle East/ Mixed/Other 2% 4% 2% 4% 3% 4%
Annual
Household
Income
Median $83,800 $79,900 $80,400 $85,600 $75,700 $83,500
% $100,000 or more 33% 28% 32% 36% 26% 30%
% $25,000 to under $50,000 14%3
% under $25,000 6% 6% 6% 10% 8% 5%
Age
Median 51 years 53 years 53 years 53 years 53 years 47 years
Years Customer
of Otay Water
District
Median 10 years 12 years 15 years 9 years 12 years 8 years
Education
High School or Less 13% 17% 16% 12% 17% 22%
At Least One Year College, Trade, Vocational School 29%
32%
24%
30%
32%
28%
Bachelor’s Degree 32% 34% 34% 41% 39% 33%
At Least One Year of Graduate Work 26%
17%
24%
17%
12%
17%
Own/Rent
Home Owner 80% 91% 97% 85% 91% 88%
Renter 20% 9% 3% 15% 9% 12%
Persons Per
Household
Mean 3.52 3.12 2.83 3.67 3.28 2.88
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
6
These respondents have a median age of 51 years and have been customers of the Otay Water District for
a median of 10 years. Among these respondents, 58 percent possess a Bachelor’s degree or more, with 13
percent having a high school education or less. Survey respondents are mostly homeowners (80 percent)
with a mean household size of 3.52. The decline in homeownership from the mid-80 percent to mid-90
percent level of past years is notable and is consistent with the lesser median number of years being a
customer (10 years versus 12-to-15 in the 2012 and 2011 surveys). It is also consistent with the
homeownership rate in the United States that reached a 48-year low in the second quarter of 20154.
Table 3 presents a comparison between the landline survey sample that has been the source of respondents
for these Otay Water District Customer Opinion and Awareness Surveys since 2005 and the addition in
2015 of cell phone users. Noteworthy differences between cell phone users and landline customers can be
summarized as follows:
• Cell phone customers are both less White and less Hispanic/Latino, with higher Asian/Pacific
Islander (5 percent higher) and mixed or other, unspecified ethnicities (7 percent higher) present.
• Annual household income among cell phone customers is $14,000 less than for landline customers.
Consistent with this is that cell phone customers are also 10 years younger.
• Cell phone customers are more likely to be renters than are landline customers (36 percent versus
18 percent). The inclusion of cell phone customers in 2015 is, therefore, another contributing
factor to the lower homeownership percentage found in this 2015 General Survey. In keeping with
being renters to a greater extent and being younger, cell phone users have been customers of the
Otay Water District for 4 fewer years than have landline users.
4 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-28/u-s-homeownership-rate-falls-to-lowest-since-the-1960s
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
7
Table 3
Otay Water District
2015 General Survey Respondent
Characteristics
Landline and Cell Phone Customers
Characteristic
Landline
Customers
Cell Phone
Customers
Ethnicity
White 44% 38% Hispanic/Latino 35% 29% Asian/Pacific Islander 13% 18%
Black/African-American 7% 7%
Native American/ Middle East/Mixed/ Other 1% 8%
Annual
Household
Income
Median $85,200 $71,300
% $100,000 or more 34% 25%
% $25,000 to under $50,000 14% 20%
% under $25,000 6% 6%
Age Median 54 44
Years Customer
of Otay Water
District
Median 10 6
Education
High School or Less 13% 11%
At Least One Year
College, Trade, Vocational School 29% 34%
Bachelor’s Degree 32% 31%
At Least One Year
of Graduate Work 26% 24%
Own/Rent
Home Owner 82% 64%
Renter 18% 36%
Persons Per
Household
Mean 3.27 3.95
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
8
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
Chart 1 shows that customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the
District as their provider of water service. In fact, 74 percent rate the Otay Water District as either excellent
(53 percent) or very good (21 percent). It is noteworthy that the percentage of respondents rating the Otay
Water District as “excellent” in the current survey is substantially higher than the percentage of respondents
who provided this rating in the 5 previous general surveys that are shown on Chart 1 and is also higher
than the two surveys done prior to those shown on the chart. That is, this opinion that the Otay Water
District is serving its customers in an excellent fashion exceeds any such rating during the past 10 years.5
Using a broader measure, the 2015 satisfaction ratings (74 percent excellent or very good) exceed those
recorded in the 2011 and 2012 surveys where 63 percent and 64 percent of respondents respectively rated
their level of satisfaction as either excellent or very good. The ratings in 2011, 2012, and 2015 are notably
higher than those expressed in the 2009 and 2010 Surveys. For example, in 2009, 56 percent of customers
rated the Otay Water District as either excellent or very good, and, in 2010, 54 percent indicated either a
very good or excellent rating. Since 2009, there has been a clear trend toward higher levels of satisfaction
with the services provided by the Otay Water District.
The high level of satisfaction accorded to the Otay Water District by its customers is further affirmed by
the mean satisfaction rating of 1.88. This mean rating is based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = excellent, 2
= very good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor, and 5 = very poor.
• Customers with some graduate education (mean of 2.17) are less satisfied with the Otay Water
District than are customers in all other education categories combined (mean of 1.79); this
favorability among groups with less education is particularly the case for customers with a high
school education or less (mean of 1.54).
• Cell phone users (mean of 1.61) have a higher level of satisfaction than landline users (mean of
1.91).
Over four-fifths (83 percent) of respondents indicate that their satisfaction with the Otay Water District has
stayed the same over the past year (Chart 2). This finding represents a measure of stability over the past
year reaffirming the highly favorable satisfaction ratings expressed in Chart 1.
5 Rea & Parker Research is in possession of comparable data as far back as 2005.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200820092010201120122015
26%17%24%25%29%
53%
37%
39%30%38%35%
21%
30%32%31%
30%27%14%
6%11%13%7%8%8%
1%1%2%1%4%
Chart 1
Overall Satisfaction with Otay Water District
as Water Service Provider
(Mean = 1.88 --Scale: 1= Excellent and 5 = Very Poor*)
Very PoorPoorFairVery GoodExcellent
*6-point scale prior to 2015--codes 4 and 5 merged for prior years
Increased, 6%
Decreased,
11%
Stayed the
Same, 83%
Chart 2
Satisfaction with Otay Water District Over the Past Year
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
10
Chart 3 shows that respondents feel that the Otay Water District has responded well to issues related to the
recent drought. For example, 7 in 10 respondents agree that the Otay Water District has been a good partner
in helping conserve water. Nearly three-fourths (74 percent) acknowledge that the District has provided its
customers with adequate and timely information about the drought. Further, nearly three-fifths (59 percent)
state that the Otay Water District is not at fault when it comes to the drought. Customers, however, have
mixed feelings regarding the District’s preparation to address the drought. About two-fifths (39 percent)
agree that the District did not anticipate the severity of the drought and was not well-prepared for it, while
another 38 percent feel that the District was prepared for the severity of the drought.
The following significant relationships are associated with customer sentiment regarding the response by
the Otay Water District to the drought.
• The following subgroups agree that the Otay Water District is a good partner in helping to
conserve water:
o Cell phone users (84 percent) versus landline users (68 percent). o Customers with one year of college education or less (79 percent) as opposed to
those who have a college degree or more education (64 percent).
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Has been a good partner in helping us
conserve water
Has provided us with adequate and timely
information about the drought
Did not anticipate the severity of the
drought and was not well prepared for it
Is not at fault when it comes to the
drought
Yes, 70%
Yes, 74%
Yes, 39%
Yes, 59%
No, 16%
No, 20%
No, 38%
No, 33%
Unsure, 14%
Unsure, 6%
Unsure, 23%
Unsure, 8%
Chart 3
During Recent Drought, the Otay Water District.....
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
11
• The following subgroups acknowledge that the Otay Water District has provided adequate
and timely information about the drought:
o Customers whose first language is English (76 percent) versus those whose first
language is not English (67 percent)
o Customers with larger household sizes – 3 or more persons per household (79
percent) versus customers with 1 and 2 persons per household (64 percent).
• The following subgroups are in agreement that the Otay Water District is not at fault when
it comes to the drought: o Customers who are 54 years of age and under (65 percent) versus those who are
55 years of age and older (49 percent). o Cell phone users (69 percent) as opposed to landline users (58 percent).
Chart 4 shows that over four-fifths of respondents (84 percent) have a substantial amount of trust in the
ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe, water for its customers (53 percent demonstrate a
great deal of trust and 31 percent a good amount of trust). Only 4 percent expressed a lack of trust. In
previous surveys from 2008 to 2012, the percentage of respondents expressing “a great deal of trust” was
much lower than in the current survey – ranging from 28 percent in 2009 and 2012 to 37 percent in 2011.
These current 2015 ratings represent an increase in the amount of trust respondents have in the ability of
the District to provide clean, safe, water, reversing a slight downward trend in this rating in the 2010, 2011,
and 2012 surveys where 78 percent, 75 percent and 65 percent respectively indicated either a great deal of
trust or a good amount of trust.
The high level of trust accorded to the Otay Water District by its customers to provide clean, safe, water is
further confirmed by the mean rating of 1.70. This mean rating is based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = a
great deal of trust, 2 = a good amount of trust, 3 = some trust, 4 = not much trust, and 5 = no trust at all.
This mean rating is clearly more favorable than the mean rating in the 2012 Survey – 2.06.
Chart 5 shows that 55 percent of customers have either a great deal of trust (32 percent) or a good amount
of trust (23 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable prices. One-fifth
(20 percent) lack trust in the District’s ability to provide water at reasonable prices – not much trust (13
percent) and no trust at all (7 percent). This level of trust in the ability of the District to provide water at
reasonable prices, exhibited in the current survey, is notably higher than the comparable trust ratings in
previous General Surveys (ranging from 39 percent in 2009 and 2012 to 49 percent in 2010). It is important
to note that nearly one-third (32 percent) of respondents in the current survey have “a great deal of trust”
in the District to obtain water at reasonable prices, while in previous surveys respondents expressing a great
deal of trust ranged from 10 percent in 2009 to 17 percent in 2010.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
12
The relatively high level of trust accorded to the Otay Water District by its customers to obtain water at
reasonable prices is further affirmed by the mean rating of 2.39. This mean rating is based on a scale of 1
to 5, where 1 = a great deal of trust, 2 = a good amount of trust, 3 = some trust, 4 = not much trust, and 5 =
no trust at all. This mean rating is clearly more favorable than the mean rating in the 2012 Survey – 2.79.
The following subgroups tend to have a lower level of trust in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain
water at reasonable prices.
• Customers with some graduate education (mean of 2.90) have less trust in the Otay Water
District to obtain water at reasonable prices than do customers in all other education
categories combined (mean of 2.22); particularly the case for customers with a high school
education or less (mean of 1.95).
• Customers who are between 55 and 64 years of age (mean of 2.88) have less trust in the
Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable prices than do customers in all other age
brackets combined (mean of 2.19); particularly the case for customers who are 34 years of
age and under (mean of 1.96).
• Customers who have lived in the District for 11 years or more (mean of 2.60) have less
trust that water will be obtained at reasonable prices than those who have lived in the
District for 5 years or less (mean of 2.12).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200820092010201120122015
30%28%31%37%28%
53%
42%40%44%41%
37%
31%
23%28%21%19%
29%
12%
4%3%2%2%3%2%1%1%2%1%1%2%
Chart 4
Trust Otay Water District to Provide Clean, Safe Water
(Mean = 1.70--Scale: 1 = Great Deal of Trust and 5 = No Trust at All)
No Trust at All Not Much Trust Some Trust Good Amount of Trust Great Deal of Trust
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
13
• Landline users (mean of 2.42) have less trust in the District regarding prices than do cell
phone users (mean of 2.11),
Chart 6 indicates that 21 percent of customers have called the Otay Water District for service or help in
the past year. In previous surveys, customers were asked to indicate whether they called the District for
service or help in the previous 6 months. This doubling of the call period coincides with a doubling of the
call rate from the 2012 survey period, where the percentage of customers who reported to have called the
District for service was 9 percent. It can be concluded that the call rate has not changed from the 2012
survey period. The effective call rates in 2015 and 2012 are lower than the call rates in the 2009 and 2011
surveys – both at 17 percent. This can be taken as one possible indication of the high satisfaction level
demonstrated by Otay Water District customers. Among the 21 percent who called for service in the current
2015 survey, 76 percent indicated that their service was either excellent (59 percent) or very good (17
percent) (Chart 6). This level of satisfaction is similar to the satisfaction level found in the 2012 Survey.
Further, the satisfaction levels in both the 2015 and 2012 General Surveys substantially exceed the
satisfaction levels recorded in 2009 and 2011.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20092010201120122015
10%17%12%11%
32%
29%
32%28%28%
23%
38%
38%
41%39%
25%
17%7%13%15%13%
6%6%6%7%7%
Chart 5
Trust Otay Water District to Obtain Water at Reasonable Prices
(Mean = 2.39--Scale: 1 = Great Deal of Trust and 5 = No Trust at All)
No Trust at All Not Much Trust Some Trust Good Amount of Trust Great Deal of Trust
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
14
• Customers who rent their residence (31 percent) are more likely to call the Otay Water District for
service than are those who own their residence (19 percent).
Comparative Rating of Utilities and the Cost of Water
Chart 7 indicates that 37 percent of Otay Water District customers rate trash collection as the utility with
the best value for the money paid. Water (30 percent) and gas and electric (18 percent) follow trash
collection in perceived value. This represents a reversal from the 2012 ratings where water was rated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20082009201120122015
58%
39%
28%
43%
59%
25%
30%
25%
17%27%18%24%
20%13%
9%10%10%
8%2%
6%8%8%4%9%
Chart 6
Satisfaction with Calls to Customer Service
(Mean Satisfaction = 1.85 --Scale: 1 = Excellent and 5 = Very Poor)
Very Poor Poor Fair Very Good Excellent
Percentage of
customers
who called
Customer Service
in past year:
2015 = 21%
2012 = 9%
2011 = 17%
2010 = 17%
2008 = 10%
Renters call more
often = 31%
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
15
slightly above trash collection as the utility with the best value; moreover, the current 2015 ratings represent
a return to 2011 where trash collection was rated as the best value and water was rated second.
The following subgroups tend to rate trash collection as the utility with the best value:
• Customers who earn $100,000 or more annually (52 percent) versus those who earn under $50,000
annually (18 percent) and $50,000 or more but less than $100,000 (32 percent).
• Respondents with a higher level of education – 1 year of college or more education (38 percent) as
opposed to those with a high school education or less (24 percent).
Subgroups that are particularly appreciative of water as the best among their utilities include
• Customers who earn less than $50,000 (39 percent) versus those who earn $100,000 or more (18
percent)
• Some college or less (37 percent) versus college degree or more (25 percent)
Subgroups that are more appreciative of gas and electric service are
• Incomes under $50,000 (25 percent) versus incomes of $50,000 or more (16 percent)
• At least one year of graduate school (26 percent) versus college degree or less (16 percent)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2008
2009
2011
2012
2015
35%
24%
36%
21%
37%
28%
28%
22%
23%
30%
15%
17%
19%
17%
18%
6%
8%
3%
9%
6%
5%
8%
5%
10%
3%
4%
5%
3%
8%
3%
7%
10%
12%
12%
3%
Chart 7
Best Value Among Utilities
Trash Collection Water Gas & Electric Internet Access Cable/Satellite TV Sewer Telephone
Incomes < $50,000 favor Water (39%) and Gas & Electric (25%)over Trash Collection (18%)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
16
Chart 8 further analyzes the customers’ ratings regarding the utility with the best value by accounting for
second and third rankings. Using a composite ranking that takes first, second, and third rankings for each
utility into account, water becomes the utility with the best value followed by trash collection and gas and
electric. Other utilities are far behind by comparison. In 2011 and 2012, trash collection emerged as the
best value when composite, weighted rankings were used. However, in 2008 and 2009, based on composite
rankings, water was reported to be the best value with trash collection following in second place.
Nearly one-half (49 percent) of District customers report that the cost of water is too high. Another 49
percent indicate that the cost is just about right (Chart 9).
• Customers whose first language is English (54 percent) are more likely to feel that the cost of water
is just about right more so than those whose first language is not English (33 percent).
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2008
2009
2011
2012
2015
27%
23%
23%
23%
28%
25%
18%
31%
25%
26%
17%
19%
19%
18%
21%
8%
10%
6%
8%
8%
6%
7%
4%
7%
7%
7%
10%
6%
9%
5%
10%
13%
11%
10%
5%
Chart 8
Best Value Among Utilities--Weighted
(Utilities Ranked 1-2-3 and weighted--3 points for first choice, 2 points for second
and 1 point for third)
Water Trash Collection Gas & Electric Internet Access Sewer Cable/Satellite TV Telephone
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
17
Outdoor Watering and Landscaping
Chart 10 shows that over two-thirds (68 percent) of respondents have a lawn or grass area at their residence
for which someone in their household has direct responsibility (including 71 percent of owners and 52
percent of renters). Among these customers, nearly two-fifths (37 percent) have already replaced this grass
area with stone, water-wise plants or artificial turf. Another 12 percent plan to make some type of lawn
replacement. Nearly one-fifth (19 percent) of those who are responsible for a grass area do not plan to
replace their grass with a water-conserving alternative.
Among those customers who have replaced their grass area (37 percent) and among those who plan to do
so (12 percent), one-fourth (25 percent = 12 percent of total population) of them are making use of water-
wise, drought resistant plants. Another 23 percent (11 percent of total) view rocks and stones as an
appropriate alternative ground cover and one-fifth (20 percent= 10 percent of total) are replacing their lawns
with artificial turf (Chart 11).
Over two fifths (44 percent) of those who do not plan to replace their grass area cite cost as the main barrier.
Another 28 percent indicated that they rent their residence and, while they are responsible to maintain their
lawn area, they are not responsible for major infrastructural changes in the landscape of their residence
(Chart 12). Those customers who earn under $50,000 per year, indicate that the fact that they are renters
is a bigger barrier than cost (56 percent cite rent and 22 percent cite cost as barriers). Those with incomes
of $50,000 or more show the reverse pattern, with 54 percent citing cost as the main barrier and 26 percent
indicating that the fact that they rent is the main barrier.
Too much, 49%Just about right,
49%
Too little, 2%
Chart 9
Cost of Water is...
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
18
The following subgroup plans to replace some or all of their lawn with low-water use landscaping within
the next year.
• Customers with a higher level of education – College degree or more (46 percent) versus one year
of college or less (26 percent).
The following subgroups have taken action or plan to take action to replace their grass area within the next
year:
• Let grass die or replace grass with ground cover
o Customer households earning less than $50,000 annually (20 percent) versus household
earning over $100,000 (2 percent).
o Females (20 percent) versus males (7 percent).
• Replace lawn with water-wise plants
o Males (28 percent) versus females (15 percent)
o Customer households earning less than $50,000 annually (36 percent) as opposed to those
earning $50,000 or more (15 percent).
• Replace lawn with rocks and stones
Responsible for Grass Area and Have Replaced with Stone, Water-Wise
Plants or Artificial Turf,
37%
Responsible for Grass Area and Have Not Replaced with Stone,
Water-Wise Plants or
Artificial Turf--But Plan to Do So, 12%
Responsible for Grass Area and Have Not
Replaced with Stone,
Water-Wise Plants or Artificial Turf--And Do Not Plan to Do So or Are
Unsure, 19%
Not Responsible for Grass
Area, 32%
Chart 10
Replaced All or Some of Grass Area with Low-Water Use
Landscaping
Overall% responsible for grass area = 68%
Owners = 71% with responsibilityRenters = 52% with responsibility
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
19
o Females (25 percent) versus Males (19 percent).
Water-wise,
drought resistent
plants, 25%
Rocks and
Stones, 23%Artificial turf,
20%
Ground cover
and
rocks/stones,
14%
Let grass die and
use ground cover
(e.g. wood
chips), 13%
Cement/
Concrete, 5%
Chart 11
Action Taken or to be Taken to Replace Grass Area
(Among 37% Who Have Replaced and 12% Who Plan to)
Cost, 44%
Rent, 28%Aesthetics,
10%I am too busy, 8%
Grass Area Small,
4%
Moving/
Selling House,
3%
Other (unspecified),
3%
Other, 18%
Chart 12
Main Barrier to Replacing Grass Area with Low-Water Landscaping
(Among 19% with Grass Area Who Have Not Replaced or Do Not Plan to Replace It)
Main Barriers:
Income < $50,000Rent = 56%Cost = 22%
Income >/= $50,000Cost = 54%Rent = 26%
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
20
Water Conservation
Chart 13 indicates that over 9 in 10 customers (93 percent) have familiarity with mandatory water-use
restrictions that are in effect across the Otay Water District’s service area. In fact, nearly one-half (48
percent) report that they are very familiar with such restrictions. Among the 93 percent of customers who
express familiarity with mandatory water restrictions, 92 percent have taken specific actions to reduce water
use in response to these restrictions. This represents 86 percent of all customers.
• Customers who are over the age of 55 tend to be very familiar (62 percent) with mandatory water
restrictions more so than are those 54 years of age and under (37 percent).
• The following two subgroups are either very familiar or somewhat familiar with mandatory water
restrictions: o Females (88 percent) versus males (78 percent).
o Customers whose first language is English (88 percent) as opposed to those whose first
language is not English (67 percent).
Chart 14 shows that one-half (50 percent) of the actions taken by customers to comply with these
restrictions involves reducing water use outdoors, including less time watering outdoors (23 percent), fewer
days per week watering outdoors (11 percent), and letting lawn/plants die (8 percent). Nearly one-fifth (18
percent) of those who have taken action report that they take shorter showers. Similar actions were taken
by customers in previous survey periods to reduce water use.
Very Familiar,
48%
Somewhat
Familiar, 35%
A Little Familiar,
10%
Not Familiar, 7%
Chart 13
Familiarity with Mandatory Water-Use Restrictions
(92% of Those with Some Familiarity Have Taken Action)
(96% have taken action)
(90% have taken action)
(77% have taken action)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015 21
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Less
TimeOutdoor
Water
Shorter
Showers
Fewer
Days perWeek
Outdoor
Water
Let
Lawn/Plants
Die--
Remove
Wash
OnlyFull
Loads of
Dishes
and
Clothes
Collect
andReuse
Water
Use Car
Wash
Do Not
AllowWater
to Run
Replace
Turfwith
Low
Water
Plants
Replace
Grasswith
Artificial
Turf
Irrigate
Early inMorning
or Late
at Night
High-
Effic'ncyClothes
Washer/
Low-
flow
Fixtures
Other*
2015 23%18%11%8%7%7%6%4%3%3%2%2%6%
2012 17%11%8%7%8%3%2%9%2%1%5%1%20%
2011 19%14%7%5%11%3%10%2%6%4%19%
2009 24%21%10%7%10%2%8%2%2%4%7%
Chart 14
Specific Actions Taken to Reduce Water Use in Response to
Mandatory Restrictions
(Among 92% of Respondents with Some Familiarity with Restrictions and Have Taken Action = 86% of All Customers)
*Other includes: Repair Indoor
and Outdoor Leaks, Upgrade
Irrigation System, Use Broom
instead of Hose on Driveway,
Check Soil Moisture Before
Watering
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
22
In 2012, nearly one-fifth (17 percent) spent less time watering outdoors and 11 percent took shorter showers.
Similar to the current survey, customers in the 2011 survey also indicated that the dominant methods they
used to conserve water were through spending less time watering outdoors (19 percent) and taking shorter
showers (14 percent).
Chart 15 indicates that the primary driver for the 92 percent who undertook some measure(s) to reduce
water usage is their concern about the drought (45 percent), followed by that conservation is “the right thing
to do (22 percent),” and cost/budgetary considerations (19 percent).
Chart 16 shows that just over two fifths (44 percent) of customers are aware that the Otay Water District
offers conservation rebates and incentives.
The following two subgroups tend to be particularly aware of conservation rebates and incentives:
• Customers whose first language is English (49 percent) versus those whose first language is not
English (27 percent).
Concerned about
drought, 45%
Right thing to do,
22%
Watching
budget/Save
money, 19%
Water agency has
told us to do so,
8%Anticipating higher ratesin the future and want to be prepared, 3%
Messages in the media, 1%
Other (unspecified), 2%
Other, 6%
Chart 15
Primary Motivation for Reducing Water Use
(among 86% aware of restrictions and have taken actions to conserve)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
23
• Whites (53 percent) versus African-Americans (29 percent) and Asians (24 percent).
Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College
A Water Conservation Garden is located at Cuyamaca College in El Cajon. The Garden demonstrates
various drought resistant and water efficient plants in an attractive and educational environment.
Respondents were asked if they had ever seen or heard anything about the Garden and nearly one-half of
the respondents (49 percent) responded in the affirmative; 24 percent of all respondents have, in fact, visited
the Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden. The visitation pattern in the current survey is consistent
with the patterns found in the 2008 survey (22 percent), the 2009 survey (28 percent), and the 2012 survey
(27 percent). In 2008, visitation was notably low at 16 percent (Chart 17).
Yes , 44%No, 56%
Chart 16
Aware that Otay Water District Offers Conservation
Rebates and Incentives
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
24
The following subgroups are more likely to have heard or seen something about the Cuyamaca College
Water Conservation Garden:
• Females (57 percent) versus males (42 percent).
• Whites (60 percent) versus Latinos (41 percent), Asians (35 percent), and African-Americans (29
percent).
• Longer-term customers of the Otay Water District (6 or more years – 49 percent) versus shorter
term customers (5 or fewer years – 31 percent).
• Homeowners (55 percent) versus renters (25 percent).
• Smaller household sizes (1 and 2 persons per household – 65 percent) versus larger households of
3 persons or more (41 percent).
• Customers who are 45 years of age and older (59 percent) versus those who are 44 years of age and
younger (32 percent).
• Landline users (50 percent) versus cell phone users (38 percent).
The following subgroups are more likely to have visited the Cuyamaca College Water Conservation
Garden:
• Homeowners (53 percent) versus renters (25 percent).
• Customers with a higher level of education – one year of college or more (53 percent) as opposed
to high school or less (20 percent).
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2008
2009
2011
2012
2015
22%
28%
16%
27%
24%
22%
20%
33%
21%
25%
56%
52%
51%
52%
51%
Chart 17
Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College
Heard of and Visited Conservation Garden Heard of but Not Visited Never Heard of or Seen Anything
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
25
Chart 18 shows that over one-half (52 percent) of those who visited the Water Conservation Garden made
changes to their landscaping that resulted from their visit(s). This represents a decline among visitors who
made changes to their watering and landscaping practices from 2012 where 60 percent made such changes.
The results of the current survey are more consistent with customers in 2011 (48 percent) and 2008 (49
percent) than they are with customers in 2009 (61 percent) in terms of those who made changes to their
landscaping as a result of visiting the Garden.
• After visiting the Garden, males (67 percent) are more likely to make changes to their landscaping
than are females (39 percent).
As a result of visiting the Water Conservation Garden, the most significant change customers made was an
effort to use more water-wise/drought tolerant plants (45 percent). This change is followed by adjusting
sprinklers and reducing outdoor water use (22 percent) and replacing lawn with low-water plants (14
percent). These adjustments are fairly consistent with the changes made by customers in 2011 and 2009
after they visited the Cuyamaca Water Conservation Garden (Chart 19).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
20082009201120122015
51%
39%
52%
40%
48%49%
61%
48%
60%
52%
Chart 18
Made Changes to Landscaping as a Result of Visiting
Water Conservation Garden
(Among 24% Who Have Visited)
No Yes
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
26
Alternative Water Supply: Desalination
Chart 20 shows that 59 percent of District customers favor an international agreement to purchase
desalinated water from a proposed Rosarito Beach desalination facility in Mexico. This percentage
represents an increase of 2 percent from the results of the 2012 survey and 13 percent from the results of
the 2011 survey where 46 percent favored such an agreement. The favorability rating in the current survey
is comparable to the one in 2010 where 54 percent of customers indicated that they favored an international
agreement with Mexico. It is important to recall that the 2010 survey was conducted specifically about
desalination and a great deal of information was included in that survey in contrast to the few questions and
limited information in the 2011, 2012 and 2015 general customer surveys. The evidence shows that
customer support is building for an international agreement with Mexico to purchase desalinated ocean
water from the proposed Rosarito Beach facility.
• Males (67 percent) tend to favor an international agreement with Mexico more so than do females
(49 percent).
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Changed Plants to
Waterwise/Drought Tolerant
Adjusted Sprinkers/Reduced
Outdoor Water Use
Replaced Lawn with Low-Water
Plants
Let Landscape/Lawn Die-
Eliminate
Collect and Reuse
Upgraded Irrigation System
45%
22%
14%
10%
7%
2%
39%
13%
5%
17%
13%
9%
54%
17%
9%
6%
4%
Chart 19
Most Significant Change in Landscape as a Result of Visiting
Water Conservation Garden
2015 2011 2009
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
27
Among the 59 percent of District customers who favor the Agreement, over one-fourth (26 percent) feels
that 75 to 100 percent of the District’s water should derive from the Rosarito Beach desalination plant.
Another 25 percent thinks that 50 to 74 percent of the District’s water should come from this plant. The
median percentage of the District’s water that customers feel should derive from the proposed Desalination
Plant is 50 percent (i.e. half of the residents who favor the plant prefer a higher percentage and half prefer
a lower percentage) (Chart 21).
Among the 28 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico or are unsure (13 percent)
about it, two fifths (40 percent) say they need more information about the Project and just over one-quarter
(27 percent) indicates that they do not trust the quality of water from Mexico and/or they do not trust the
Mexican government. Another 13 percent feels that the plant should be located in the United States in order
to create jobs domestically. In previous surveys, the opinions for opposing the desalination agreement with
Mexico differ from the current survey in three important ways. First, a much smaller percentage of
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2015 2012 2011 2010
59%57%
46%
54%
28%28%
34%34%
13%15%
20%
12%
Chart 20
In Favor of Pursuing Agreement for Rosarito Beach Desalinated Water
Favor Not Favor Unsure
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
28
respondents in 2012 (7 percent), 2011 (4 percent), and 2009 (3 percent) needed more information about the
Desalination Plant than in 2015. Trust in the Mexican government and in water quality in Mexico has
improved substantially since 2009 when 68 percent expressed a lack of trust in Mexico. Since 2011, a
smaller percentage of respondents are advocating that the Desalination Plant should be located in the U.S.
to create jobs in the U.S. (13 percent) – down from 30 percent in 2011. A positive trend emerges as
respondents have become interested enough in the Desalination Project to require more information about
it, they have less distrust in the Mexican government and the quality of water in Mexico, and there is less
negative sentiment about locating the plant in Mexico as opposed to the United States and the foregone
opportunity to create jobs in the United States (Chart 22). This likely reflects either a greater degree of
faith in the U.S. economy than in 2011 or an increased recognition that the time and cost to create such a
plant in the United States may be problematic.
• Customers who are 45 years of age and older (18 percent) tend to distrust the Mexican government
and the water quality in Mexico more so than those 44 years of age and under (8 percent).
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
100%
75%-99%
50%-74%
25%-49%
Some but less than 25%
None
14%
12%
25%
27%
13%
9%
Chart 21
Percentage of All Otay Water District Water that is Preferred from
Rosarito Beach Desalination Plant
(Among 59% Who Favor the Agreement---Median Percentage = 50%)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
29
Bill Payment
Chart 23 shows that nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of respondents receive their monthly bill by mail in
paper format. Among the 66 percent who receive their bill by mail, over two-fifths (44 percent) object to
paperless billing because they want a paper record for bookkeeping and taxes and 15 percent indicate that
they do not use computers very often. The percentage of customers who are concerned that the paperless
option does not afford a paper record increased substantially since the 2011 survey (27 percent in 2011 to
44 percent in 2015). Computer use seems to be increasing among these respondnets to a limited extent.
Those who indicated that they do not use computer very often fell from 23 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in
2012 and to 15 percent in 2015. Finally, in the current 2015 survey, respondents also offered the following
reasons for their objection to paperless bill paying: They will forget to check the computer for the bill and
the bill simply comes by mail and they pay it– each 9 percent (Chart 24).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Need
MoreInfor-
mation
Do Not
TrustMexican
Govt/
Mexico
Water
Quality
Put
Plant inU.S./
Create
U.S.
Jobs
Cost Do Not
DesireInterna-
tional
Involv-
ment
Danger
to SeaLife
Lack of
Control
Do Not
Want toDrink
Sea-
water
Do Not
LikeIdea/
Other
2015 40%27%13%12%3%3%1%1%
2012 7%55%13%8%4%5%3%5%
2011 4%41%30%10%7%5%3%
2009 3%68%18%
Chart 22
Why Not Favor Desalination Agreement?
(Among 28% Not in Favor and 13% Unsure)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
30
The following subgroups are more likely to receive a paper copy of their bill:
• African-Americans (76 percent), Whites (69 percent), and Latinos (69 percent) as opposed to
Asians (45 percent).
• Longer-term customers of the Otay Water District – 11 or more years (79 percent) versus 10 years
and under (55 percent).
• Older residents of the Otay Water District – 65 years of age and older (85 percent) versus 34 years
of age and under (52 percent).
• Residents with less education – high school education or less (88 percent) as opposed to 1 year of
college or more (62 percent).
Yes , 66%
No, 34%
Chart 23
Receive Monthly Bill by Mail in Paper Format?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
31
Older, lower income, and Spanish language respondents cite their infrequent use of the computer more so
than do other groups.
• Those with incomes under $50,000 are much more likely to indicate their lack of computer usage
26 percent) in comparison to those who earn $50,000 or more (8 percent).
• Older customers (26 percent of those 65 years of age and older) are less likely to be regular
computer users than younger customers (6 percent of those under the age of 65)
• Those customers who preferred to take the survey in Spanish are considerably lower in their
computer use (57 percent) than are thos who took the survey in English (12 percent)
Chart 25 indicates that nearly one- half (48 percent) of respondents examine their bill for water usage or
other factors every time. Nearly one-fifth (17 percent) examine their bill most times and 24 percent do so
sometimes.
The following subgroups tend to examine their bill frequently.
• Customers who examine their bill everytime:
o Whites (57 percent) versus African-Americans (45 percent), Latinos (41 percent), and
Asians (35 percent). o Homeowners (53 percent) as opposed to renters (32 percent).
44%
15%
9%
9%
4%
4%
2%
2%
11%
46%
16%
6%
8%
15%
9%
27%
23%
7%
18%
14%
11%
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Want Paper Record
Do Not Use Computers That Often
Will Forget to Check Computer for Bill
My Bills Come That Way and I Pay Them
Comfortable Paying by Check
Lack of Security/Do Not Keep PersonalRecords on Computer
Do Not Want People to Lose Jobs
Difficulty Accessing Account/My Bank Does
Not Allow
Other (unspecified or irrelevant)
Chart 24
Objection to Paperless Bill Paying
2015
2012
2011
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
32
• Customers who examine their bill everytime or most months:
o Longer-term residents of the Otay Water District – 11 years or more (72 percent) versus
10 years and under (60 percent).
o Customers who are 55 years of age and over (78 percent) as opposed to those 54 years of
age and under (56 percent).
Chart 26 shows that over two fifths (41 percent) of customers pay their bill online, 26 percent pay their
bill through automatic bank deductions, one-fourth (25 percent) pay by sending a check in the mail and
others pay by credit card over the telephone (6 percent) or in person at District offices (2 percent). It is
noteworthy that 46 percent of customers would prefer to pay online (5 percent more than actually do so)
and 20 percent would prefer to use postal mail (5 percent less than actually do so). Respondents in 2015
demonstrate a decrease in the use of paying their bill by check through postal mail (36 percent in 2012 to
25 percent in 2015). The use of automatic bank deductions to pay bills increased from 18 percent in 2012
to 26 percent in 2015). These trends point to the conclusion that customers of the Otay Water District are
either using or considering the use of electronic methods of bill paying and wish to rely less on postal mail.
Every time, 48%
Most times, 17%
Sometimes, 24%
Never, 11%
Chart 25
Examine Bill for Water Usage or Other Factors?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
33
The following subgroups are more likely to pay their water bill online (Internet);
• Larger households of 3 persons or more (45 percent) versus smaller households of 1 or 2 persons
(34 percent).
• Cell phone users (47 percent) versus landline users (41 percent).
• Renters (49 percent) versus owners (39 percent).
• Customers with some graduate education (54 percent) as opposed to those with a college degree or
less education (37 percent).
• Latinos (56 percent) versus Asians (35 percent, Whites (35 percent), and African-Americans (24
percent)).
• Customers who earn $50,000 or more annually (48 percent) as opposed to those who earn under
$50,000 (28 percent).
• Customers who have less residential tenure in the District – 20 years or fewer (46 percent) versus
21 or more years (27 percent).
• Younger and middle-age customers (54 years of age and younger = 56 percent) versus older
customers (55-64 = 29 percent and 65 and older = 18 percent)
The following subgroups tend to pay their water bill by sending a check in the mail.
• Homeowners (27 percent) versus renters (14 percent)
• Landline users (26 percent) as opposed to cell phone users (14 percent).
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Online
Automatic Bank Deduction
Check by Mail
Credit Card by Telephone
In-Person at Otay Water
District Office
In-Person at Payment
Center
41%
26%
25%
6%
1%
1%
41%
18%
36%
2%
2%
1%
46%
26%
20%
6%
1%
1%
48%
18%
29%
3%
2%
1%
Chart 26
Actual and Preferred Methods for Paying Bill
Actual Method 2015 Actual Method 2012 Preferred Method 2015 Preferred Method 2012
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
34
• Smaller households of 3 persons or fewer (33 percent) versus larger households of 4 or more
persons (15 percent).
• Longer term customers of the District – 21 or more years (49 percent) versus customers who have
lived in the District for 20 years and under (17 percent).
The following subgroups indicate that they would prefer to pay their bill on-line no matter how they
currently pay their bill.
• Renters (53 percent) versus homeowners (44 percent).
• Customers with some graduate education (58 percent) as opposed to those with a college degree or
less – 43 percent).
• Latinos (61 percent) versus African-Americans (24 percent).
• Cell phone users (55 percent) versus landline users (44 percent).
• Shorter-term residential tenure in the District – 20 years or less (50 percent) versus 21 or more
years (29 percent).
• Customers who are 54 years of age and under (60 percent) versus those who are 55 years of age
and older (26 percent).
The following subgroups would prefer to pay their water bill by sending a check in the mail no matter how
they currently pay their bill.
• Homeowners (22 percent) versus renters (10 percent).
• Landline users (21 percent) versus cell phone users (10 percent).
• Residents whose annual household income is $50,000 and over (52 percent) as opposed to those
who earn less than $50,000 (32 percent).
• Longer-term residential tenure – 21 years or more (44 percent) versus 20 years or less (13 percent).
Chart 27 shows that about 7 in 10 respondents (71 percent) of the 59 percent who currently do not pay
their bill on-line would still not do so even if a chat function were available to interact directly with a
customer service representative.
The following subgroups are more likely to use a chat function to interact directly with a customer service
representative.
• Asians (46 percent) versus Whites (8 percent).
• Renters (36 percent) as opposed to homeowners (19 percent).
• Cell phone users (40 percent) versus landline users (20 percent).
• Residents of the District for 20 years or less (29 percent) as opposed to those who are residents of
21 years or more (4 percent).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
35
Chart 28 shows that, among customers who do not pay online and indicate a reason for not doing so, nearly
one-half (45 percent) indicate that there is nothing the District can do to make paying online more appealing
and another 28 percent do not really know what the District can do in this regard. Some customers indicate
that discounts on their bill would make paying on-line more appealing and multiple payment options to
make transactions easier would facilitate online bill paying – 9 percent each. In 2012, customers who did
not wish to pay online were even firmer in their resolve that the District can do nothing to motivate them
to do so (55 percent). Further, in 2012, the uncertainty about what the District could do to make online bill
paying more appealing stood at 20 percent. In both 2015 and 2012, these two dominant responses indicate
that these customers cannot think of anything that would move them toward online bill payment— both
years show that three-fourths of those disinclined to pay online are not going to be easily swayed.
Yes, 22%
No, 71%
Unsure, 7%
Chart 27
Use Website to Pay If Chat Function Were Available to Interact Directly
with Customer Service Representative?
(Among 59% Who Do Not Presently Pay Online)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
36
Information about Water Issues
Chart 29 shows that more than one-half (55 percent) of customers obtain information about water issues
from television (38 percent) and the Internet (17 percent--other than Water District websites). One fifth
(20 percent) receive information from various sources associated with the Otay Water District (Otay Water
District Website and Otay Water District Newsletters – each 7 percent – and informational stuffers in the
water bill – 6 percent).
The following subgroups are more likely to obtain information about water issues from the Internet:
• Latinos (23 percent) versus African-Americans (5 percent)
• Shorter residential tenure – 10 years or less as a resident of the District (21 percent) as opposed to
11 or more years (11 percent).
• Cell phone users (36 percent) versus landline users (15 percent).
The following subgroups are more likely to obtain information about water issues from television.
• Customers with an annual household income of under $100,000 (43 percent) versus those with
household incomes of $100,000 or more (23 percent).
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Nothing/Do Not Like Online Financial…
Do Not Know
Discounts
Make Transactions Easier/Credit…
Make Transaction More Secure
No Service Charges
Phone App
Other (unspecifed or irrelevant)
45%
28%
9%
9%
4%
2%
2%
1%
55%
20%
10%
5%
2%
2%
6%
37%
39%
15%
9%
Chart 28
What Can Otay Water District Do to Make
Paperless Bill Paying a More Appealing Option?
(Among 59% Who Do Not Presently Pay Online)
20
15
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
37
• African-Americans (50 percent) and Asians (45 percent) versus Whites (37 percent) and Latinos
(33 percent).
• Landline users (39 percent) as opposed to cell phone user (29 percent).
• Customers who are 18-24 years of age (75 percent) versus customers who are 25 years of age and
over (38 percent).
Chart 30 shows that over three-fifths of customers (62 percent) have visited the Otay Water District
website. This represents a substantial increase over the 2012 survey results where 52 percent indicated that
they had visited the website. Further, there has been a steady increase of customers who have visited the
Otay Water District website since 2008. Specifically, in 2008, 27 percent visited the website, 32 percent
visited the website in 2009, and 39 percent visited the website in 2011.
The following subgroups are more likely to have visited the Otay Water District website:
• Customers of 10 years or less – 75 percent versus longer term customers of 11 years or more – 47
percent.
Television, 38%
Internet--Other
than Water District
Websites, 17%
Newspaper--Union
Tribune, 8%
Otay Water
District Website,
7%
Otay Water
District
Newsletters, 7%
Word-of-Mouth/
Family/Friends/Co
-workers, 7%
Informational Stuffers
in Water Bill, 6%
Radio, 6%
Newspaper--Other, 3%
San Diego County Water Authority Website, 1%
Other, 16%
Chart 29
Primary Source of Information About Water Issues
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
38
• Customers who rent their residence (71 percent) as opposed to those who are homeowners (60
percent).
• Customers with annual incomes $50,000 and over (68 percent) versus those with annual incomes
of under $50,000 (35 percent).
• Respondents who are 54 years of age and under (75 percent) as opposed to those 55 years of age
and older (44 percent).
Chart 31 indicates that website visitors give the Otay Water District website very good ratings – 70 percent
excellent or very good, 24 percent fair, and 6 percent poor. These ratings represent a decline from the 2012
survey ratings where 78 percent rated the website as either excellent or very good. The current 2015 ratings
are well above the 2009 ratings (61 percent rating the Website as excellent or very good) but well below
the 2008 ratings (86 percent rating the Website as excellent or very good). The rating of the website,
therefore, varies considerably from year-to-year, which could parallel updates and changes to the website.
It might be interesting to examine this potential correlation.
Customers who have visited the website rate the website with an overall mean of 1.99. This mean is based
upon a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = fair, and 4 = poor. This reaffirms the
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2008
2009
2011
2012
2015
27%
32%
39%
52%
62%
57%
57%
49%
40%
31%
16%
11%
12%
8%
7%
Chart 30
Visited Otay Water District Website?
Have Visited Website Have Internet Access But Have Not Visited Website
Do Not Have Access to the Internet
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
39
relatively high rating indicated and explained above. The current mean rating is less positive, however,
than the 1.83 rating recorded in 2012.
• Higher income customers rate the Website less favorably -- $150,000 or more (mean of 2.53) versus
all other income categories (mean of 1.85).
Among the 62 percent of customers who visited the Otay Water District Website, nearly one half (49
percent) reported that they do so in order to pay their bill online (Chart 32). Another one fifth (21 percent)
access the website to obtain billing information. Nearly 1 in 10 (9 percent) of website visitors are seeking
drought information and 7 percent are in search of conservation rebate information.
Chart 33 shows that 26 percent of customers always read the newsletter or bill inserts that come in the mail
with the monthly water bill, 23 percent read these materials most months, and another 33 percent read them
sometimes, leaving 18 percent who never read the newsletter or bill inserts. These results show a consistent
increase in readership patterns since 2008. For example, in the current 2015 survey, 49 percent of
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20082009201120122015
24%
8%18%
31%40%
62%
53%
56%
47%30%
14%
32%
24%19%24%
7%2%3%6%
Chart 31
Rating of User Friendliness of Website
(respondents = 62% who have visited website)
(Mean = 1.99--Scale: 1=Excellent and 5=Poor*)
Poor Fair Very Good Excellent
*2015:"Poor" category
includes 5% who ratedthe website at 4 and
1% who rated it at 5.
Prior years ratings
were 1-4 only.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
40
respondents read these materials every month or most months. In 2012 and 2011, 52 percent and 49 percent
of customers respectively read the newsletter and bill inserts that frequently. It is noteworthy that the last
four survey periods (2009, 2011, 2012, and 2015) show a higher readership pattern than does the 2008
survey (31 percent every month or most months). Also, the percentage of customers who never read the
newsletter or bill inserts decreased by 9 percent over the 2008 survey (27 percent in 2008 to 18 percent in
2015).
• Customers with longer residential tenure in the District tend to read the Newsletter and bill inserts
every time or most times more so than do customers with a shorter residential tenure (11 years or
more – 58 percent; 10 years and under -- 41 percent)
Chart 34 indicates that English is not the first language of 20 percent of the survey respondents. Among
these 20 percent, 18 percent can read newsletters and reports in English and nearly 2 percent cannot read
newsletters and reports in English but they have someone available who can translate this information for
them. Less than 0.5 percent cannot read English and do not have someone available to help them translate
newsletters and reports for them.
Pay online
49%
Billing
information
21%
Drought
information
9%Conservation
rebate
information
7%General Information/Water Quality5%
Start Service4%
Register a Complaint2%
Rate information 1%
Outage information 1%
Water savings calculator
1%
Other
14%
Chart 32
Primary Reason for Visiting Website
(among 62% who had visited website)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
41
Conclusions
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
20082009201120122015
27%
21%
17%
14%
18%
42%
31%
34%34%33%
15%16%
25%
21%
23%
16%
32%
24%
31%
26%
Chart 33
Read Newsletters and Bill InsertsNeverSometimesMost Times Every Time
English is first
language, 80%
English is not first
language but can
read newsletters and reports in English,
18%
English is not first
language, cannot
read newsletters and reports in English,
but have someone
who can, 2%
Chart 34
Ability to Read and Understand Newsletters, Water Quality Reports, Rate
Increase Notices in English
Less than 0.5 percent cannot read in English
and do not have someone to help
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
42
The results of the 2015 General Survey not only demonstrate that there are strong indications of continued
customer support for the work of the Otay Water District, but also that support has reached a higher level
than has been recorded during the past decade. That is, the overall satisfaction with the District as a water
service provider is notably higher than every survey period since this series of surveys began in 2005. The
level of trust and confidence in the ability of the District to provide clean, safe water and to provide it at
reasonable prices is also higher than in previous surveys.
There is considerable awareness of water conservation issues and much action has been undertaken by
customers in this regard, driven primarily by the drought. The desalination agreement for use of desalinated
water from Rosarito Beach has seen support to continue to increase, albeit slowly. Opposition is weakening
in that there is indicated that more information is needed in contrast to earlier surveys that showed more
distrust of the international nature of the agreement.
Use of online services for bill payment has remained relatively unchanged, with older and lower income
customers indicating less frequent computer use than other groups.
The results of this survey should be viewed as a very powerful ratification by the public of the importance
and quality of the work done by the District and as an expression of the high value to the customers of the
District of the work in which the Otay Water District is engaged.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
43
APPENDIX
Questionnaire
Frequencies—Weighted
Open-Ended Responses, including Other, Please Specify
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
44
Otay Water District
General Survey 2015
INT. Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling on behalf of the Otay Water District.
We're conducting a study about some issues having to do with your household water
supply and we're interested in your opinions. [IF NEEDED:] Are you at least 18 years
of age or older? [IF 18+ HOUSEHOLDER NOT AVAILABLE NOW, ASK FOR FIRST
NAME AND MAKE CB ARRANGEMENTS]
VER. [VERSION OF INTERVIEW:] 1 - VERSION A 2 - VERSION B*
* = RESPONSE OPTIONS REVERSED ON VERSION B FOR ALL QUESTIONS INDICATED
IC. Let me assure you that no names or addresses are associated with the telephone
numbers, and all of your responses are completely anonymous. The questions take
about 15 minutes. To ensure that my work is done honestly and correctly, this call may
be monitored. Do you have a few minutes right now?
[IF ASKED ABOUT MONITORING:] My supervisor randomly listens to interviews to
make sure we're reading the questions exactly as written and not influencing answers in
any way.
TOP. [ONLY IF ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT TOPIC OR WHO'S
SPONSORING IT?:] This project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and it's about
some issues related to your household water supply. [IF SPONSOR INFORMATION
GIVEN TO RESPONDENT, "TOPIC"=1]
CUST. How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District? [IF LESS THAN ONE
YEAR, THANK AND CODE NQR-RES]
_________ YEARS
0 -----------> "NQR-RES"
99 - DK/REF, BUT AT LEAST ONE YEAR
SEX. [RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT:]
1 - MALE
2 - FEMALE
-------------------------- QUALIFIED RESPONDENT: QUOTAS CHECKED; DATA SAVED -------------------------
LP. [IF INDICATED BY ACCENT:] Would you prefer that we speak in...
1 - English or
2 - Spanish?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
45
SATISFACTION---OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
Q1: On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Excellent and 5 is Poor, how would you rate your overall
satisfaction with the Otay Water District as your water service provider?
1---Excellent
2—
3 --
4 --
5—Poor
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
Q2. During the past year, has your satisfaction with the Otay Water District…
1—Increased?
2—Decreased?
3—Stayed the same?
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
Q3a-d. During this recent drought, would you say that the Otay Water District…
Yes (1) No (2) DK/REF(9) Do Not Read
a---has been a good partner in helping us to conserve water?
b—has provided us with adequate and timely information about the drought?
c—did not anticipate the severity of the drought and was not well prepared for it?
d—is not at fault when it comes to the drought?
Q4: Have you called the Otay Water District for service or other help during the last year?
1 - YES
2 - NO – [GO TO Q5]
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]– [GO TO Q5]
Q4a—[IF Q4 = 1] On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Excellent and 5 is Poor, how would
you rate your overall level of satisfaction with the service you received when you called
for service or help? REVERSE
1---Excellent
2
3
4
5—Poor
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
46
Q5. With 1 being a great deal of trust and 5 being no trust at all, how much trust do you have in
the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water to the district? REVERSE
1 – a great deal of trust,
2
3
4
5 – no trust at all?
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
Q6. Again with 1 being a great deal of trust and 5 being no trust at all, how much trust do you
have in the Otay Water District to obtain this water for you at a reasonable price? REVERSE
1 – a great deal of trust,
2
3
4
5 – no trust at all
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
Q7. Have you ever visited the Otay Water District website?
1 - YES
2 – HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET, BUT HAVE NOT VISITED WEBSITE ---------
--------------> GO TO Q8
3—DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET----------GO TO Q8
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ)-----------------> GO TO Q8
Q7a. [IF Q7 = 1] On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being excellent and 5 being poor, how
would you rate the user friendliness of the website? Would you say...
1 - excellent
2
3
4
5 - poor
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
Q7b. What was the reason for your last visit to the Otay Water District website?
____________________________________________
RECORD ONE RESPONSE
DO NOT READ-------------CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA]
1. Drought Information
2. Water Savings Calculator
3. Billing Information
4. Pay Online
5. Rate Information
6. How to Read the Water Meter
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
47
7. How to Check for Leaks
8. Outages
9. Conservation Rebate Information
10. Board of Directors Meetings and Information
11. Employee Directory
20. Other, specify_____________________
25. DK/REF
WATER RATES
Q8a-c. I am going to mention six utilities that serve the needs of residents and businesses in the
region. Considering only those utilities that you pay for, which would you say is the best
value for the amount of money that you pay. Which ones are second and third?
[ROTATE LIST]
MOST (8a) SECOND (8b) THIRD (8c)
a. Trash collection 1 1 1
b. Water 2 2 2
c. Sewer 3 3 3
d. Telephone 4 4 4
e. Cable or Satellite TV 5 5 5
f. Internet access 6 6 6
g. Gas & Electric 7 7 7
Q9. Do you feel that water costs too much, too little, or priced about right?
1. water costs too much
2. the cost of water is just about right
3. water costs too little
BILLING
We would like to ask a few questions about the District’s invoices
Q10. Do you get a paper copy of your bill?
1. YES
2. NO –GO TO Q11
3. DK/REF—DO NOT READ—GO TO Q11
Q10a. [IF Q10 =1] Why haven’t you chosen to receive electronic, paperless invoices?
_______________________________________________
[USE FOLLOWING CODING BUT DO NOT READ—ENTER OTHER ANSWERS
VERBATIM—99 = DK/REF]
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
48
1. Want paper record
2. Computers can fail
3. Trust/security
4. Do not use computers that often
5. I do not keep personal records on the computer
6. Used to paying by check
7. I will forget to check for the bill on the computer
8. That is just the way the bills have been coming
20. Other, specify___________________________
Q11. No matter how you get your monthly water bill, do you look through your monthly water
bill to examine your water usage or other factors …
1 - every time,
2 - most times,
3 - sometimes, or
4 - never? ---------------
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]----
Q12. How do you pay your water bill most months?
1—Send check by mail
2—Automatic bank deduction
3—Credit card over the telephone
4—In person at the Otay Water District office
5—In person at payment center
6—On-line (Internet) [GO TO Q13]
Q12a. [IF Q12 DOES NOT = 6] Do you think that you would use the website to pay your
bill if a chat function were available that allows you to ask questions directly to a customer
service representative?
1—YES
2—NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q12b. [IF Q12 DOES NOT = 6] What else can the District do to make paying on-line a
more appealing option for you?
_______________________________________________________________
DK/REF = 99
[USE THE FOLLOWING CODES BUT DO NOT READ THEM. ENTER ALL OTHER
ANSWERS VERBATIM—CODE 20]
1. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD MAKE ME PAY ONLINE
2. OFFER DISCOUNTS ON THE BILL
3. OFFER MORE PAYMENT OPTIONS (SUCH AS PAYPAL, CREDIT/DEBIT
CARDS)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
49
4. NO SERVICE CHARGES
5. ENHANCED SECURITY
20. Other, specify____________________________________
Q13. No matter how you presently pay your bill, how would you prefer to pay your bill most of
the time?
1—Send check by mail
2—Automatic bank deduction
3—Credit card over the telephone
4—In person at the Otay Water District office
5—In person at payment center
6—On-line (Internet)
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ
SOCIAL MEDIA/INFORMATION
Q14. What source do you primarily rely upon to get information about water issues affecting
our region? (DO NOT READ: PROBE AND RECORD ONLY ONE)
1 – NEWSPAPER: UNION TRIBUNE
2 - NEWSPAPER: OTHER
3. – OTAY WATER DISTRICT WEBSITE
4. - THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY WEBSITE
5. – THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WEBSITE
6 - INTERNET—other than water district websites
7. – RADIO
8. – TELEVISION
9. – MAGAZINES
10. – SPEAKERS AT COMMUNITY GROUPS
11. – WORD-OF-MOUTH/FAMILY/FRIENDS/CO-WORKERS
12. – Otay Water District Newsletters
13. – Informational stuffers in my water bill
20. – OTHER, SPECIFY: ___________________________________________
99—NONE—DK/REF—DO NOT READ
Q. 15 Do you read the newsletter or bill inserts that come in the mail or come electronically
with your bill
1 - every time,
2 - most times,
3 - sometimes, or
4 - never?
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
50
CONSERVATION GARDEN
Q16. Have you ever seen or heard anything about the Water Conservation Garden at
Cuyamaca College?
1 - YES
2 - NO------------> GO TO Q17
3 - DK/REF ------------> GO TO Q17
Q16a. [IF Q16 = 1:] Have you or any member of your family ever visited the
garden?
1 - YES
2 - NO
3 - DK/REF
Q16b. [IF Q16a = 1]. Have you made any changes to your watering or
landscaping practices as a result of visiting the Garden?
1 – YES
2 – NO—GO TO Q17
3 -- DK/REF—GO TO Q17
Q16c. What is the most significant change you have made as a result of visiting
the garden?
[DO NOT READ-------------CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA]
1 Adjusted sprinklers/reduced water usage
2. Changed plants to be more drought-tolerant/waterwise
3. Eliminated plants/let plants die
4. Eliminated lawn/let lawn die—replaced with waterwise
ground cover
5. Replaced unused turf with low-water plants
6. Check the soil’s moisture level before watering
7. Upgraded irrigation system to include new, higher-
efficiency equipment
20. Other, specify _______________________________
OUTDOOR WATERING
Q17. These next few questions deal with using water outdoors. Does your residence have any
lawn or grass area that someone in your household is directly responsible for
maintaining?
1 - YES
2 - NO/APT/CONDO/NO YARD RESPONSIBILITIES ------------> GO TO Q19
3 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ ------------> GO TO Q19
Q18. Have you replaced some or all of your lawn or grass area with low-water-use landscaping
including water-wise plants, stone or artificial turf?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
51
1 – YES –GO TO Q18b-c
2 - NO (GO TO Q18a)
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]—GO TO Q18a
Q18a. Do you plan to replace some or all of your grass area with low-water-use
landscaping including water-wise plants, stone or artificial turf within the next year?
1 – YES
2 - NO (GO TO Q18d)
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]—GO TO Q18d
Q18b-c. What did you do to replace your grass area or what are you planning to do
within the next year?
[DO NOT READ-------------CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA]
RECORD UP TO TWO RESPONSES
1—Let grass area die and will leave as is or throw ground cover (e.g. wood
chips) on former grass area
2—Ground cover and rocks/stones
3—Rocks and stones
3—Water-wise, drought resistant plants
4—artificial turf
9—other, specify______________________________
GO TO Q19
Q18d. (IF Q18a = 2 or 3) What is the main barrier keeping you from replacing some
or all of your grass with low-water-use landscaping including water-wise plants,
stone or artificial turf?
[DO NOT READ-------------CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA]
1. Cost
2. Homeowner association regulations
3. Need help knowing which plants to use
4. Not physically capable of doing the work
5. Don’t know where to start
6. Aesthetics. Don’t like rocks, cactus or succulents
7. I am too busy
20. Other, specify ______________________________
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
52
CONSERVATION
Q19. Mandatory water-use restrictions are in effect across the Otay Water
District’s service area. Generally speaking, how familiar are you with the
restrictions in your community?
1. Very familiar
2. Somewhat familiar
3. A little familiar
4. Not at all familiar (GO TO Q22)
Q20a-b. What specific actions, if any, have you taken to reduce your water
use in response to the mandatory water-use restrictions?
[DO NOT READ-------------CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA:]
RECORD UP TO TWO RESPONSES
1 – OUTDOOR WATER LESS TIME
2 - USE THE WATERING CALCULATOR FOUND ON THE DISTRICT’S
WEBSITE OR AT WWW.BEWATERWISE.COM TO SET A WATER-
WISE IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
3 - IRRIGATE EARLIER IN THE MORNING OR LATER AT NIGHT
4—LET MY LANDSCAPE/LAWN DIE
5 - OUTDOOR WATERING FEWER DAYS DAY PER WEEK
6 - CHECK THE SOIL’S MOISTURE LEVEL BEFORE WATERING
7 - REPLACE UNUSED TURF WITH LOW-WATER PLANTS
8 - UPGRADE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INCLUDE NEW, HIGH-
EFFICIENCY EQUIPMENT
9 – PURCHASE A HIGH EFFFICENCY CLOTHES WASHER
10 – WASH ONLY FULL LOADS OF CLOTHES OR DISHES
11 – TAKE SHORTER SHOWERS
12 – USE A BROOM INSTEAD OF A HOSE ON PAVED AREAS
13 – FIX INDOOR LEAKS (TOILET, FAUCET, ETC.)
14 – FIX OUTDOOR LEAKS (SPRINKLERS, SPAS, ETC.)
15-- DO NOT LET WATER RUN
16 – COLLECT AND REUSE
17 – REPLACE GRASS WITH ARTIFICIAL/SYNTHETIC TURF
20 – OTHER, SPECIFY___
________________________________
25—NONE (GO TO Q22)
99—DK/REF (GO TO Q22)
Q21a-b. What motivated you to reduce your water use?
[DO NOT READ—CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA RECORD UP TO TWO
RESPONSES]
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
53
1. Watching our budget/trying to save money
2. Concerned about the drought
3. Water agency tells us to
4. Messages in the media
5. Conserving water is the “right” thing to do
6. Anticipating higher rates in the future and want to be better prepared
15. Other, specify___________________________________
20. DK/REF/NOTHING—DO NOT READ
Q.22 Are you aware that the Otay Water District offers conservation rebates and incentives to
help the District’s customers reduce their water usage?
1 - YES
2 - NO
3 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]
DESALINATION
Q23. AN OCEAN WATER DESALINATION PLANT IS TENTATIVELY PLANNED FOR THE
CITY OF ROSARITO BEACH IN MEXICO AND THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT HAS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE SOME OF THAT WATER AS EARLY AS 2018.
THIS PROJECT WOULD BE FINANCED AND OPERATED BY INTERNATIONAL
COMPANIES WITH CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN OCEAN WATER
DESALINATION, WITH TIJUANA, ROSARITO BEACH, AND THE OTAY WATER
DISTRICT BEING THE PLANT’S CUSTOMERS.
Would you be in favor of pursuing such an agreement with these international
companies to develop additional supplies of water from ocean water desalination?
1. Yes
2. No—GO TO Q23b
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ]—GO TO Q23b
Q23a. [IF Q23 =1 Please stop me when I say the approximate percentage of all
of the water supplied by the Otay Water District that would you like to see come
from this desalination plant? ____________
[REVERSE]
1. All/100%
2. Not all but at least 75%
3. Between half/50% and 75%
4. Between one-fourth/25% and half/50%
5. Some, but less than 25%
6. None
(GO TO LAN)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
54
Q23b. [IF Q23 NOT = 1] Why are you not in favor or uncertain about this
desalination agreement?
__________________________________________________________
[USE FOLLOWING CODING BUT DO NOT READ—ENTER OTHER ANSWERS VERBATIM
WITH CODE = 20— DK/REF = 99]
1. Questionable water quality
2. It should be done in U.S—US needs the jobs.
3. Do not trust/want to deal with Mexico
4. High cost
5. Do not know enough yet—Need more information
6. Do not want to drink ocean/sea water
7. Want local control
ASK ALL:
In closing, these questions are for comparison purposes only.
LAN (IF LP=1—Otherwise go to LAN-a): Is English your first language?
1—YES (Go to PPH)
2—NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ (GO TO PPH)
LAN-a: The Otay Water District sends its customers information in
newsletters, water quality reports and rate increase notices in English.
Are you able to read and understand this information that the District
sends to you?
1—YES (Go to PPH)
2—NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
LAN-b. Do you have someone available who can translate this
information for you?
1—YES
2—NO
9 - DK/REF—DO NOT READ
PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
___________
99 - DK/REF
TEN. Is your residence owned by someone in your household, or is it rented?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
55
1 - OWN
2 - RENT/OTHER STATUS
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ
EDU. What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit
for...
1 - high school or less,
2 - at least one year of college, trade or vocational school,
3 - graduated college with a bachelor's degree, or
4 - at least one year of graduate work beyond a bachelor's degree?
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ
AGE. Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age...
1 - 18 to 24,
2 - 25 to 34,
3 - 35 to 44,
4 - 45 to 54,
5 - 55 to 64, or
6 - 65 or over?
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ
ETH. Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background...
1 - white, not of Hispanic origin;
2 - black, not of Hispanic origin;
3 - Hispanic or Latino;
4 - Asian or Pacific Islander;
5 - Native American;
6 – Middle Eastern
15 - another ethnic group? [SPECIFY:] __________________________________
20 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ
INC. Now, we don't want to know your exact income, but just roughly, could you tell me if your
annual household income before taxes is...
1 - under $25,000,
2 - $25,000 up to but not including $50,000,
3 - $50,000 up to (but not including) $75,000,
4 - $75,000 up to (but not including) $100,000,
5 - $100,000 up to but not including $150,000?
6 -- $150,000 and over
9 - DK/REF [DO NOT READ
ZIP. RECORD ZIP CODE FROM CALL LIST ____________________________
PHONE. RECORD FROM CALL LIST 1—Landline
2---Cell Phone
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
56
Frequency Table--WEIGHTED
CUST. How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 29 9.3 9.4 9.4
2 33 10.4 10.5 19.9
3 15 4.7 4.7 24.6
4 15 4.9 5.0 29.6
5 18 5.8 5.8 35.5
6 12 3.8 3.8 39.3
7 12 3.9 3.9 43.1
8 11 3.4 3.5 46.6
9 4 1.3 1.3 47.9
10 18 5.7 5.8 53.7
11 4 1.1 1.1 54.9
12 9 2.7 2.8 57.6
13 6 1.8 1.8 59.4
14 8 2.5 2.6 62.0
15 15 4.9 5.0 67.0
16 12 3.9 3.9 70.9
17 2 .7 .7 71.6
18 3 1.0 1.0 72.7
19 1 .4 .4 73.1
20 15 4.9 5.0 78.1
21 3 .8 .9 78.9
22 1 .4 .4 79.3
23 4 1.3 1.3 80.6
24 1 .4 .4 81.0
25 9 2.7 2.8 83.8
26 4 1.3 1.3 85.1
27 3 .8 .9 85.9
30 12 3.8 3.8 89.8
31 4 1.3 1.3 91.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
57
35 4 1.3 1.3 92.3
36 1 .4 .4 92.8
37 1 .4 .4 93.2
38 5 1.7 1.7 94.9
39 3 .8 .9 95.7
40 5 1.7 1.7 97.4
41 1 .4 .4 97.9
44 3 .8 .9 98.7
50 4 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 311 99.1 100.0
Missing Don't Know 0 .1
System 2 .8
Total 3 .9
Total 314 100.0
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 165 52.4 52.4 52.4
Female 149 47.6 47.6 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Language Preference
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid English 302 96.0 96.0 96.0
Spanish 12 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
58
Q1: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Otay Water District as your water
service provider?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Excellent 163 51.9 52.8 52.8
Very Good 66 21.0 21.4 74.2
Neutral 43 13.8 14.1 88.3
Not Good 24 7.7 7.8 96.1
Poor 12 3.8 3.9 100.0
Total 308 98.2 100.0
Missing DK/REF 6 1.8
Total 314 100.0
Q2. During the past year, has your satisfaction with the Otay Water District…
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Increased 17 5.4 5.4 5.4
Decreased 35 11.1 11.2 16.7
Stayed the same 258 82.3 83.3 100.0
Total 310 98.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.3
Total 314 100.0
Q3a. OWD has been a good partner in helping us to conserve water
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 219 69.7 69.7 69.7
No 51 16.4 16.4 86.1
DK/REF 44 13.9 13.9 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
59
Q3b. OWD has provided us with adequate and timely information about the drought
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 232 74.0 74.0 74.0
No 64 20.3 20.3 94.2
DK/REF 18 5.8 5.8 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Q3c. OWD did not anticipate the severity of the drought and was not well prepared for it
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 121 38.5 38.5 38.5
No 119 38.0 38.0 76.5
DK/REF 74 23.5 23.5 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Q3d. OWD is not at fault when it comes to the drought
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 184 58.6 58.6 58.6
No 106 33.6 33.6 92.2
DK/REF 24 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Q4: Have you called the Otay Water District for service or other help during the last year?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 66 20.9 21.0 21.0
No 247 78.7 79.0 100.0
Total 313 99.6 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .4
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
60
Q4a: How would you rate your overall level of satisfaction with the service you received when
you called for service or help?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Excellent 38 12.1 59.1 59.1
Very Good 11 3.4 16.8 75.9
Neutral 9 2.7 13.3 89.2
Not Good 1 .4 2.1 91.3
Poor 6 1.8 8.7 100.0
Total 64 20.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .4
System 248 79.1
Total 250 79.5
Total 314 100.0
Q5. How much trust do you have in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe water to the
district?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid A great deal of trust 160 51.1 52.8 52.8
Some trust 95 30.2 31.2 84.0
Neutral 36 11.3 11.7 95.7
More distrust than trust 7 2.1 2.1 97.8
No trust at all 7 2.1 2.2 100.0
Total 304 96.9 100.0
Missing DK/REF 10 3.1
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
61
Q6. How much trust do you have in the Otay Water District to obtain this water for you at a reasonable price?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid A great deal of trust 99 31.5 32.2 32.2
Some trust 72 22.8 23.4 55.6
Neutral 76 24.1 24.7 80.4
More distrust than trust 39 12.4 12.7 93.0
No trust at all 21 6.8 7.0 100.0
Total 306 97.6 100.0
Missing DK/REF 8 2.4
Total 314 100.0
Q7. Have you ever visited the Otay Water District website?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 194 61.7 62.2 62.2
Have access to the internet, but
have not visited the website 97 30.9 31.2 93.4
Do not have access to the
internet 21 6.5 6.6 100.0
Total 311 99.2 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 .8
Total 314 100.0
Q7a. How would you rate the user friendliness of the website? Would you say...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Excellent 73 23.2 39.8 39.8
Very Good 54 17.2 29.5 69.3
Neutral 44 13.9 23.9 93.1
Not Good 10 3.1 5.4 98.5
Poor 3 .8 1.5 100.0
Total 183 58.3 100.0
Missing DK/REF 11 3.4
System 120 38.3
Total 131 41.7
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
62
Q7b. What was the reason for your last visit to the Otay Water District website?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Drought information 18 5.8 9.4 9.4
Water savings calculator 1 .4 .7 10.1
Billing information 40 12.7 20.6 30.6
Pay online 95 30.3 49.1 79.7
Rate information 3 .9 1.5 81.2
Outages 1 .4 .7 81.9
Conservation rebate information 13 4.3 6.9 88.9
Start service 8 2.6 4.2 93.1
Register a complaint 3 1.0 1.7 94.7
General information--water quality
information--check out website 10 3.2 5.3 100.0
Total 194 61.7 100.0
Missing System 120 38.3
Total 314 100.0
Q8a. Considering only those utilities that you pay for, which would you say is the best value for the
amount of money that you pay.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Trash collection 115 36.5 36.5 36.5
Water 95 30.2 30.2 66.7
Sewer 9 2.9 2.9 69.7
Telephone 8 2.6 2.6 72.3
Cable or satellite TV 9 2.8 2.8 75.1
Internet access 20 6.4 6.4 81.5
Gas & Electric 58 18.5 18.5 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
63
Q8b. Second best value among utilities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Trash collection 51 16.1 16.1 16.1
Water 87 27.6 27.6 43.6
Sewer 28 8.8 8.8 52.4
Telephone 22 6.9 6.9 59.4
Cable or satellite TV 17 5.5 5.5 64.8
Internet access 29 9.2 9.2 74.0
Gas & Electric 82 26.0 26.0 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Q8c. Third best value among utilities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Trash collection 52 16.6 16.6 16.6
Water 64 20.4 20.4 37.0
Sewer 48 15.3 15.3 52.3
Telephone 23 7.2 7.2 59.5
Cable or satellite TV 38 12.2 12.2 71.8
Internet access 33 10.5 10.5 82.3
Gas & Electric 56 17.7 17.7 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Q9. Do you feel that water costs too much, too little, or priced about right?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Water costs too much 154 49.1 49.1 49.1
The cost of water is just about
right 154 49.0 49.0 98.1
Water costs too little 6 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
64
Q10. Do you get a paper copy of your bill?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 205 65.3 65.6 65.6
No 108 34.3 34.4 100.0
Total 313 99.6 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .4
Total 314 100.0
Q10a-1. Why haven't you chosen to receive electronic, paperless invoices?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Want a paper record 89 28.4 43.9 43.9
Trust/security 7 2.2 3.4 47.3
Do not use computers that often 27 8.5 13.2 60.5
I do not keep personal records on
the computer 0 .1 .1 60.6
Used to paying by check 8 2.6 4.1 64.7
I will forget to check for the bill on
the computer 18 5.8 9.0 73.7
That is just the way the bills have
been coming 19 6.0 9.2 83.0
Difficulty accessing account/Bank
will not allow automatic deduction 4 1.2 1.9 84.9
Not aware of paperless option 2 .6 .9 85.8
Do not want people to lose jobs 3 .9 1.5 87.3
Other 26 8.2 12.7 100.0
Total 203 64.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .6
System 109 34.7
Total 111 35.3
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
65
Q11. No matter how you get your monthly water bill, do you look through your monthly water bill
to examine your water usage or other factors...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Every time 150 47.9 48.2 48.2
Most times 54 17.3 17.4 65.5
Sometimes 74 23.7 23.8 89.3
Never 33 10.6 10.7 100.0
Total 312 99.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .5
Total 314 100.0
Q12. How do you pay your water bill most months?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Send check by mail 76 24.2 24.4 24.4
Automatic bank deduction 81 25.7 25.9 50.3
Credit card over the phne 18 5.7 5.8 56.1
In person at the Otay Water
Discrict office 4 1.3 1.3 57.4
In person at payment center 4 1.4 1.4 58.8
On-line (internet) 128 40.8 41.2 100.0
Total 311 99.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 .9
Total 314 100.0
Q12a. Do you think that you would use the website to pay your bill if a chat function were
available that allows you to ask questions directly to a customer service representative?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 41 13.0 22.0 22.0
No 131 41.7 70.6 92.5
DK/REF 14 4.4 7.5 100.0
Total 186 59.2 100.0
Missing System 128 40.8
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
66
Q12b-1. What else can the District do to make paying on-line a more appealing option for you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid There is nothing that would make
me pay online/do not use internet 81 25.7 62.9 62.9
Offer discounts on the bill 17 5.4 13.1 76.0
Offer more payment options (such
as paypal, credit/debit car 3 .8 2.1 78.1
No service charges 4 1.4 3.3 81.4
Enhanced security 6 1.8 4.4 85.8
Make it easier to use/ability to talk
to somebody/instructions online 10 3.1 7.6 93.4
phone app 4 1.4 3.3 96.8
My bank does not make it
available 2 .7 1.7 98.5
Other 2 .6 1.5 100.0
Total 128 40.9 100.0
Missing DK/REF 50 15.9
System 136 43.2
Total 186 59.1
Total 314 100.0
Q13. No matter how you presently pay your bill, how would you prefer to pay your bill most of the time?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Send check by mail 61 19.6 19.7 19.7
Automatic bank deduction 82 26.0 26.2 46.0
Credit card over the telephone 19 6.1 6.2 52.2
In person at the Otay Water
District office 4 1.1 1.1 53.3
In person at payment center 4 1.4 1.4 54.7
On-line (internet) 141 44.9 45.3 100.0
Total 311 99.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 .9
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
67
Q14. What source do you primarily rely upon to get information about water issues affecting our region?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Newspaper: Union Tribune 23 7.5 7.8 7.8
Newspaper: Other 9 3.0 3.1 10.9
Otay Water District website 21 6.5 6.8 17.6
The San Diego County Water
Authority website 3 .9 1.0 18.6
Internet - other than water district
websites 51 16.1 16.8 35.4
Radio 17 5.3 5.5 40.9
Television 114 36.2 37.6 78.5
Speakers at community groups 0 .1 .1 78.6
Word-of-mouth/family/friends/co-
workers 22 7.1 7.4 86.0
Otay Water District newsletters 22 7.1 7.4 93.4
Informational stuffers in my water
bill 19 5.9 6.2 99.6
Other 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 302 96.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 12 3.9
Total 314 100.0
Q15. Do you read the newsletter or bill inserts that come in the mail or come electronically with
your bill
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Every time 82 26.1 26.3 26.3
Most times 71 22.6 22.7 49.0
Sometimes 103 32.7 32.9 81.8
Never 57 18.1 18.2 100.0
Total 312 99.5 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .5
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
68
Q16. Have you ever seen or heard anything about the Water Conservation Garden at
Cuyamaca College?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 150 47.9 49.0 49.0
No 156 49.8 51.0 100.0
Total 307 97.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 7 2.3
Total 314 100.0
Q16a. Have you or any member of your family ever visited the garden?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 74 23.6 49.3 49.3
No 76 24.3 50.7 100.0
Total 150 47.9 100.0
Missing System 164 52.1
Total 314 100.0
Q16b. Have you made any changes to your watering or landscaping practices as a result of
visiting the Garden?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 39 12.3 52.1 52.1
No 36 11.3 47.9 100.0
Total 74 23.6 100.0
Missing System 240 76.4
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
69
Q16c. What is the most significant change you have made as a result of visiting the garden?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Adjusted sprinklers/reduced water
usage 9 2.7 22.1 22.1
Changed plants to be more
drought-tolerant/waterwise 18 5.6 45.4 67.6
Eliminated plants/let plants die 1 .4 3.4 71.0
Eliminated lawn/let lawn die-
replaced with waterwise ground 3 .8 6.9 77.9
Replaced unused turf with low-
water plants 5 1.7 13.7 91.6
Upgraded irrigation system to
include new, higher-efficiency 1 .2 1.6 93.1
Collect and reuse 3 .8 6.9 100.0
Total 39 12.3 100.0
Missing System 275 87.7
Total 314 100.0
Q17. Does your residence have any lawn or grass area that someone in your household is directly responsible
for maintaining?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 211 67.3 67.5 67.5
No/Apt/Condo/No yard
responsibilities 101 32.3 32.5 100.0
Total 313 99.6 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .4
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
70
Q18. Have you replaced some or all of your lawn or grass area with low-water-use
landscaping including water-wise plants, stone or artificial turf?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 115 36.7 55.0 55.0
No 94 30.1 45.0 100.0
Total 210 66.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 2 .5
System 103 32.7
Total 104 33.3
Total 314 100.0
Q18a. Do you plan to replace some or all of your grass area with low-water-use landscaping
including water-wise plants, stone or artificial turf within the next year?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 36 11.4 37.4 37.4
No 52 16.5 54.0 91.4
DK/REF 8 2.6 8.6 100.0
Total 96 30.6 100.0
Missing System 218 69.4
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
71
Q18b. What did you do to replace your grass area or what are you planning to do within the next year?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Let grass area die and will leave
as is or throw ground cove 19 6.1 13.2 13.2
Ground cover and rocks/stones 22 7.1 15.6 28.8
Rocks and stones 31 9.8 21.4 50.2
Water-wise, drought resistant
plants 32 10.2 22.1 72.3
Artificial turf 31 10.0 21.7 94.1
Cement/Concrete 7 2.3 5.0 99.1
Other 1 .4 .9 100.0
Total 144 45.9 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.4
System 166 52.7
Total 170 54.1
Total 314 100.0
Q18c. What did you do to replace your grass area or what are you planning to do within the next year? Second
change.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Let grass area die and will leave
as is or throw ground cove 6 1.9 11.0 11.0
Ground cover and rocks/stones 5 1.7 9.9 20.9
Rocks and stones 14 4.6 26.7 47.5
Water-wise, drought resistant
plants 16 5.0 29.4 76.9
Artificial turf 9 3.0 17.6 94.5
Cement/Concrete 3 .9 5.5 100.0
Total 54 17.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.1
System 257 81.7
Total 260 82.9
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
72
Q18d. What is the main barrier keeping you from replacing some or all of your grass with low-water-use
landscaping including water-wise plants, stone or artificial turf?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Cost 24 7.7 44.1 44.1
Homeowner association
regulations 0 .1 .6 44.7
Aesthetics. Don't like rocks,
cactus or succulents 6 1.8 10.3 55.0
I am too busy 4 1.4 7.9 62.8
Renter 15 4.9 28.2 91.0
Moving/selling home 2 .5 3.0 94.0
Grass area very small 2 .6 3.5 97.6
Other 1 .4 2.4 100.0
Total 54 17.4 100.0
Missing DK/REF 6 1.8
System 254 80.9
Total 259 82.6
Total 314 100.0
Q19. Mandatory water-use restrictions are in effect across the Otay Water District's service area.
Generally speaking, how familiar are you with the restrictions in your community?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very familiar 150 47.9 47.9 47.9
Somewhat familiar 110 35.1 35.1 83.0
A little familiar 32 10.3 10.3 93.2
Not at all familiar 21 6.8 6.8 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
73
Q19a - Have you taken any specific actions to reduce your water use in response to the
mandatory water-use restrictions?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 258 82.0 91.8 91.8
No 23 7.4 8.2 100.0
Total 281 89.4 100.0
Missing DK/REF 12 3.8
System 21 6.8
Total 33 10.6
Total 314 100.0
Q20a. What specific action, if any, have you taken to reduce your water use in response to the mandatory water-
use restrictions?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Outdoor Water Less Time 85 26.9 32.8 32.8
Use The Watering Calculator
Found On The District's Website 2 .5 .6 33.5
Irrigate Earlier In The Morning Or
Later At Night 6 2.0 2.4 35.9
Let My Landscape/Lawn Die 23 7.3 8.9 44.8
Outdoor Watering Fewer Days
Day Per Week 34 10.7 13.1 57.9
Check The Soil's Moisture Level
Before Watering 5 1.7 2.1 60.0
Replace Unused Turf With Low-
Water Plants 12 3.8 4.6 64.6
Upgrade Irrigation System To
Include New, High-Efficiency Eq 3 .9 1.1 65.7
Wash Only Full Loads Of Clothes
Or Dishes 11 3.6 4.4 70.1
Take Shorter Showers 38 12.2 14.9 85.0
Use A Broom Instead Of A Hose
On Paved Areas 1 .4 .5 85.5
Fix Indoor Leaks (Toilet, Faucet,
Etc.) 3 .9 1.1 86.7
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
74
Fix Outdoor Leaks (Sprinklers,
Spas, Etc.) 3 .8 1.0 87.7
Do Not Let Water Run 6 1.9 2.3 90.0
Collect And Reuse 8 2.6 3.1 93.1
Replace Grass With
Artificial/Synthetic Turf 5 1.6 1.9 95.0
Do not wash car at home 7 2.4 2.9 97.9
Replaced
toilet/dishwasher/shower heads 5 1.5 1.8 99.7
Wash car with buckets/restricted
hose nozzle 1 .2 .2 99.9
Other 0 .1 .1 100.0
Total 258 82.0 100.0
Missing System 56 18.0
Total 314 100.0
Q20b. What specific action, if any, have you taken to reduce your water use in response to the mandatory water-
use restrictions? Second action
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Outdoor Water Less Time 21 6.8 12.8 12.8
Irrigate Earlier In The Morning Or
Later At Night 3 .8 1.6 14.4
Let My Landscape/Lawn Die 12 3.9 7.3 21.7
Outdoor Watering Fewer Days
Day Per Week 13 4.0 7.5 29.2
Replace Unused Turf With Low-
Water Plants 4 1.4 2.6 31.8
Purchase A High Effficency
Clothes Washer 1 .2 .4 32.1
Wash Only Full Loads Of Clothes
Or Dishes 17 5.4 10.2 42.3
Take Shorter Showers 32 10.2 19.1 61.5
Use A Broom Instead Of A Hose
On Paved Areas 0 .1 .2 61.7
Fix Indoor Leaks (Toilet, Faucet,
Etc.) 4 1.3 2.4 64.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
75
Fix Outdoor Leaks (Sprinklers,
Spas, Etc.) 3 .9 1.8 65.8
Do Not Let Water Run 9 3.0 5.7 71.5
Collect And Reuse 19 6.1 11.5 83.0
Replace Grass With
Artificial/Synthetic Turf 7 2.3 4.3 87.3
Do not wash car at home 11 3.6 6.8 94.1
Replaced
toilet/dishwasher/shower heads 3 .9 1.8 95.9
Wash car with buckets/restricted
hose nozzle 1 .2 .4 96.3
Displacers in toilet/Less flushing 5 1.5 2.7 99.0
Other 2 .5 1.0 100.0
Total 167 53.1 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 1.0
System 144 45.8
Total 147 46.9
Total 314 100.0
Q21a. What motivated you to reduce your water use?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Watching our budget/trying to
save money 45 14.3 17.5 17.5
Concerned about the drought 134 42.5 51.8 69.3
Water agency tells us to 20 6.3 7.7 77.0
Messages in the media 1 .2 .2 77.2
Conserving water is the "right"
thing to do 54 17.2 21.0 98.2
Anticipating higher rates in the
future and want to be better
prepared
3 .8 1.0 99.3
Other 2 .6 .7 100.0
Total 258 82.0 100.0
Missing System 56 18.0
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
76
Q21b. What motivated you to reduce your water use? Second motivation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Watching our budget/trying to
save money 16 5.0 23.6 23.6
Concerned about the drought 11 3.5 16.7 40.2
Water agency tells us to 6 1.9 8.9 49.1
Messages in the media 1 .4 2.0 51.1
Conserving water is the "right"
thing to do 16 5.1 24.0 75.1
Anticipating higher rates in the
future and want to be better
prepared
6 1.8 8.4 83.6
Other 11 3.5 16.4 100.0
Total 66 21.2 100.0
Missing System 247 78.8
Total 314 100.0
Q.22 Are you aware that the Otay Water District offers conservation rebates and incentives to
help the District's customers reduce their water usage?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 135 43.0 43.7 43.7
No 174 55.3 56.3 100.0
Total 309 98.3 100.0
Missing DK/REF 5 1.7
Total 314 100.0
Q23. Would you be in favor of pursuing such an agreement with these international
companies to develop additional supplies of water from ocean water desalination?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 185 58.8 58.8 58.8
No 87 27.8 27.8 86.6
DK/REF 42 13.4 13.4 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
77
Q23a. Please stop me when I say the approximate percentage of all of the water supplied by the Otay Water
District that would you like to see come from this desalination plant?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid All/100% 26 8.2 14.0 14.0
Not all but at least 75% 21 6.8 11.6 25.6
Between half/50% and 75% 46 14.7 25.0 50.6
Between one-fourth?25% and
half/50% 51 16.1 27.4 78.0
Some, but less than 25% 24 7.8 13.3 91.3
None 16 5.1 8.7 100.0
Total 185 58.8 100.0
Missing System 129 41.2
Total 314 100.0
Q23b-1. Why are you not in favor or uncertain about this desalination agreement?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Questionable water quality 10 3.1 9.1 9.1
It should be done in the US, US
needs the jobs 15 4.8 14.1 23.2
Do not trust/want to deal with
Mexico 14 4.5 13.3 36.5
High cost 13 4.1 12.0 48.5
Do not know enough yet, need
more information 48 15.3 45.1 93.6
Want local control 1 .3 .8 94.5
Do not trust international
companies 3 .8 2.5 97.0
Danger to sea life 3 1.0 3.0 100.0
Total 107 34.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 22 7.1
System 185 58.8
Total 207 66.0
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
78
Q23b-2. Why are you not in favor or uncertain about this desalination agreement? Second reason
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Questionable water quality 6 1.8 46.3 46.3
It should be done in the US, US
needs the jobs 1 .4 11.0 57.2
Do not trust/want to deal with
Mexico 3 .8 21.9 79.1
High cost 1 .4 11.0 90.1
Do not want to drink ocean/sea
water 1 .3 7.4 97.5
Want local control 0 .1 2.5 100.0
Total 12 3.9 100.0
Missing System 302 96.1
Total 314 100.0
Is English your first language?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 241 76.7 79.8 79.8
No 61 19.4 20.2 100.0
Total 302 96.0 100.0
Missing System 12 4.0
Total 314 100.0
LAN-a: The Otay Water District sends its customers information in newsletters, water quality
reports and rate increase notices in English. Are you able to read and understand this
information that the District sends to you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 65 20.6 88.3 88.3
No 9 2.7 11.7 100.0
Total 73 23.3 100.0
Missing System 241 76.7
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
79
LAN-b. Do you have someone available who can translate this information for you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 7 2.2 81.0 81.0
No 2 .5 19.0 100.0
Total 9 2.7 100.0
Missing System 305 97.3
Total 314 100.0
PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 25 8.1 8.1 8.1
2 81 25.9 26.0 34.1
3 57 18.2 18.2 52.3
4 66 21.0 21.0 73.3
5 53 17.0 17.0 90.3
6 11 3.5 3.5 93.8
7 11 3.4 3.4 97.3
8 6 1.9 1.9 99.2
9 3 .8 .8 100.0
Total 314 99.9 100.0
Missing Don't Know/refused 0 .1
Total 314 100.0
TEN. Is your residence owned by someone in your household, or is it rented?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Own 250 79.7 80.0 80.0
Rent/Other status 63 19.9 20.0 100.0
Total 313 99.6 100.0
Missing DK/REF 1 .4
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
80
EDU. What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit for...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid High school or less 40 12.9 13.1 13.1
At least one year of college, trade
or vocational school 91 29.0 29.4 42.5
Graduated college with a
bachelor's degree 98 31.3 31.7 74.1
At least one year of graduate
work beyond a bachelor's degre 80 25.5 25.9 100.0
Total 310 98.7 100.0
Missing DK/REF 4 1.3
Total 314 100.0
AGE. Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18 - 24 4 1.4 1.4 1.4
25 - 34 40 12.7 12.8 14.2
35 - 44 73 23.2 23.4 37.5
45 - 54 61 19.4 19.6 57.1
55 - 64 53 17.0 17.1 74.2
65 or over 80 25.6 25.8 100.0
Total 311 99.2 100.0
Missing DK/REF 3 .8
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
81
ETH. Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid White, not of Hispanic origin 132 42.0 43.4 43.4
Black, not of Hispanic origin 21 6.6 6.8 50.2
Hispanic or Latino 105 33.5 34.7 84.9
Asian or Pacific Islander 40 12.6 13.0 97.9
Native American 2 .5 .5 98.4
Middle Eastern 3 .8 .8 99.3
Mixed ethnicities 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 304 96.8 100.0
Missing DK/REF 10 3.2
Total 314 100.0
Total Household Income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Under $25,000 16 5.2 5.9 5.9
$25,000 up to but not including
$50,000 40 12.8 14.4 20.3
$50,000 up to (but not including)
$75,000 59 18.6 21.0 41.2
$75,000 up to (but not including)
$100,000 71 22.5 25.3 66.5
$100,000 up to but not including
$150,000 51 16.4 18.4 84.9
$150,000 and over 42 13.4 15.1 100.0
Total 279 89.0 100.0
Missing DK/REF 35 11.0
Total 314 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
82
Zip Code
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 91902 7 2.3 2.3 2.3
91910 42 13.4 13.4 15.7
91911 50 16.0 16.0 31.7
91913 55 17.6 17.6 49.4
91914 32 10.3 10.3 59.7
91915 30 9.6 9.6 69.2
91917 1 .4 .4 69.7
91935 12 3.7 3.7 73.3
91941 1 .4 .4 73.8
91977 34 10.7 10.7 84.4
91978 7 2.1 2.1 86.6
92019 33 10.5 10.5 97.0
92020 7 2.1 2.1 99.2
92109 1 .4 .4 99.6
92113 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Source
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Landline 214 68.2 68.2 68.2
Cell phone list 100 31.8 31.8 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
83
Frequencies—OPEN-ENDED
Other reasons for visiting website
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 295 93.9 93.9 93.9
Checking out the website 1 .3 .3 94.3
Checking quality of Otay water 1 .3 .3 94.6
Checking water usage 1 .3 .3 94.9
Compare their usage from last
year to the current year 1 .3 .3 95.2
Comparing last year's bill to this
year's bill 1 .3 .3 95.5
General information 2 .6 .6 96.2
I was checking schedule and
requirements for the pool we
installed
1 .3 .3 96.5
Initial hook up 1 .3 .3 96.8
Just to look 1 .3 .3 97.1
Open account 1 .3 .3 97.5
Random information 1 .3 .3 97.8
To check it out 1 .3 .3 98.1
To make a complaint 1 .3 .3 98.4
To see tips & info on what to
expect from customers 1 .3 .3 98.7
To set up service 1 .3 .3 99.0
To sign up 1 .3 .3 99.4
Water quality 1 .3 .3 99.7
We had an appt with them and
they never showed up or called to
change.
1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
84
Why getting paper bill?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 282 89.8 89.8 89.8
Because I'm too lazy 1 .3 .3 90.1
Because you might miss out on
the rebates only receive by mail 1 .3 .3 90.4
Can't setup automatic pay
through USAA bank 1 .3 .3 90.8
Decision of husband 1 .3 .3 91.1
Don't have time to go online
sometimes 1 .3 .3 91.4
Email address got discontinued 1 .3 .3 91.7
Father worked for the postal
services 1 .3 .3 92.0
Going to do it 1 .3 .3 92.4
Haven't be prompted to 1 .3 .3 92.7
Haven't had chance will probably
do that 1 .3 .3 93.0
Haven't had the time 1 .3 .3 93.3
Haven't signed up 1 .3 .3 93.6
I do both 1 .3 .3 93.9
I have ask for electronic invoice 1 .3 .3 94.3
I haven't set up my auto bill pay
yet but I will do them both at the
same time
1 .3 .3 94.6
I'm a retired postal worker and I
like to keep my ex employees in a
job
1 .3 .3 94.9
If the water company had an app I
would use it 1 .3 .3 95.2
It wasn't available when I
requested through the bank 1 .3 .3 95.5
It's a pain with all the passwords 1 .3 .3 95.9
Just never thought about it 1 .3 .3 96.2
Laziness 1 .3 .3 96.5
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
85
May have already done that 1 .3 .3 96.8
Never had it brought up to me 1 .3 .3 97.1
Never told about paperless 1 .3 .3 97.5
No other choice. 1 .3 .3 97.8
Provides more jobs for people 1 .3 .3 98.1
Sometimes it is difficult to access
my account 1 .3 .3 98.4
Tried to through Navy Federal
Credit Union and was to do
automatic pay
1 .3 .3 98.7
Was unsuccessful at setting it up 1 .3 .3 99.0
Was working and didn't have
check computer 1 .3 .3 99.4
Wife pay bill and easy to keep
record, internet might not work on
phone
1 .3 .3 99.7
Work on computer don't want to
come home and get on computer 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
What can District do to encourage paperless?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 284 90.4 90.4 90.4
An online orientation about the
water usage & how to conserve
water
1 .3 .3 90.8
App friendly user 1 .3 .3 91.1
Be more user friendly 1 .3 .3 91.4
Changing my attitude about the
online 1 .3 .3 91.7
Cutting edge water research
information made available
through their website
1 .3 .3 92.0
Develop an app 1 .3 .3 92.4
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
86
Easier access for auto pay/more
user friendly 1 .3 .3 92.7
Fix website; processing problem 1 .3 .3 93.0
Have offices closer by us 1 .3 .3 93.3
If it were on my statement and
info online 1 .3 .3 93.6
If online payment was available
through Navy Federal Credit
Union would pay on l
1 .3 .3 93.9
Make easier 1 .3 .3 94.3
Make it available 1 .3 .3 94.6
Make it easy 1 .3 .3 94.9
Make it more easily to speak with
someone 1 .3 .3 95.2
Make it more user friendly 1 .3 .3 95.5
No internet service 2 .6 .6 96.2
No jobs for people that's why I
prefer to pay in the mail 1 .3 .3 96.5
Offer some senior discounts 1 .3 .3 96.8
Over the phone is better because
sometime don't have internet
signal
1 .3 .3 97.1
Send text messages to cell phone
with easy payment available 1 .3 .3 97.5
Send text reminders for bill pay 1 .3 .3 97.8
The ability to make changes to
the amount paid 1 .3 .3 98.1
The way I do it is easier 1 .3 .3 98.4
To be available 1 .3 .3 98.7
To make more computer friendly 1 .3 .3 99.0
We don't have internet 1 .3 .3 99.4
We have no computer 1 .3 .3 99.7
Whatever reduces the cost for the
company which would reduce the
cost for payers
1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
87
Other outdoor conservation actions undertaken
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 293 93.3 93.3 93.3
Artificial grass, removed water
pond, we plan to start collecting
rain water
1 .3 .3 93.6
Brick and cement 1 .3 .3 93.9
Bubbler on the plants 1 .3 .3 94.3
Cement 1 .3 .3 94.6
Cement for parking maybe 1 .3 .3 94.9
Cement in backyard 1 .3 .3 95.2
Cement instead of grass 1 .3 .3 95.5
Concrete pool 1 .3 .3 95.9
Desert setting 1 .3 .3 96.2
Garden 1 .3 .3 96.5
Grass area is very small 1 .3 .3 96.8
I put concrete where part of my
lawn used to be 1 .3 .3 97.1
Less plants 1 .3 .3 97.5
More cement less grass 1 .3 .3 97.8
Pavers 1 .3 .3 98.1
Replacing with concrete 1 .3 .3 98.4
turf to pavers, don't plan on doing
anything else 1 .3 .3 98.7
unsure grass is dying 1 .3 .3 99.0
waiting for rain to bring back my
grass 1 .3 .3 99.4
we do not water plan to use
stones 1 .3 .3 99.7
zero scaping 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
88
Barriers to taking outdoor conservation actions
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 287 91.4 91.4 91.4
Area is too small and artificial is
too hot and rough for child's play 1 .3 .3 91.7
Backyard is concrete 1 .3 .3 92.0
Because I rent 1 .3 .3 92.4
Because I'm renting and cost 1 .3 .3 92.7
Because renting landlord won't
allow 1 .3 .3 93.0
Big back yard 1 .3 .3 93.3
Everyone's grass is brown like
mine so i don't see the point in
investing
1 .3 .3 93.6
Getting ready to move 1 .3 .3 93.9
Grass area too small 1 .3 .3 94.3
I don't just don't because it just
might die out again 1 .3 .3 94.6
I might sell my home 1 .3 .3 94.9
I'm lazy 1 .3 .3 95.2
It's not our yard renting 1 .3 .3 95.5
The grass we currently have cost
us a lot of money. 1 .3 .3 95.9
We are renters 13 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Other mandatory restrictions actions
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 298 94.9 94.9 94.9
A tank-less water heater 1 .3 .3 95.2
Appliances 1 .3 .3 95.5
Aware of extra flushing of toilet 1 .3 .3 95.9
Covers pool; use paper plates 1 .3 .3 96.2
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
89
Don't flush my toilet all the time 1 .3 .3 96.5
Don't let the children play in the
water 1 .3 .3 96.8
Grass died dirt 1 .3 .3 97.1
Kids take shower instead of baths 1 .3 .3 97.5
Less flushing 1 .3 .3 97.8
Never home in the navy 1 .3 .3 98.1
No baths, waters garden less,
different ways to wash clothes
and dishes
1 .3 .3 98.4
Not washing car with hose, not
flushing urine, just watering plants 1 .3 .3 98.7
Wash the car with buckets rather
than hose 1 .3 .3 99.0
Water bottle in toilet 1 .3 .3 99.4
Water displacers in toilet 1 .3 .3 99.7
When washing car using water
restricted hose nozzle 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
\\
Other opposition to desalination
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 299 95.2 95.2 95.2
Don't harm sea life and
environmentally friendly 1 .3 .3 95.5
Don't like money leaving the state 1 .3 .3 95.9
Don't want to deal international
company 1 .3 .3 96.2
Get capital gain here, better to
invest in US 1 .3 .3 96.5
Have to look into some other
options 1 .3 .3 96.8
I don't know what the outcome will
be 1 .3 .3 97.1
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research 2015 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey October 2015
90
I don't know where the waste will
be going to 1 .3 .3 97.5
Inefficient and there better
methods 1 .3 .3 97.8
Makes me nervous having
international company dealing
with my water
1 .3 .3 98.1
Taking water from sea animals 1 .3 .3 98.4
They are planning to use the
money to support building more
condos
1 .3 .3 98.7
They need to do the extensive
research because it is very
detrimental to sea life
1 .3 .3 99.0
Unless it stops raining completely
for a significant period of time 1 .3 .3 99.4
What will happen to sea life? 1 .3 .3 99.7
Would be more comfortable with it
being in the US 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 314 100.0 100.0
Date Event Host Location Notes
January or February
(TBD)
Public Official
Recognition
Reception
MABPA TBD
February (TBD)GMIA Community
Forum Speakers
Grossmont - Mt. Helix
Improvement
Association
TBD
Date and location vary each year;
Last year held on Feb. 21. Event
features Otay speaker and display
table.
Friday, Feb. 22 Installation Dinner Chula Vista Chamber
The Venue in
Eastlake, 871
Showroom Pl #104,
Chula Vista, CA 91914
Table or seats
Saturday, Feb. 23
“East County Honors”
Annual Awards Gala:
A Masquerade Ball
East County Chamber Courtyard Marriott, El
Cajon Participation TBD
Saturday, April 6 South Bay Earth Day City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista Bayside
Park & Marina
980 Marina Way
Chula Vista, California
91910
Date could change.
Saturday, April 27 Spring Garden &
Butterfly Festival
Water Conservation
Garden
Water Conservation
Garden Date could change.
Thursday, May 10 Safety Officer
Appreciation Dinner
Spring Valley
Chamber of
Commerce and
Kiwanis Club
Trinity Church -
Williams Hall, 3902
Kenwood Drive,
Spring Valley (TBD)
Sponsored dinner table and
displayed table with outreach
material
Saturday, May 18 or
Sunday, May 19
Agency Customer
Appreciation Day
Water Conservation
Garden
Water Conservation
Garden Date could change.
Events (2019)
Attachment E
May or June
Its How We Live
Spring Valley Health
Fair
County of San Diego
Department of Parks
and Recreation
Spring Valley County
Park
8735 Jamacha Blvd,
Spring Valley, CA
91977
Date changes but usually held in
May or June.
June Congressional
Luncheon SD Regional Chamber TBD Table or seats
Tuesday, Aug. 6 National Night Out Rancho San Diego's
Sheriff Station
Target Parking Lot,
2911 Jamacha Rd., El
Cajon, CA 92019
Date confirmed
Saturday, Aug. 17 Chula Vista
HarborFest City of Chula Vista Bayside Park, Chula
Vista Date could change.
September Women's Leadership
Luncheon East County Chamber TBD Participation TBD
September Annual Elected
Official Reception South County EDC TBD
September 29th Annual
Economic Summit South County EDC TBD Table
Tuesday, Oct. 1 East County
Manufacturing Expo East County EDC
Allen Airways Flying
Museum, 2020 N
Marshall Ave, El
Cajon, CA 92020
Date could change.
Saturday, Oct. 5 Annual Spring Valley
Fiesta
San Diego County
Library & Spring
Valley Branch Library
Spring Branch Library,
836 Kempton St.,
Spring Valley, CA
91977 (TBD)
Saturday, Oct. 5 Casa de Oro Fall
Festival Casa de Oro Alliance
Spring Valley
Academy, 3900
Conrad Drive, Spring
Valley, CA 91977
We alternate events. Mostly likely
be attending Spring Valley Fiesta in
2019.
Sunday, Oct. 13 Jamulfest St. Pius X Catholic
Church
St. Pius X Catholic
Church Date could change.
Saturday, Nov. 2 Autumn Fest & Plant
Sale
Water Conservation
Garden
Water Conservation
Garden Date could change.
October or November Annual Dinner &
Awards Ceremony
Otay Mesa Chamber
of Commerce
San Diego Country
Club
Sponsored display booth with
outreach material. Date changes
but usually held in October or
November. Table or seats.
December 4th Annual Holiday
Party
Spring Valley
Chamber TBD Participation TBD
Saturday, Dec. 7 Chula Vista Starlight
Parade
City of Chula Vista and
Third Avenue Village
Association
Chula Vista Third
Avenue Date could change.
STAFF REPORT
TYPE
MEETING:
Regular Board
MEETING
DATE:
January 2, 2018
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:
GIS:
GIS Insights: Analytic Reporting Tool – Staff, along with Esri
consulting services, is working on the development of an Otay
analytics dashboard via their latest technology, Insights. The
concept is to create an intelligence dashboard that will produce
both real-time and predictive analytics from District zone water
flows and general energy consumption. The objective is to create
monthly, quarterly, and yearly data trends that could possibly
assist in the mitigation of water leak/water loss efforts and to be
able to potentially reduce and/or tune our energy consumption and
costs.
Human Resources:
Holiday Party - The District’s Holiday Party was held Saturday,
December 8th, at Carlton Oaks Golf Club. Employees and guests
enjoyed the festive evening.
New Hires/Promotions/Recruitments:
o The new Utility Worker I began in November.
o An internal applicant was selected for the Recycled Water
Specialist and was transferred in November.
o The District is currently recruiting for a Customer Service
Supervisor and a Utility Locator; and is preparing to recruit
for a Utility Maintenance Assistant Supervisor, Pump Mechanic
I/II, Construction Inspector, and Secretary.
These positions are critical to District operations.
2
IT Operations:
Board Room Audio/Visual (AV) System Redesign Service - Given the
age of the District’s existing Board Room AV system, staff engaged
an outside firm to help with a technical analysis and redesign of
the system. The firm will provide staff with a comprehensive
requirements packet for work to be included in a future proposal
such as an AV bill of material for replacement equipment,
electrical configuration, general system integration, social media
features, and estimated budget. Staff anticipates design completion
by the end of January 2019, and will seek funding approval during
the upcoming capital improvement program (CIP) budget preparation
process.
Monthly Board Audio Streaming - During the District’s November
Board meeting, 12 customers engaged in the listening of the live
monthly meeting. The live audio broadcast was aired for 2 hours and
24 minutes.
Purchasing & Facilities:
New 5-Year Uniform Contract - The current 5-year Mission Linen
uniform contract is ending. After a careful analysis of the
contract, which included employee use experience and industry
practices, a proposal solicitation was developed to eliminate non-
value added items. The District received three bids and all
proposed 5-year costs below the original contract of $82,500 dating
back to 2013. A new contract with Mission Linen, who submitted the
lowest proposal at $66,000, will become effective January 1, 2019.
Customer Service/Meter Shop Cubicle Reconfiguration - To better
accommodate consolidated Meter Shop and call-center personnel,
certain Customer Service cubicles were reconfigured and expanded
from 9 to 12 stations. Enhancements include the creation of two
bullpens, one for Meter Shop and Meter Readers consisting of eight
seats and the other consisting of four for Customer Service.
3
BidSync Solicitations – During the last reporting period, two
solicitations were advertised on the District’s solicitation web
portal, BidSync, and on the District’s website:
o “As-Needed Plan Review, Inspection, and Project Management
Services” – For an engineering firm to provide as-needed
professional services to support the Engineering Public Services
Division in processing and performing plan review, inspection,
and project management services for developer potable water and
recycled water projects. Consultant Inspector shall be a Cross-
Connection Control Specialist certified through the AWWA or
ABPA. Proof of certification will be required at the time of
proposal. The budgeted amount is $175,000.
o “Banking Services” – For quotes from qualified banks for banking
services to include account reconciliation and analysis, online
reporting, wire transfers, payroll, tax payments, daylight
overdraft, among others. The quotes received will be evaluated
along with the current services. If the District’s current
banking services are found not to be competitively priced, a
Request for Proposal for Banking Services will be issued. No
budgeted amount is listed.
Safety & Security:
Safety Training:
o Homeland Security’s Webinar - Staff attended the Department of
Homeland Security’s webinar on “Strategy for Electromagnetic
Pulse & Geomagnetic Disturbances”. A copy of the material was
posted on the District’s intranet for staff’s review.
o Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response – The HAZWOPER
Team members completed the annual 8-hour regulatory refresher
training for hazardous waste operations and emergency response.
Two new members are in the process of completing the initial 40-
hour required training before they can become part of the 8-hour
annual refresher program.
o Hot Work Welding and Cutting Operations – Staff authorized by
their supervisors to perform hot work (welding and or cutting
operations using welding equipment/machinery) underwent employee
qualification training instruction. Staff from Fleet Shop,
Utility Maintenance, Meter Shop, Pump & Electric, and Facilities
Maintenance were in attendance.
Fall Protection – Staff worked with Treatment Plant and Engineering
groups to identify locations requiring the installation of fall
protection protective safety railing. Some areas identified include
4
the scrubber unit, leading edges by the future clarifying
expansion, abandoned process tanks, abandoned waste backwash tank,
and tertiary filter steps.
District Electronic Chemical Safety Data Sheets Database – Affected
staff was reminded of the District’s electronic MSDS-Online Safety
Data Sheet (SDS) database. This electronic repository houses the
chemicals in use by the District. As part of the District’s SDS
electronic master folder, the list contains 131 chemicals. Each
section has their own electronic folder specific to their chemicals
in use and operations. This information is also posted on the
District’s intranet.
Emergency Preparedness:
o Tabletop Exercise – Staff participated in a SCADA cyber-attack
tabletop exercise that was implemented at last month’s WebEOC
meeting. The Safety & Security Specialist created and
distributed four instructional packages (one each for
Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance) and facilitated
this portion of the exercise. The next phase(s) of the exercise
will be turned over to IT for follow-up. Some key items learned:
Operations – One good operator can operate the system
manually.
IT – SCADA is on its own network and can be isolated for
protection of the District’s network.
Planning – EOC back-up location.
Finance – Open WO to track time/activities.
The exercise will continue to expand as part of and at future
monthly WebEOC meetings.
o Aqua Ammonia Spill – Treatment Plant staff and HAZWOPER Team
members completed “Aqua Ammonia Spill” training during a
delivery at the 30 mil Reservoir. This training fulfills one of
the required items for the CalARP Program. Note: Chula Vista
Fire Department was invited to participate, but unfortunately
they were busy and could not attend.
Active Shooter Preparedness – All District staff was assigned the
Department of Homeland Security’s active shooter video, “DHS Active
Shooter Situation: Options for Consideration”, with a completion
deadline of March 2019. In addition, members of the District’s EOC
were assigned FEMA’s IS-907 course, “Active Shooter What You Can
Do”, for completion by December 31, 2018. The training was setup
and assigned using the Target Solutions platform, which facilitates
delivery, tracking, reporting, and provides a certificate of
completion.
5
Special District Risk Management Authority (SDRMA) Credits – The
District participates in SDRMA’s Credit Incentive Program, which is
designed to encourage SDRMA members to take a proactive approach in
loss prevention focusing on administration, training, and
safety/risk management. In an effort to achieve the lowest
contributions possible, District Board members and staff
participated in various training and activities throughout the
year. As a result of this participation, and with the help of the
Administrative Executive Assistant who worked with SDRMA’s ARM
Chief Risk Officer, the District achieved the maximum credit
incentive points possible that were applied as a discount towards
the 2018-19 insurance premium. Other credits included longevity
distribution, loss prevention allowance, 5% multi-program and a
high-volume discount, which increased the total discount for our
premium. Getting the credits took time, creativity, self-initiative
and managing the process. In total, SDRMA gave the District an
insurance premium discount of $585,883.73 for both the
property/liability and workers’ compensation on a total premium of
$1,764,697.35. The net premium for FY 2018-2019 totalled
$1,178,813.62.
Finance:
Awards - The Finance Department has received Excellence Awards in
budgeting from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers
(CSMFO) for both the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Operating and Capital
budgets. It was the 14th consecutive year the Capital budget has
received this award and the 13th consecutive award for the Operating
budget.
CAFR - The FY 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was
finalized and posted to the Otay website. The contract with
Teaman, Ramirez & Smith has been extended to 2019 including a one-
year option through 2020, with Board approval.
GASB - Staff has started researching the new accounting statements,
GASB 89 & 87, issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB). We expect to adopt GASB 89, on capitalized interest, in FY
2019. Staff is also assessing GASB 87, on recording leases, for
early adoption in FY2019. Mandatory adoption of both statements is
due in FY 2020.
2018A Water Revenue Bonds – Staff received the bond proceeds on
November 1st . As of November 30th, of the $28 million proceeds
received, approximately $6 million has been spent on qualified
capital projects. The remaining proceeds are held in a LAIF bond
fund and are expected to be spent within a three-year period. The
LAIF bond fund and timeline for spending the proceeds are in
compliance with IRS arbitrage requirements for tax-exempt bonds.
6
2019 Water and Sewer Rates – Staff is completing the testing for
the new water and sewer rates, which will be effective for bills
generated on or after January 1, 2019.
FY 2020 Budget Process – Staff has kicked off the FY 2020 budget
process. The proposed budget is expected to have a preliminary
Board review (Workshop) and be completed and brought to the Board
for approval in May.
ADP – Due to the complexity of the project and consolidation of the
ADP’s HR and Benefit modules into the payroll implementation, the
go-live date has been delayed. The delay is needed to provide ADP
ample time to develop a solution that meets the District’s
requirements for the Regular Rate of Pay. A firm go-live date will
be determined upon the successful completion and testing of the ADP
solution.
Financial Reporting:
The financial reporting for October 31, 2018 is as follows:
o For the four months ending October 31, 2018, there are total
revenues of $39,039,176 and total expenses of $36,417,379. The
revenues exceeded expenses by $2,621,797.
The financial reporting for investments for October 31, 2018 is as
follows:
o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the
Investment Portfolio Details as of September 30, 2018 total
$49,608,113 with an average yield to maturity of 1.408%. The
total earnings year-to-date are $249,709.
The financial reporting for November 30, 2018 is as follows:
o For the five months ending November 30, 2018, there are total
revenues of $47,322,987 and total expenses of $45,543,812. The
revenues exceeded expenses by $1,779,175.
The financial reporting for investments for November 30, 2018 is as
follows:
o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the
Investment Portfolio Details as of November 30, 2018 total
$76,322,885 with an average yield to maturity of 1.705%. The
total earnings year-to-date are $421,839.
7
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). During
the month of November 2018, Pacific Hydrotech completed the
installation concrete masonry units (CMUs) to complete wall
construction for the west side of the station. Roof support beams
were also installed for the west side of the station. Installation
of the CMUs for the station’s east side exterior and interior walls
began in November 2018. Station specific submittals are in
progress. Environmental compliance during construction is being
monitored by Helix Environmental and to date there have been no
issues. The project is within budget and scheduled to complete in
October 2019. (P2083 & P2562)
978-1 & 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades: This
project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior
coatings of the 978-1 (0.5 MG) Reservoir and the 850-2 (3.1 MG)
Reservoir along with providing structural upgrades to ensure the
tanks comply with both state and federal OSHA standards as well as
the American Water Works Association and the County Health
Department standards. The 978-1 Reservoir was placed back in
service in July 2017. The 850-2 Reservoir was placed back in
service on January 12, 2018. Contract acceptance and recordation of
the Notice of Completion by the District was completed on May 31,
2018. Project delivery by Blastco, Inc. (contractor) was behind
schedule due to contractor coordination. As a result, the District
assessed liquidated damages for late delivery of the project
starting in September 2017 through substantial completion, which
occurred when the 850-2 Reservoir was placed back in to service on
January 12, 2018. The contractor has sent claims correspondence to
the District disputing the assessment of liquidated damages. The
District’s construction manager for the project has issued the
Engineer’s Entitlement Decision denying the claims. Mediation was
held on August 16, 2018. The contractor has filed for arbitration.
The Arbitrator has scheduled the hearing for three days on July 29,
30, and August 1, 2019 in San Diego. Staff will give the Board a
closed session update during the February 2019 Board Meeting. The
project is within budget. (P2534 & P2544)
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
8
abandonment of the existing sewer main. During November 2018, the
contractor’s horizontal auger boring subcontractor continued jack
and bore operations at the East Bore Jacking Pit located along
westbound Campo Road at the north east corner of the Campo
Road/Jamacha Boulevard intersection. Wier Construction, the
contractor for the project, also completed final paving along
westbound Campo Road between SR 94 and Jamacha Boulevard. Work to
install the planned sewer along eastbound Campo Road began in
November in the area west of Jamacha Boulevard. The project is
within budget and the overall project is scheduled for completion
in June 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
which have had significant improvements performed over the years
since the water line was constructed. Through the District’s As-
Needed Engineering Design contract, a Task Order was issued on
May 2, 2017 to Rick Engineering to design the project. Throughout
the design process, staff has continued to discuss the project with
property owners (from project awareness to property encroachment),
with this effort to continue through construction. Final design
drawings were received in mid-August. The Negative Declaration for
the project was adopted by the Board on October 3, 2018. There are
no mitigation measures needed for the project. The project
construction contract was awarded to Cass Arietta at the November
2018 Board Meeting. The contractor mobilized to the site on
December 10, 2018. Construction completion is scheduled for July
2019. (P2574 & P2625)
OWD Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements, Phase II
– Pavement Restoration: Phase I of this project, completed in
October 2017, upgraded the parking lot light fixtures in both the
Administration and Operations lots. Phase II consists of repairing
the asphalt concrete paving, pavement sealing, and restriping both
asphalt concrete parking lots. In addition to the pavement
improvements, a carport will be installed to protect the larger
fleet vehicles, and gates will be installed to better secure the
Operations parking lot. During September 2018, Frank and Son
Paving, Inc., the District’s construction contractor, completed the
asphalt concrete, crack seal, pavement seal, and restriping of the
Administration parking lot areas. Work to seal and restripe a
portion of the upper Operations parking lot was also completed. The
pavement restoration work and striping were performed during
weekends to minimize disruption to customers and the District’s
employees. During October 2018, the contractor installed additional
gates in the upper Operations parking lot. In November, columns for
9
the carport were installed and delivery of the roof components were
delivered. In December, the carport, along with sealing and
striping of the Operations fleet lot, is scheduled for completion.
The project is within budget. (P2555)
980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating and Upgrades: This project
consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior
coatings of the 980-2 (5.0 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 the
month of September 2018, sanitary testing was completed and the
reservoir was returned to service. On November 19, 2018, the
District accepted the project and it is currently under the two (2)
year warranty. The project is within budget. (P2546)
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 District received the
vendor’s (Hawthorne) revised shop drawings for the redundant trailer
on November 27, 2018. District staff returned comments on the as-
needed electrical engineering design consultant’s (BSE Engineering,
Inc.) 50% design submittal on December 3, 2018. District staff has
been developing the civil and mechanical design in-house. A public
works bid package, including grading, mechanical, electrical,
instrumentation and control, and installation of the trailer is
scheduled to be awarded in July 2019. (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 award of a construction contract to M-Rae Engineering,
Inc. for this project was approved and field work began in October
2018. M-Rae completed most of the work in the Sweetwater River east
of the Cottonwood Golf Club and commenced work adjacent to Proctor
Valley Road in November 2018. Work on this project will be
coordinated with the completion of other CIP projects during the
fiscal year to minimize operational impacts. This project is on
schedule and within budget. (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. Layfield, the
construction contractor for the project, commenced field work on
October 15, 2018 and has been progressing with work on the interior
10
reservoir. The project is within budget and scheduled to complete
in March 2019. (P2561)
803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating and Upgrades: This project
consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior
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. The project
was awarded at the November Board meeting to Advanced Industrial
Services, and the contractor is scheduled to mobilize to the site on
December 10, 2018. The project completion is scheduled for May 30,
2019. The project is within budget. (P2565)
Pure Water Update: The San Diego City Council on November 15,
2018, voted to begin the first phase of construction of the Pure
Water project. The vote authorizes the Mayor to award construction
contracts to the lowest responsible and reliable bidders for the
various projects in Phase 1, including the future North City Pure
Water Facility. Construction is scheduled to start this spring.
This program will significantly reduce wastewater discharges to the
ocean and produce an annual average daily flow of 30 MGD of potable
water in 2021, which in turn would reduce total suspended solids
discharged to the ocean. The project will expand the existing
North City Water Reclamation Plant and construct an adjacent North
City Pure Water Facility. On December 6, 2018, the Metro Joint
Powers Authority (Metro JPA) approved a change order with Stantec,
Inc. for an additional $10 million to the As-Needed Engineering
Technical Services Consultant agreement, with approximately $1.3
million being funded by the Metro JPA. This increases the total
contract amount to $56.4 million and was the second change order
(the first change order was for $16.4 million) to this contract
which was issued in 2015 for an amount not-to-exceed $30 million.
The Metro JPA also formed a new Ad Hoc Committee to review the
current Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the members of
the Metro JPA and bring any changes they recommend back to the
Metro Commission legal advisor for the JPA. Several members
expressed concerns to the current Metro JPA legal advisor, Best
Best & Krieger LLP, who currently represents another member of the
Metro JPA as their General Counsel, could have divergent legal
interests that could complicate future changes needed to the Metro
agreements with the City of San Diego.
For the month of October and November 2018, the District sold 36
meters (98 EDUs), generating $982,688 in revenue. Projection for
this period was 60.8 meters (77.1 EDUs), with a budgeted revenue of
$672,173. Total revenue for Fiscal Year 2019 is $4,774,816 against
the annual budget of $8,066,070.
11
Water System Operations (reporting for October and November):
The Treatment Plant process has improved since making process
adjustments in August 2018. The plant has not experienced a process
upset, that resulted in a shutdown, since July 22, 2018.
On October 2, water deliveries to Mexico were adjusted due to low
water pressure on the downstream of the connection in order to meet
target deliveries.
On October 5, Water deliveries to Mexico were completed (292.7 AF)
and the connection was closed.
On October 11, staff assisted the Engineering Inspection Section
with a developer project planned shutdown to connect a new 16-inch
on Heritage Road to the existing 12-inch on Santa Maya in Chula
Vista. There were nine residential meters affected from 8:00 AM to
2:30 PM and a water trailer was on site for those affected.
On November 1, staff performed an unplanned shutdown at 850
Sacramento Avenue in Spring Valley due to a main breakage. Twenty-
two (22) residential meters were affected. Water trailers were on
site for the affected customers. The shutdown lasted from 8:30 AM
to 3:20 PM.
On November 4, staff performed a planned shutdown at 5159 Paseo de
las Americas in Otay Mesa to replace a defective 6-inch fire
service gate valve. There were 11 commercial meters affected by the
shutdown. A water trailer was on site for those affected and the
shutdown lasted from 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM.
On November 6, staff performed an emergency unplanned shutdown at
723 La Presa Avenue in Spring Valley. Twenty-one (21) residential
meters were affected. A water trailer was on site for those
affected during the shutdown that lasted from 8:00 PM to the next
day at 3:30 AM.
On November 8, the City of San Diego requested emergency water
deliveries via LOPS reverse flow due to a break on their 40-inch
transmission line. Staff from Water Systems, Pump Electrical, SCADA
and Fleet Maintenance worked together to make this possible. Staff
was able to provide the city a flow of 5,500 to 6,000 GPM at
3:00 PM until the next day and provided a total of 10.37 MG or
31.82 AF.
On November 9, staff performed an emergency unplanned shutdown at
613 Harlan Court in Chula Vista affecting twelve (12) residential
12
meters. The shutdown lasted 6 hours and a water trailer was on site
for those affected.
On November 15, staff performed an emergency unplanned shutdown at
2351 Otay Center Drive in Otay Mesa. Twenty (20) commercial
customers were affected during the shutdown from 9:45 AM to
4:45 PM. Water trailers were on site for those affected.
On November 20, staff completed the proactive replacement of sixty
five (65) copper service laterals in the Rancho San Diego area with
short notice from the County of San Diego, while the Section had
reduced staffing. To accomplish this, Utility Maintenance staff
stayed late and came in on scheduled days off to ensure this work
was completed prior to the County performing paving on the
designated streets. As a result of staff’s efficient work ethic and
coordination with the County, staff completed all work in less than
two months and saved the District thousands of dollars in paving
costs and mitigated the potential of trenching into newly paved
streets in the future.
Purchases and Change Orders:
The following table summarizes purchases and Change Orders issued
during the period of October 16, 2018 through November 14, 2018
that were within staff signatory authority:
Date
Action
Amount
Contractor/
Consultant Project
10/16/18 P.O. $125.00 Pacific Safety
Center Safety Training
10/23/18 P.O. $394.00
San Miguel Fire
Protection
District
Annual Business Fire
Inspection
10/24/18 P.O. $1,500.00
Grossmont-
Cuyamaca
Community
College
Hazwoper Training
10/29/18 P.O. $8,430.00 Cultura Cubicle
Reconfiguration
10/29/18 P.O. $2,545.06 D & D Wildlife
Habitat Brush Clearance
10/29/18 P.O. $2,373.95 GEXPRO SCADA Hardware
10/29/18 P.O. $5,992.64 WatchLight
Corporation
Alarm Equipment
Installation
11/01/18 P.O. $1,985.76 Protective Life
Insurance Co
Annual Life
Insurance Premium
13
Water Conservation and Sales:
Water Conservation - October 2018 usage was 13% lower than October
2013. November 2018 usage was 2% higher than November 2013.
Since November 2017, customers have saved an average of 5% over
2013 levels.
11/07/18 P.O. $35,993.02 ECS Imaging Inc Annual Software
License
11/08/18 P.O. $9,534.10
GHA
Technologies
Inc
Computers
11/14/18 P.O. $6,200.00 Cibola Systems
Corp
Audiovisual
Consulting
11/14/18 Amendment
#3 $40,000.00
Recon
Environmental
Inc
Preparation of the
Subarea Plan (P1253)
14
The October potable water purchases were 2,492.4 acre-feet which is
12.5% below the budget of 2,849.2 acre-feet. The cumulative
purchases through October were 11,650.3 acre-feet which is 1.6%
below the cumulative budget of 11,838.6 acre-feet.
The October recycled water purchases and production were 376.6
acre-feet which is 8.1% above the budget of 348.5 acre-feet. The
cumulative production and purchases through October were 1,885.3
acre-feet which is 8.6% above the cumulative budget of 1,735.6
acre-feet.
15
The November potable water purchases were 2,426.4 acre-feet which
is 1.8% below the budget of 2,471.7 acre-feet. The cumulative
purchases through November were 14,076.7 acre-feet which is 1.6%
below the cumulative budget of 14,310.3 acre-feet.
The November recycled water purchases and production were 344.3
acre-feet which is 14.0% above the budget of 301.9 acre-feet. The
cumulative production and purchases through November were 2,229.6
acre-feet which is 9.4% above the cumulative budget of 2,037.5
acre-feet.
16
Potable, Recycled, and Sewer (Reporting up to the month of October):
Total number of potable water meters: 50,481.
Total number of sewer connections: 4,725.
Recycled water consumption for the month of October:
o Total consumption: 365.6 acre-feet or 119,072,624 gallons.
o Average daily consumption: 3,841,052 gallons per day.
o Total cumulative recycled water consumption since July 1, 2018:
1,846.3 acre-feet.
o Total number of recycled water meters: 727.
Wastewater flows for the month of October:
o Total basin flow: 1,474,435 gallons per day.
This is a decrease of 2.7% from October 2017.
o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro: 489,693 gallons
per day.
o Total Otay flow: 984,516 gallons per day.
o Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility:
761,677 gallons per day.
o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District: 222,952 gallons per day.
By the end of October there were 6,739 wastewater EDUs.
Potable, Recycled, and Sewer (Reporting up to the month of November):
Total number of potable water meters: 50,511.
Total number of sewer connections: 4,725.
Recycled water consumption for the month of November:
o Total consumption: 360.5 acre-feet or 117,422,536 gallons.
o Average daily consumption: 3,914,085 gallons per day.
o Total cumulative recycled water consumption since July 1, 2018:
2,206.8 acre-feet.
o Total number of recycled water meters: 727.
Wastewater flows for the month of November:
o Total basin flow: 1,491,467 gallons per day.
This is a decrease of 1.5% from November 2017.
o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro: 495,453 gallons
per day.
17
o Total Otay flow: 996,067 gallons per day.
o Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility:
913,767 gallons per day.
o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District: 109,800 gallons per day.
By the end of November there were 6,739 wastewater EDUs.
Check Total
9,194.83
7,553.11
2,310.50
34,688.12
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
2051423 11/20/18 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1035209 10/25/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2,629.98
1035616 11/02/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2,508.60
1035208 10/25/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,062.11
1035618 11/02/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,062.11
1035615 11/02/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 829.46
1035163 10/24/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 505.77
1035207 10/25/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 455.19
1035617 11/02/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 141.61
2051348 11/07/18 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1034654 10/11/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2,300.22
1034942 10/18/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2,081.73
1034941 10/18/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 960.96
1034655 10/11/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 885.09
1034653 10/11/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 738.42
1034652 10/11/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 434.96
1034580 10/10/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 151.73
2051349 11/07/18 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 8176 11/02/18 SHAREPOINT SERVICES (OCT 2018)1,800.00 1,800.00
2051389 11/14/18 19181 ADRIAN DIAZ Ref002527251 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000072307 100.00 100.00
2051350 11/07/18 17989 ADS CORP 22335221018 10/20/18 ADS MAINTENANCE & REPORTING (OCT 2018)675.00 675.00
2051351 11/07/18 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1433 10/10/18 DEVELOPER PLAN REVIEW (9/1/18-10/5/18)2,860.00 2,860.00
2051352 11/07/18 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131564642 10/04/18 AQUA AMMONIA 987.00
131564644 10/04/18 AQUA AMMONIA 712.00
131564641 10/04/18 AQUA AMMONIA 422.00
131564643 10/04/18 AQUA AMMONIA 189.50
2051353 11/07/18 14256 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 868608 10/02/18 INSURANCE CONSULTING 7,250.00 7,250.00
2051424 11/20/18 14462 ALYSON CONSULTING CM201852 11/05/18 MGMT/INSP (10/1/18-10/31/18)13,136.00
CM201853 11/05/18 MGMT/INSP (10/1/18-10/31/18)11,491.09
CM201850 11/05/18 MGMT/INSP (10/1/18-10/31/18)4,000.00
CM201849 11/05/18 MGMT/INSP (10/1/18-10/31/18)3,200.00
CM201851 11/05/18 MGMT/INSP (7/1/18-10/31/18)2,221.03
CM201848 11/05/18 MGMT/INSP (10/1/18-10/31/18)640.00
2051310 10/31/18 19159 ANGELINA BOLOGNA Ref002525755 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000188533 39.30 39.30
2051328 10/31/18 17264 ARTIANO SHINOFF 301321 10/12/18 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (THRU 9/30/18)55,735.02 55,735.02
2051390 11/14/18 07785 AT&T 000012032603 10/12/18 TELEPHONE SERVICES (9/12/18 - 10/11/18)4,350.95 4,350.95
Page 1 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
753,479.96
2051329 10/31/18 18599 ATKINSON ANDELSON LOYA RUUD 554845 09/30/18 LEGAL/CONSULTING SERVICES (SEPT 2018)5,163.38 5,163.38
2051330 10/31/18 12684 BALDWIN & SONS LLC WOD0740B 10/30/18 WORK ORDER REFUND D0740-090344 3,098.91 3,098.91
2051391 11/14/18 19180 BENJAMIN HOURANI Ref002527250 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000063290 145.04 145.04
2051311 10/31/18 19167 BRENDA VILLARREAL Ref002525764 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000241071 30.67 30.67
2051331 10/31/18 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 737040 10/16/18 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (SEPT 2018)4,391.10 4,391.10
2051425 11/20/18 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 739687 11/09/18 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (OCT 2018)3,499.35 3,499.35
2051426 11/20/18 14112 BSE ENGINEERING INC 754101701 10/31/18 ELECTRICAL DESIGN (ENDING 10/31/18)6,903.00 6,903.00
2051392 11/14/18 19184 CABRIE FRADELLA Ref002527254 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000186124 144.43 144.43
2051393 11/14/18 04071 CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC 29416 10/31/18 OUTSIDE SERVICES 45.00 45.00
2051354 11/07/18 11057 CAREY, ANDREA 110118110118 11/01/18 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (11/1/18)200.00 200.00
2051312 10/31/18 19153 CARLOS LOPEZ Ref002525749 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000034611 365.88 365.88
2051313 10/31/18 19157 CARLOS VARGAS Ref002525753 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000145973 90.18 90.18
2051427 11/20/18 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 8349 10/31/18 SCANNING 1,584.73 1,584.73
2051355 11/07/18 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 0171468 10/21/18 CONSTRUCTION FOR 870-2 PS (SEPT 2018)24,883.00 24,883.00
2051356 11/07/18 18170 CED INDUSTRIAL & LIGHT 7148555030 11/06/18 REPAIR OF LINE CONDITIONER 16,963.61 16,963.61
2051394 11/14/18 19179 CHRIS ELLO Ref002527249 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000060192 107.25 107.25
2051395 11/14/18 00446 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 111218 11/08/18 SPONSORSHIP - CV STARLIGHT PARADE 650.00 650.00
2051387 11/14/18 13128 CLAYTON WHITE Ref002527248 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000048254 40.00 40.00
2051357 11/07/18 17923 CONCORD UTILITY SERVICES 2369 10/12/18 REG REPLACEMENT PROG (10/8/18-10/12/18)6,316.00 6,316.00
2051358 11/07/18 18331 CORE & MAIN LP J505980 09/28/18 ALLEGRO REGISTERS 279,891.40
J662694 10/17/18 ALLEGRO REGISTERS 181,929.41
J585100 10/02/18 ALLEGRO REGISTERS 139,945.70
J681795 10/22/18 ALLEGRO METERS & REGISTERS 103,934.41
J530928 10/17/18 ALLEGRO METERS & REGISTERS 30,568.56
J403310 10/12/18 3G REGISTERS & HOUSINGS 10,469.64
J645459 10/17/18 INVENTORY 6,740.84
2051428 11/20/18 18331 CORE & MAIN LP J683955 10/24/18 INVENTORY 1,221.89 1,221.89
2051332 10/31/18 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD091810/11/18 EXCAVATION PERMITS (SEPT 2018)7,840.00 7,840.00
2051429 11/20/18 02122 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 092811995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09281 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)10,443.00
Page 2 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
25,342.00
3,810.81
092761995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09276 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)4,351.00
002332009RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 00233 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)1,951.00
019891982RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 01989 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)1,132.00
032311982RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 03231 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)891.00
092831995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09283 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)750.00
095031996RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09503 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)750.00
092911995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09291 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)609.00
092891995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09289 DEC 2018-DEC 2019)521.00
049832003RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 04983 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)521.00
092801995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09280 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)383.00
092771995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09277 (MAR 2017-MAR 2018)380.00
092791995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09279 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)380.00
092851995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09285 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)380.00
092861995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09286 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)380.00
092871995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09287 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)380.00
092881995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09288 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)380.00
092901995RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 09290 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)380.00
105651998RI2018 09/27/18 PERMIT FEES # 10565 (DEC 2018-DEC 2019)380.00
2051396 11/14/18 02122 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 110818 11/08/18 ENGINE INSTALLATION 5,118.00 5,118.00
2051359 11/07/18 15898 D & D WILDLIFE HABITAT 54687 10/12/18 BRUSH CLEARANCE 2,362.00 2,362.00
2051430 11/20/18 11797 D&H WATER SYSTEMS INC I20181125 10/31/18 RCS TRAILER RENTAL 6,465.00 6,465.00
2051314 10/31/18 19170 DAVID EGEA Ref002525767 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000242877 19.22 19.22
2051360 11/07/18 15855 DIG-SMART LLC 13202 09/10/18 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 2,400.00 2,400.00
2051397 11/14/18 19182 DONALD STEPHENS Ref002527252 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000095278 75.00 75.00
2051361 11/07/18 05746 DOWNSTREAM SERVICES INC 102652 10/17/18 SEWER CONNECTION VERIFICATION SERVICES (JULY 2018)6,942.00 6,942.00
2051362 11/07/18 18983 DRYLET LLC 2546 10/17/18 DRYLET WSTWTR TRMNT PROD TEST 1,200.00 1,200.00
2051398 11/14/18 17612 ECS IMAGING INC 13566 10/19/18 SOFTWARE LICENSE (11/26/18-11/25/19)36,664.60 36,664.60
2051363 11/07/18 03725 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 93534308 10/12/18 ESRI ENTERPRISE PROGRAM 28,000.00 28,000.00
2051364 11/07/18 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 06493851 10/12/18 INVENTORY 2,088.20
06511221 10/15/18 INVENTORY 1,722.61
2051431 11/20/18 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0653951 10/30/18 INVENTORY 6,724.04
0653344 10/29/18 INVENTORY 2,430.84
Page 3 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
10,758.21
95.23
10,632.31
18,330.83
0654512 11/02/18 INVENTORY 1,422.30
0652478 10/25/18 INVENTORY 100.43
0653809 10/29/18 INVENTORY 80.60
2051432 11/20/18 17888 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003401018 10/31/18 ONLINE DOCUMENTS (MONTHLY)99.00 99.00
2051365 11/07/18 11962 FLEETWASH INC x1443119 10/19/18 FLEET WASH SERVICES 68.02
x1436692 10/12/18 FLEET WASH SERVICES 27.21
2051333 10/31/18 11962 FLEETWASH INC x1421712 09/21/18 FLEET WASH SERVICES 34.01 34.01
2051334 10/31/18 18600 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2525794 11/01/18 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 125.00 125.00
2051399 11/14/18 18600 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2527296 11/15/18 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 125.00 125.00
2051366 11/07/18 01327 FRANK & SON PAVING INC 109302018 10/19/18 PRKG LOT IMPROVEMENT PHASE II (SEPT 2018)81,881.21 81,881.21
2051433 11/20/18 03094 FULLCOURT PRESS 34126 11/08/18 OUTSIDE SERVICES - PRINTING 3,141.99 3,141.99
2051367 11/07/18 18585 GEXPRO S122864479001 10/18/18 SCADA HARDWARE 2,373.95 2,373.95
2051434 11/20/18 09571 GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM INC SO10247 10/25/18 SOFTWARE LICENSE 3,969.00 3,969.00
2051435 11/20/18 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 17483 10/31/18 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (OCT 2018)8,909.50 8,909.50
2051315 10/31/18 19154 GREGORY CZER Ref002525750 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000055430 227.63 227.63
2051400 11/14/18 19190 GUADALUPE ACOSTA Ref002527261 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000240623 8.73 8.73
2051436 11/20/18 18436 HAZEN AND SAWYER DPC 200940009 11/03/18 HYDRAULIC MODELING (OCT 2018)5,517.50 5,517.50
2051368 11/07/18 18436 HAZEN AND SAWYER DPC 200940008 10/18/18 HYDRAULIC MODELING (SEPT 2018)3,015.00 3,015.00
2051437 11/20/18 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 68859 10/29/18 AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL (END 10/21/18)2,346.74 2,346.74
2051369 11/07/18 19173 HOWARD MCMANUS 110118 11/01/18 GATE REPAIR AT BEAR MOUNTAIN WAY 497.39 497.39
2051438 11/20/18 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0134026 11/01/18 SAN MIGUEL HMA (SEPT 2018)8,669.31
0134033 11/01/18 AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPT 2018)1,963.00
2051439 11/20/18 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2149926 10/31/18 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM 855.43 855.43
2051440 11/20/18 08969 INFOSEND INC 144182 10/31/18 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES 12,536.60
144181 10/31/18 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES 3,467.11
144432 11/02/18 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES 2,327.12
2051370 11/07/18 17106 IWG TOWERS ASSETS II LLC 465703 11/01/18 ANTENNA SUBLEASE 1,757.00 1,757.00
2051316 10/31/18 19162 JACOB SUBASA Ref002525758 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000214491 36.09 36.09
2051371 11/07/18 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 772110 10/11/18 CHLORINE 2,450.40 2,450.40
Page 4 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
52,431.47
36,442.50
23,192.50
2051441 11/20/18 19219 JESUS PUENTE 9219111618 11/16/18 CLAIM PAYMENT 645.00 645.00
2051401 11/14/18 19178 JOHN E CLANCY Ref002527247 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000004030 28.85 28.85
2051402 11/14/18 19189 JOHN HARDIN Ref002527260 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000233922 78.91 78.91
2051403 11/14/18 19185 KELLIE PILCHEN Ref002527256 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000194359 68.16 68.16
2051404 11/14/18 15858 KERR, MICHAEL 112818112918 11/13/18 TRAVEL (MEAL) ADVANCEMENT 162.00 162.00
2051372 11/07/18 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 6935 10/08/18 PAVING SERVICES 6,721.00 6,721.00
2051442 11/20/18 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 6927 10/31/18 PAVING SERVICES 18,070.77
6928 10/31/18 PAVING SERVICES 17,134.50
6949 10/29/18 PAVING SERVICES 12,811.00
6948 10/23/18 PAVING SERVICES 4,415.20
2051373 11/07/18 14808 KOEPPEN, KEVIN 070118063019 07/01/18 AICPA DUES & CPE MEMBERSHIP REIMB 524.00 524.00
2051405 11/14/18 03336 KREINBRING, THERESA 110418110718 11/07/18 TRAVEL EXPENSE (11/4/18-11/7/18)1,311.73 1,311.73
2051374 11/07/18 15810 LANCE PICOTTE SAFETY CONSLTNG OWD101818 10/18/18 ACP TRAINING 1,200.00 1,200.00
2051443 11/20/18 15615 LAYFIELD USA CORPORATION 210312018 10/25/18 RES 711-3 FLT COVER/LINER (END 10/31/18)116,660.00 116,660.00
2051317 10/31/18 19161 LESLIE FELDHAUS Ref002525757 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000208377 66.26 66.26
2051444 11/20/18 18905 M RAE ENGINEERING INC 110312018 10/31/18 PIPELINE CP IMPROV PHASE II (OCT 2018)48,022.50 48,022.50
2051406 11/14/18 19192 MARCO PROANO Ref002527263 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000249228 140.19 140.19
2051318 10/31/18 19101 MARIUS JEFFERSON Ref002525759 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000221255 80.00 80.00
2051335 10/31/18 14364 MARTIN, DAN 102318102518 10/25/18 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (10/23/18-10/25/18)213.18 213.18
2051319 10/31/18 19160 MATTHEW PENDLETON Ref002525756 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000207371 8.01 8.01
2051445 11/20/18 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0027812IN 11/13/18 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 49.83 49.83
2051375 11/07/18 16608 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 1029115 10/17/18 870-2 PS INSPECTION SERV (ENDING 9/30/18)35,262.50
1028352 10/10/18 ENGINEERING DESIGN (SEPT 2018)1,180.00
2051446 11/20/18 16608 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 1030318 10/31/18 870-2 PS INSPECTION SERV (ENDING 10/31/18)20,455.00
1030328 10/31/18 ENGINEERING DESIGN (OCT 2018)2,737.50
2051320 10/31/18 19168 MINDY SANDERS Ref002525765 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000241336 15.53 15.53
2051447 11/20/18 16613 MISSION RESOURCE CONSERVATION 394 11/01/18 WS IRRIGATION UPGRADE (OCT 2018)146.00 146.00
2051321 10/31/18 19165 MONICA CASTRO Ref002525762 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000240706 7.82 7.82
2051336 10/31/18 17818 MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC 082918-0012 08/29/18 REMARKETING FEE (7/1/18-9/30/18)1,724.05
Page 5 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
3,944.79
50,255.00
2051336 10/31/18 17818 MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC 082918-0012 08/29/18 REMARKETING FEE (7/1/18-9/30/18)1,724.05
070618-0019 07/06/18 REMARKETING FEE (4/1/18-6/30/18)1,693.32
102518-0001 10/25/18 REMARKETING FEE (10/1/18-10/31/18)527.42
2051322 10/31/18 19166 NANCY PIPER Ref002525763 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000240906 39.30 39.30
2051407 11/14/18 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2527286 11/15/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 11,811.12 11,811.12
2051337 10/31/18 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2525784 11/01/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 11,811.12 11,811.12
2051376 11/07/18 08531 NEWEST CONSTRUCTION 1-091418 09/14/18 CLARIFIER WEIR REPLACEMENT 42,800.00
2-103118 09/27/18 CLARIFIER WEIR REPLACEMENT 7,455.00
2051448 11/20/18 08531 NEWEST CONSTRUCTION 1-102318 10/23/18 TER FILTER LAUNDER RPLMNT 5,047.50 5,047.50
2051449 11/20/18 18332 NV5 INC 105221 10/31/18 ENGINEERING DESIGN (8/28/18-9/30/18)12,818.75 12,818.75
2051338 10/31/18 10099 OMC PROPERTIES LLC WOD0860 10/30/18 WORK ORDER REFUND D0860-090269 11,178.76 11,178.76
2051450 11/20/18 06646 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 1110312018 11/02/18 870-2 PS REPLACEMENT (ENDING 10/31/18)593,723.72 593,723.72
2051377 11/07/18 06646 PACIFIC HYDROTECH CORPORATION 1009302018 10/22/18 870-2 PS REPLACEMENT (ENDING 9/30/18)596,313.42 596,313.42
2051451 11/20/18 18562 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 1110312018 11/02/18 RET/PAC HYDRO A#7533 (ENDING 10/31/18)31,248.62 31,248.62
2051378 11/07/18 18562 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK 1009302018 10/22/18 RET/PAC HYDRO A#7533 (ENDING 9/30/18)31,384.92 31,384.92
2051408 11/14/18 06527 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER 278 11/08/18 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL METRO JPA (2019)3,522.67 3,522.67
2051339 10/31/18 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 103018 10/30/18 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 457.96 457.96
2051388 11/14/18 18443 PHILLIP HOSKING Ref002527255 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000187066 56.10 56.10
2051452 11/20/18 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 5781 11/01/18 GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES 612.50 612.50
2051340 10/31/18 03351 POSADA, ROD 102218102518 10/25/18 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (10/22/18-10/25/18)922.12 922.12
2051453 11/20/18 03274 PREMIER PHOTOGRAPHY 6624 10/23/18 OUTSIDE SERVICES 341.60 341.60
2051379 11/07/18 07860 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO 490611118 10/22/18 ANNUAL LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 1,985.76 1,985.76
2051454 11/20/18 03613 PSOMAS 145964 10/25/18 LAND SURVEYING SERV (ENDING 10/26/18)5,690.00 5,690.00
2051409 11/14/18 19187 RAYA HABBOOSH Ref002527258 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000226067 64.47 64.47
2051455 11/20/18 15647 RFYEAGER ENGINEERING LLC 720040 11/02/18 CORROSION SERVICES (OCT 2018)19,260.00 19,260.00
2051456 11/20/18 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 17829D14 10/25/18 DESIGN SERVICES (SEPT 2018)9,007.05 9,007.05
2051410 11/14/18 19177 ROBERT E CURRIE Ref002527246 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000000442 91.44 91.44
2051411 11/14/18 19183 ROLINDA SOTO Ref002527253 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000121231 45.22 45.22
2051323 10/31/18 19163 RUBEN ATIENZA Ref002525760 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000223099 89.55 89.55
Page 6 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
190.00
84,518.26
82,658.40
100,368.67
2051323 10/31/18 19163 RUBEN ATIENZA Ref002525760 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000223099 89.55 89.55
2051457 11/20/18 02680 SAN DIEGO COUNTY TREASURER MDS-18-7066 11/15/18 DEBT SEMINAR 95.00
MDS-18-7067 11/15/18 DEBT SEMINAR 95.00
2051458 11/20/18 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 0000001733 10/31/18 WATERSMART PROGRAM INCENTIVES 1,236.00 1,236.00
2051341 10/31/18 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 101918 10/19/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)53,676.05
102618 10/26/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)16,474.88
102518 10/25/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)11,853.92
101918a 10/29/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)1,710.93
102418 10/24/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)802.48
2051380 11/07/18 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 102918 10/29/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)61,600.21
102918A 10/29/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)20,645.20
110118 11/01/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)412.99
2051412 11/14/18 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 110218 11/02/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)81,377.31
110818 11/08/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)18,805.20
110718 11/13/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)186.16
2051381 11/07/18 07676 SAN MIGUEL FIRE PROTECTION SMG30858 10/10/18 ANNUAL BUSINESS FIRE INSPECTION 394.00 394.00
2051324 10/31/18 19164 SEBASTIEN FURLAN Ref002525761 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000224374 33.80 33.80
2051342 10/31/18 19171 SIMPSON SANDBLASTING Ref002525768 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000249169 2,046.00 2,046.00
2051413 11/14/18 16229 SMITH, TIMOTHY 100118103118 10/31/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (OCT 2018)48.51 48.51
2051325 10/31/18 19155 SONIA GODINEZ Ref002525751 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000056951 31.76 31.76
2051326 10/31/18 19156 SONJA JOSEPH Ref002525752 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000084972 80.02 80.02
2051343 10/31/18 04831 SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE WOD0243 10/30/18 WORK ORDER REFUND D0243-090249 157.18 157.18
2051414 11/14/18 01460 STATE WATER RESOURCES RW1018648 11/09/18 RECYCLED WATER FEES (7/1/2017 -6/30/2018)572.00 572.00
2051459 11/20/18 01460 STATE WATER RESOURCES SW0157456 11/07/18 ANNUAL PERMIT FEES 694.00 694.00
2051415 11/14/18 19186 STEVE HARVEY Ref002527257 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000205724 167.09 167.09
2051382 11/07/18 15974 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 81669118 11/01/18 LIFE INSURANCE AND STD/LTD 8,796.83 8,796.83
2051344 10/31/18 19169 SUN STATE BUILDERS Ref002525766 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000242147 1,626.67 1,626.67
2051460 11/20/18 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 458314 10/26/18 DIESEL FUEL 6,396.53 6,396.53
2051416 11/14/18 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 457818 10/17/18 RED DYED DIESEL FUEL TREATMENT PLANT 8,658.20 8,658.20
2051461 11/20/18 18376 SVPR COMMUNICATIONS 1240 10/31/18 COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT 2,500.00 2,500.00
Page 7 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 10/25/2018 - 11/22/2018
Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
472.54
2,500.00
2051383 11/07/18 17704 T&T JANITORIAL INC 20185253 09/30/18 JANITORIAL SERVICES (SEPT 2018)4,780.00 4,780.00
2051462 11/20/18 03770 TEAMAN RAMIREZ & SMITH INC 86717 11/14/18 AUDITING SERVICES FY18 18,738.00 18,738.00
2051345 10/31/18 15257 TRUESDALE, DENNIS 102918 10/29/18 TRAVEL ADVANCEMENT (11/7/18-11/8/18)172.45 172.45
2051463 11/20/18 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1020180499 11/01/18 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)1,023.10 1,023.10
2051384 11/07/18 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 1147543150 10/24/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/23/18-11/19/18)392.58
1147542982 10/24/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/19/18-11/15/18)79.96
2051417 11/14/18 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2527294 11/15/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 15,497.21 15,497.21
2051346 10/31/18 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2525792 11/01/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 15,592.11 15,592.11
2051418 11/14/18 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2527292 11/15/18 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 629.27 629.27
2051347 10/31/18 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2525790 11/01/18 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 629.27 629.27
2051419 11/14/18 12686 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2527298 11/15/18 401A TERMINAL PAY 12,746.53 12,746.53
2051327 10/31/18 19158 VEDA BRIGGS Ref002525754 10/29/18 UB Refund Cst #0000186683 39.20 39.20
2051420 11/14/18 19188 WALTER HUSSON Ref002527259 11/09/18 UB Refund Cst #0000231352 134.78 134.78
2051421 11/14/18 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 595994 10/15/18 SECURITY ALARM MONITORING 2,472.92 2,472.92
2051464 11/20/18 14879 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN ED2018103122 11/05/18 GARDEN FUNDING CONTRIBUTION (OCT 2018)3,040.00 3,040.00
2051465 11/20/18 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 18349 11/05/18 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 125.00
2051385 11/07/18 18173 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 1509302018 10/15/18 RET/WEIR CONST A#2222 (ENDING 9/30/18)21,010.13 21,010.13
2051386 11/07/18 18101 WIER CONSTRUCTION CORP 1509302018 10/15/18 SEWER REPLACEMENT (ENDING 9/30/18)399,192.37 399,192.37
ARBITRAGE REBATE SVCS
2051422 11/14/18 19191 WIGWAM INVESTMENTS Ref002527262 11/09/18
3,730,928.16
UB Refund Cst #0000243673 1,714.47 1,714.47
2051466 11/20/18 15181 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 010-39417 10/26/18
Check Grand Total:3,730,928.16
1,250.00
010-39418 10/26/18 ARBITRAGE REBATE SVCS 1,250.00
Amount Pd Total:
Page 8 of 8
Check Total
8,059.91
4,479.07
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
2051467 11/28/18 19230 AARON COOMER Ref002530442 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000240457 27.98 27.98
2051572 12/19/18 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1036343 11/21/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,143.03
1036345 11/21/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,112.69
1036344 11/21/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,112.69
1036546 11/28/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,112.69
1036550 11/29/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 945.78
1036676 12/03/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 789.00
1036551 11/29/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 667.61
1036677 12/03/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 526.00
1036347 11/21/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 434.96
1036346 11/21/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 190.17
1036552 11/29/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 25.29
2051496 12/05/18 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1036097 11/15/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,213.84
1036096 11/15/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,011.53
1035816 11/08/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 960.96
1035817 11/08/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 910.38
1036098 11/15/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 197.25
1035813 11/08/18 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 185.11
2051530 12/12/18 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 8219 12/04/18 SHAREPOINT SERVICES 1,275.00 1,275.00
2051573 12/19/18 18122 ACC BUSINESS 183196449 11/27/18 INTERNET CIRCUITS 1,016.08 1,016.08
2051468 11/28/18 19231 ADRIENNE SLAVENS Ref002530443 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000241736 32.33 32.33
2051497 12/05/18 17989 ADS CORP 22335221118 11/17/18 ADS MAINTENANCE & REPORTING (NOV 2018)675.00 675.00
2051574 12/19/18 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1434 11/20/18 DEVELOPER PLAN REVIEW (10/6/18-11/09/18)21,571.80 21,571.80
2051498 12/05/18 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131570141 11/14/18 AQUA AMMONIA 294.71 294.71
2051575 12/19/18 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131571632 11/27/18 AQUA AMMONIA 252.84 252.84
2051499 12/05/18 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 810312018 11/14/18 UTILITY LOCATING (10/1/18-10/31/18)26,298.75 26,298.75
2051483 11/28/18 19225 ALEGRIA LOPEZ Ref002530437 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000222245 31.25 31.25
2051576 12/19/18 19225 ALEGRIA LOPEZ Ref002530437 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000222245 31.25 31.25
2051531 12/12/18 19248 ANNIE MARIA FRANCISCO Ref002532857 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000244598 78.04 78.04
2051532 12/12/18 17264 ARTIANO SHINOFF 301454 11/14/18 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (OCT 2018)44,410.58 44,410.58
2051577 12/19/18 01794 BEACHEM, JOSEPH 112818113018 11/30/18 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (11/28/18-11/30/18)129.00 129.00
2051578 12/19/18 17613 BIENVENUE, DONALD 12112018DB 12/18/18 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 342.00 342.00
Page 1 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
488.00
2,569.00
20,649.44
2,423.00
2051578 12/19/18 17613 BIENVENUE, DONALD 12112018DB 12/18/18 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 342.00 342.00
2051579 12/19/18 19273 BLACK TIE CASINO EVENTS INC 103 12/17/18 EMPLOYEE PROGRAM 1,215.00 1,215.00
2051529 12/12/18 19153 CARLOS LOPEZ Ref002532847 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000034611 150.00 150.00
2051500 12/05/18 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 0171945 11/09/18 CONST FOR 870-2 PS (10/1/18-10/31/18)12,775.50 12,775.50
2051501 12/05/18 04349 CHAMBERS, JONATHAN JC12318 12/03/18 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 105.00 105.00
2051533 12/12/18 02026 CHULA VISTA ELEM SCHOOL DIST AR049429 11/21/18 WATER GARDEN TRIP (NOV 2018)141.98 141.98
2051580 12/19/18 00234 CITY TREASURER 1000243052 12/06/18 TREATED WATER/TRANSPORT (OCT 2018)481.07 481.07
2051581 12/19/18 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 99018 11/30/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (11/06/18)226.00
99019 11/30/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (11/19/18)159.00
99020 11/30/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (11/19/18)103.00
2051534 12/12/18 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 98911 10/31/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TEST (10/29/18-10/30/18)1,040.00
98910 10/31/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TEST (10/22/18-12/23/18)984.00
98913 10/31/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/31/18)188.00
98912 10/31/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/30/18)179.00
98909 10/31/18 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/10/18)178.00
2051582 12/19/18 17923 CONCORD UTILITY SERVICES 2413 11/30/18 REGISTER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 10,415.36
2399 11/16/18 REGISTER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 10,234.08
2051583 12/19/18 18331 CORE & MAIN LP J852850 11/30/18 INVENTORY 8,356.01 8,356.01
2051502 12/05/18 18331 CORE & MAIN LP J808023 11/19/18 INVENTORY 357.31 357.31
2051584 12/19/18 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD111812/13/18 EXCAVATION PERMITS (NOV 2018)6,302.30
2051469 11/28/18 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD101811/20/18 EXCAVATION PERMITS (OCT 2018)5,247.00 5,247.00
2051503 12/05/18 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 5349101718 10/17/18 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/18-12/31/19)547.00
5346101718 10/17/18 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/18-12/31/19)469.00
5345101718 10/17/18 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/18-12/31/19)469.00
5348101718 10/17/18 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/18-12/31/19)469.00
5351101718 10/17/18 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/18-12/31/19)469.00
2051535 12/12/18 00693 CSDA - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 11152018 11/15/18 BUSINESS MEETING (11/05/18)60.00 60.00
2051470 11/28/18 18756 CULTURA 4733 11/15/18 CUBICLE RECONFIGURATION 8,430.00 8,430.00
2051585 12/19/18 11797 D&H WATER SYSTEMS INC I20181230 11/30/18 RCS TRAILER RENTAL (NOV 2018)6,465.00 6,465.00
2051471 11/28/18 19226 DAVID VOIGTLAENDER Ref002530438 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000222511 22.65 22.65
2051472 11/28/18 19223 DENNIS MC LAUGHLIN Ref002530435 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000042745 15.71 15.71
Page 2 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
2,550.00
7,346.95
211.14
143.00
615.30
2051472 11/28/18 19223 DENNIS MC LAUGHLIN Ref002530435 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000042745 15.71 15.71
2051473 11/28/18 19229 DEREK MOORE Ref002530441 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000232131 100.86 100.86
2051504 12/05/18 18983 DRYLET LLC 2531 09/01/18 DRYLET WSTWTR TRMNT PROD TEST 1,350.00
2560 11/12/18 DRYLET WSTWTR TRMNT PROD TEST 1,200.00
2051536 12/12/18 19237 DUCHICELA AGUAIS Ref002532845 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000009069 23.01 23.01
2051537 12/12/18 19247 ERIN RALSTON Ref002532856 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000243312 54.41 54.41
2051505 12/05/18 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0656055 11/15/18 INVENTORY 6,637.41
06539511 11/08/18 INVENTORY 429.39
0651620 11/15/18 INVENTORY 280.15
2051474 11/28/18 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 06485981 10/06/18 INVENTORY 3,472.78 3,472.78
2051586 12/19/18 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0657420 11/30/18 INVENTORY 6,907.69 6,907.69
2051587 12/19/18 17888 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003401118 11/30/18 ONLINE DOCUMENTS (MONTHLY)99.00 99.00
2051588 12/19/18 11962 FLEETWASH INC x1465962 11/16/18 FLEET WASH SERVICES 123.87 123.87
2051538 12/12/18 11962 FLEETWASH INC x1458357 11/02/18 FLEET WASH SERVICES 167.55
x1460438 11/09/18 FLEET WASH SERVICES 43.59
2051475 11/28/18 11962 FLEETWASH INC x1452700 10/26/18 FLEET WASH SERVICES 74.82 74.82
2051476 11/28/18 18600 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2530497 11/29/18 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 125.00 125.00
2051539 12/12/18 18600 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2534775 12/13/18 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 125.00 125.00
2051477 11/28/18 19232 FRANK DEMSKI Ref002530444 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000242217 45.09 45.09
2051589 12/19/18 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER 3122-1811 12/18/18 SMARTY PLANTS PROG (11/6/18-11/28/18)2,280.00 2,280.00
2051540 12/12/18 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER ED2018103122 11/05/18 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN (OCT 2018)3,040.00 3,040.00
2051590 12/19/18 17855 GASTELUM, HECTOR 110118113018 11/30/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (11/1/18-11/30/18)193.48 193.48
2051478 11/28/18 17855 GASTELUM, HECTOR 092318092518 09/25/18 MEAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (9/23/18-9/25/18)87.00
100318101718 10/17/18 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT (10/3/18-10/17/18)56.00
2051541 12/12/18 17855 GASTELUM, HECTOR 100118103018 10/30/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (10/1/18-10/31/18)512.30
112718112918 11/29/18 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (11/27/18-11/29/18)96.00
110218 11/02/18 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (11/2/18)7.00
2051506 12/05/18 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 10061718 11/08/18 COMPUTERS 8,783.35 8,783.35
2051479 11/28/18 19228 GILBERT MUECA Ref002530440 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000230730 70.35 70.35
2051542 12/12/18 19244 GOLDEN STATE PROPERTY MGMT Ref002532853 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000240028 112.55 112.55
Page 3 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
252.46
17,578.09
2,748.65
2051542 12/12/18 19244 GOLDEN STATE PROPERTY MGMT Ref002532853 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000240028 112.55 112.55
2051543 12/12/18 19243 GREGORY PANICCIA Ref002532852 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000232206 29.81 29.81
2051591 12/19/18 09873 GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY 192401R413 12/04/18 HAZWOP TRAINING (11/28/18)1,500.00 1,500.00
2051592 12/19/18 18235 GROUPWARE TECHNOLOGY INC 69102 11/21/18 FIREWALL/POLICY MGMT IMPLEMENTATION 7,622.00 7,622.00
2051593 12/19/18 00174 HACH COMPANY 2159426 CREDIT ON 11140656 -3,518.04
11241273 11/30/18 MONOCHLORAMINE ANALYZER SUPPLIES 3,494.50
11159199 09/29/18 HACH INSTRUMENT SERVICE 276.00
2051594 12/19/18 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 69430 11/28/18 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (ENDING 11/18/18)7,240.37 7,240.37
2051480 11/28/18 19227 HOMEFED OTAY LAND II LLC Ref002530439 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000225793 1,811.46 1,811.46
2051507 12/05/18 13349 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 201800032 11/07/18 LAND SURVEYING SERV (9/29/18-10/26/18)1,989.50 1,989.50
2051544 12/12/18 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0134161 11/07/18 AS-NEEDED ENVIRO (10/1/18-10/26/18)2,652.50 2,652.50
2051595 12/19/18 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2159415 11/30/18 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM 855.43 855.43
2051596 12/19/18 08969 INFOSEND INC 145654 11/30/18 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES 11,232.92
145653 11/30/18 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES 4,019.93
145904 12/03/18 BILL PROCESSING SERVICES 2,325.24
2051481 11/28/18 08969 INFOSEND INC 144622 11/06/18 OUTSIDE SERVICES 3,054.71 3,054.71
2051508 12/05/18 03250 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MGMT RD92018 12/03/18 IPMA LUNCHEON FEE (SEPT 2018)50.00 50.00
2051482 11/28/18 17106 IWG TOWERS ASSETS II LLC 469418 12/01/18 ANTENNA SUBLEASE (DEC 2018)1,757.00 1,757.00
2051545 12/12/18 19251 JAMES LARSON Ref002532860 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000249709 303.67 303.67
2051597 12/19/18 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 775548 11/21/18 CHLORINE 633.60 633.60
2051509 12/05/18 19235 KENNETH J HOLLAND 1407112918 11/29/18 CUSTOMER REFUND 2,274.49 2,274.49
2051510 12/05/18 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 6979 11/16/18 PAVING SERVICES 19,928.50 19,928.50
2051598 12/19/18 12276 KONECRANES INC 154023045 12/06/18 CRANE INSPECTIONS (NOV 2018)1,030.00 1,030.00
2051546 12/12/18 19239 LAURENCE GARDNER Ref002532848 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000059703 72.67 72.67
2051599 12/19/18 15615 LAYFIELD USA CORPORATION 311302018 12/03/18 RES 711-3 FLOATING COVER & LINER 807,405.00 807,405.00
2051600 12/19/18 18905 M RAE ENGINEERING INC 211302018 11/27/18 PIPELINE CP IMPROVE P II (ENDING 11/30/18)19,712.50 19,712.50
2051601 12/19/18 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0028176IN 12/04/18 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 1,800.56
0028175IN 12/04/18 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 948.09
2051547 12/12/18 00805 METRO WASTEWATER JPA 278 10/01/18 MEMBERSHIP DUES (2018/2019)3,522.67 3,522.67
Page 4 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
7,196.30
2051511 12/05/18 19233 MICHAEL LAKIN MTR18295112918 11/29/18 METER REFUND 18,230.06 18,230.06
2051548 12/12/18 16613 MISSION RESOURCE CONSERVATION 395 12/03/18 WS IRRIGATION UPGRADE (11/1/18-11/30/18)64.00 64.00
2051549 12/12/18 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2534765 12/13/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 10,836.12 10,836.12
2051484 11/28/18 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2530487 11/29/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 9,837.45 9,837.45
2051485 11/28/18 19222 NELLY DIAZ Ref002530434 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000001500 77.35 77.35
2051550 12/12/18 19246 NIKKI WILLIAMS Ref002532855 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000241415 26.59 26.59
2051602 12/19/18 00761 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 223529 11/29/18 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (7/28/18-10/26/18)4,977.50 4,977.50
2051551 12/12/18 19240 NOAH KAUHANE Ref002532849 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000193738 286.93 286.93
2051603 12/19/18 19234 NOTEVAULT INC NV6509102037 12/07/18 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL (12/7/18-12/7/2019)7,800.00 7,800.00
2051552 12/12/18 19250 NULEVEL PARTNERS INC Ref002532859 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000249588 142.76 142.76
2051604 12/19/18 18332 NV5 INC 108276 11/30/18 ENGINEERING DESIGN (10/1/18-10/31/18)15,542.50 15,542.50
2051512 12/05/18 17527 OTERO, TENILLE 070118111518 11/19/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (07/01/18-11/15/18)274.14 274.14
2051605 12/19/18 16669 PARKSON CORPORATION AR151023470 11/20/18 HIOX MESSNER AERATION PANELS 65,727.50 65,727.50
2051553 12/12/18 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 121118 12/11/18 PETTY CASH REIMBURSMENT (DEC 2018)677.87 677.87
2051513 12/05/18 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 5795 11/30/18 GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES 95.00 95.00
2051554 12/12/18 19249 PRIORITY MOVING & STORAGE Ref002532858 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000249378 150.00 150.00
2051606 12/19/18 07860 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO 102788121018 12/10/18 ANNUAL LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 6,987.50 6,987.50
2051555 12/12/18 15083 PUBLIC AGENCY SAFETY MGMT ASSN 121018 12/10/18 PASMA MEMBERSHIP (1/1/19-12/31/19)75.00 75.00
2051514 12/05/18 19220 RAY CATENA MOTOR CAR CORP 149100 12/03/18 REPLACEMENT HAZWOP VAN CP #2 (12/04/18)55,908.74 55,908.74
2051556 12/12/18 01890 RECON ENVIROMENTAL INC 59092 11/19/18 PREP THE SUBAREA PLAN (6/3/17-10/26/18)16,833.71 16,833.71
2051607 12/19/18 15647 RFYEAGER ENGINEERING LLC 18201 12/03/18 CORROSION SERVICES (11/1/18-11/30/18)9,155.00 9,155.00
2051515 12/05/18 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 0064298 11/09/18 CAMPO RD SUPP SVCS (9/29/18-10/26/18)3,833.00
0064292 11/08/18 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERV (9/1/18-9/28/18)3,363.30
2051608 12/19/18 03741 RIVAS, JUAN JR121018 12/10/18 REFUND FOR PREMIUM OVERPAYMENT 316.44 316.44
2051557 12/12/18 04542 ROBAK, MARK 100118103118 10/31/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (10/1/18-10/31/18)29.98 29.98
2051486 11/28/18 15729 ROCKWELL SOLUTIONS INC 1982 11/05/18 SEWER LIFT STATION PARTS 12,699.44 12,699.44
2051558 12/12/18 19242 RODOLFO VALDES Ref002532851 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000207405 72.29 72.29
2051609 12/19/18 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 0000001742 11/26/18 WATERSMART PROGRAM INCENTIVES 498.44 498.44
Page 5 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
98.30
171,019.44
489.08
20,901.00
2051487 11/28/18 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 112318 11/23/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)63.55
111618 11/16/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)34.75
2051516 12/05/18 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 112718 11/27/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)80,760.49
112618 11/26/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)51,371.51
111618A 11/16/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)38,298.57
112318A 12/03/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)588.87
2051610 12/19/18 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 121218 12/12/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)245.79
120618 12/06/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)243.29
2051559 12/12/18 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 120418 12/04/18 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)86,209.03 86,209.03
2051517 12/05/18 00871 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 302671 11/21/18 927/680 PRS ELECTRICAL SERVICE 589.00 589.00
2051560 12/12/18 19245 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC Ref002532854 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000240874 2,046.00 2,046.00
2051518 12/05/18 18396 SIMPSON SANDBLASTING & SPECIAL 909302018 09/25/18 RES COATING & UPGRADES (ENDING 9/30/18)46,118.41 46,118.41
2051519 12/05/18 00258 SLOAN ELECTRIC COMPANY 570523 11/19/18 MOTOR RECONDITION 5,782.00 5,782.00
2051488 11/28/18 19156 SONJA JOSEPH 0618112118 11/21/18 CUSTOMER REFUND 80.02 80.02
2051561 12/12/18 01460 STATE WATER RESOURCES WD0138172 12/06/18 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE (7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019)16,347.00
WD0139575 12/06/18 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE (7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019)2,286.00
WD0143678 12/06/18 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE (7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019)2,268.00
2051611 12/19/18 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 24353121318 12/13/18 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 120.00 120.00
2051562 12/12/18 19241 STEPHANIE MENDEZ Ref002532850 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000194303 10.91 10.91
2051520 12/05/18 15974 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 8166100118 10/01/18 LIFE INSURANCE AND STD/LTD 9,291.68 9,291.68
2051563 12/12/18 15974 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 8166110118 12/07/18 LIFE INSURANCE AND STD/LTD 9,217.40 9,217.40
2051489 11/28/18 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 458313 10/26/18 UNLEADED FUEL 11,728.21 11,728.21
2051490 11/28/18 19224 SUZANNE MAINOR Ref002530436 11/26/18 UB Refund Cst #0000206943 84.87 84.87
2051612 12/19/18 18376 SVPR COMMUNICATIONS 1244 11/30/18 COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT 2,500.00 2,500.00
2051521 12/05/18 17704 T&T JANITORIAL INC 2018-5309 10/31/18 JANITORIAL SERVICES (DEC 2018)4,780.00 4,780.00
2051564 12/12/18 19238 TERESA CRIVELLO Ref002532846 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000026948 27.94 27.94
2051565 12/12/18 03236 THE CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION TCFOE2493 09/20/18 MANAGEMENT TRAINING 2,325.00 2,325.00
2051522 12/05/18 03236 THE CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION TCFOE2519 10/19/18 MANAGEMENT TRAINING 399.00 399.00
2051613 12/19/18 02795 THE HARTFORD INSURANCE CO 1443121018 12/17/18 INSURANCE PREMIUM 750.00 750.00
2051566 12/12/18 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 110118113018 11/30/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (11/1/18-11/30/18)71.94 71.94Page 6 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
22.31
658.29
928.75
17,316.00
2051566 12/12/18 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 110118113018 11/30/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (11/1/18-11/30/18)71.94 71.94
2051523 12/05/18 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 100118103118 12/04/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (10/1/18-10/31/18)39.24 39.24
2051614 12/19/18 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 112818112918 11/29/18 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (11/28/18-11/29/18)12.50
120318120518 12/05/18 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (12/04/18)9.81
2051615 12/19/18 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1120180488 12/01/18 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)716.20 716.20
2051567 12/12/18 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 1147663305 11/20/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 392.58
1147663214 11/20/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25
1147663212 11/20/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50
1147663211 11/20/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 79.96
2051491 11/28/18 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 1147598197 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25
1147598195 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25
1147598196 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25
1147598194 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25
1147598193 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 98.25
1147597424 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50
1147597422 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50
1147597421 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50
1147597420 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50
1147597419 10/31/18 PORT. TOILET RENTAL 87.50
2051616 12/19/18 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 2402282 11/22/18 PATROLLING SERVICES (DEC 2018)110.00 110.00
2051492 11/28/18 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 2369522 10/25/18 PATROLLING SERVICES (OCT 2018)110.00 110.00
2051524 12/05/18 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SD177617 11/09/18 MGMT/INSP (10/1/18-10/31/18)16,436.00
SD22403 11/09/18 MGMT/INSP (10/1/18-10/31/18)880.00
2051493 11/28/18 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2530495 11/29/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 15,786.03 15,786.03
2051568 12/12/18 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2534773 12/13/18 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 15,502.56 15,502.56
2051494 11/28/18 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2530493 11/29/18 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 629.27 629.27
2051569 12/12/18 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2534771 12/13/18 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 504.27 504.27
2051495 11/28/18 10340 WAGEWORKS INC INV1003692 10/24/18 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCT 417.50 417.50
2051617 12/19/18 10340 WAGEWORKS INC INV1062243 11/26/18 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCT 417.50 417.50
2051525 12/05/18 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 600230 11/15/18 ALARM MONITORING (12/1/18-12/31/18)2,472.92 2,472.92
2051618 12/19/18 14879 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN 3OWDS20181203 12/03/18 GARDEN FUNDING CONTRIBUTION (Q3 FY19)24,000.00 24,000.00
2051526 12/05/18 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 18357 11/06/18 BEE REMOVAL 125.00
Page 7 of 8
Check Total
CHECK REGISTER
Otay Water District
Date Range: 11/21/2018 - 12/19/2018
Check #Date Vendor #Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount
375.00
2051526 12/05/18 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 18357 11/06/18 BEE REMOVAL 125.00
18355 11/06/18 BEE REMOVAL 125.00
18410 11/16/18 BEE REMOVAL 125.00
2051619 12/19/18 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 18440 11/20/18 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 125.00
2051527 12/05/18 18173 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 1610312018 11/08/18 RET/WEIR CONST A#2222 (10/1/18-10/31/18)36,898.51 36,898.51
2051528 12/05/18 18101 WIER CONSTRUCTION CORP 1610312018 11/08/18 SEWER REPLACEMENT (10/1/18-10/31/18)701,071.61 701,071.61
2051570 12/12/18 08023 WORKTERRA 0090800IN 10/31/18 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 787.50 787.50
2051620 12/19/18 08023 WORKTERRA 0091118IN 11/30/18 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 787.50 787.50
2051571 12/12/18 19252 YOLANDA BARAJAS Ref002532861 12/10/18 UB Refund Cst #0000249756 18.18 18.18
Amount Pd Total:2,564,634.27
Check Grand Total:2,564,634.27
Page 8 of 8