San Diego IROC Packet Oct 18, 2010

City of San Diego
Independent Rates Oversight Committee (IROC)
AGENDA
October 18, 2010
10:00 – 12:00 Noon
Metropolitan Operations Complex, Auditorium
9192 Topaz Way, San Diego, CA 92123
†
ACTION PRESENTER EST.
ITEM
REQUESTED TIME
1. Items 1-3
Roll Call 5 Min.
2. Non-Agenda Public Comment*
X 3. Approval of Minutes from 9/20/10
4. Chair Updates Jim Peugh 5 Min.
5. City Staff Updates Department Staff 10 Min.

Announcements
Informational Updates
Monthly Reports to Natural Resource & Cultural
Committee
Sewage Spills/Water Main Breaks Update
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Update
Water Rate Drivers Analysis Update
6. Metro/JPA - Report Out Don Billings 5 Min.
7. Public Utilities FY10 Annual Capital Improvement Guann 25 Min.

Program Status Report Hwang/James
Nagelvoort
8 Presentation on the Dedicated Reserve for Efficiencies and Alex Ruiz and Lee 20 Min.
Savings (DRES) Ann Jones-Santos
9. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Efficiency Study Chris McKinney 10 Min.
5 Min.
BREAK
10. Sub Committee Reports:
a. Finance Andy Hollingworth 5 Min.
b. Environmental & Technical Todd Webster 5 Min.
c. Public Outreach, Education & Customer Service Gail Welch 5 Min.
11. Discussion on the IROC Strategic Planning Ad Hoc Jim Peugh 5 Min.
Meeting
12. Discussion on the FY2010 IROC Annual Report Jim Peugh 10 Min.
Development Process
13. Proposed Agenda Items for Next IROC Meeting Jim Peugh 5 Min.
14. IROC Members’ Comments 5 Min.
* This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per
individual. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip in advance of the start of the meeting/or f the item you wish to speak on and give it to the IROC
Administrative Assistant. For alternative format or disabled accommodations, please call Monica Musaraca at (858) 292-6305.
†
Action may be taken by the Committee on items listed on this agenda, whether or not the item is marked as "action requested."
For information, please contact Ernie Linares, IROC Committee Contact, 9192 Topaz Way, San Diego, CA 92131, email: elinares@sandiego.gov, 858-292-
6309 Last update: 10/14/2010 4:21:15 PM
Item 3
Independent Rates Oversight Committee – IROC
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
1. Roll Call
Chairperson Peugh brought the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. Monica Musaraca
called the roll and a quorum was declared. Attendance is reflected below:
Member Present Absent
Jim Peugh, Chair X
Don Billings X
Tony Collins X
Christopher Dull X
Andy Hollingworth X
Jack Kubota X
Irene Stallard-Rodriguez X
Todd Webster X
Gail Welch X
ExOfficios
Augie Caires, Metro JPA X
Mark Robak, Metro JPA, Alternate X
Ken Williams, City 10 X
Yen Tu, City 10, Alternate X
2. Non-Agenda Public Comment
There were no non-agenda public comments.
3. Approval of Minutes from 8/9/2010

Chairperson Peugh asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of August 9, 2010.
Committee Member Hollingworth noted a correction to the minutes, page 9. He
clarified a short paragraph on page 9, 1st paragraph, starting with “Committee
Member Hollingworth explained MWD was established by an act of the
Legislature”, and changed the paragraph to read: “Committee Member
Hollingworth explained MWD was established by an act of the Legislature, and is
therefore subject to mandates enacted through the State budget. The legislature
has used budget language to mandate audits of other types. He gave examples of
the CalPers and State Parks System audits which he participated in; and noted
they have not previously mandated a study through the State budget of the
Metropolitan Water District.”
Chairperson Peugh asked for a motion to accept the corrections as stated.

Committee Member Hollingworth made a motion to approve the Minutes with
said corrections, Committee Member Billings seconded the motion, with
Committee Member Dull abstaining, all others were in favor to approve the
Minutes with said corrections.
4. Chair Updates – Chairperson Peugh

Would like to take the time to set a meeting of perhaps consisting of the
three Subcommittee Chairs and himself, to discuss past, present and future
Page 1 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
success of IROC, as well as what we have learned, and what our

expectations are for the future.
Items 6 and 7 will be tabled to the next IROC meeting.
Committee Member Hollingworth expressed to Mr. Ruiz he wanted to ask about a

budget subject. He stated he calculated that it appears the Department is carrying
reserves equal to 19% of annual expenditures. He asked for an explanation of the
large percentage. Mr. Ruiz suggested an item next month with a presentation on
our reserves, since there are several individual reserve categories. Some are
restricted, operating, emergency reserves, etc., for example. Committee Member
Billings asked if this is done, please concentrate on water and wastewater
agencies with similar profiles, to include benchmarking information. Mr. Ruiz
concurred.
5. City Staff Updates , Alex Ruiz, Interim Director

Before the Natural Resources & Culture Committee (NR&C) of the City
Council on September 8.
o Permanent Use Restrictions being proposed by Council Member
Frye proposing the permanent year-round restrictions of non-
watering days. He added this has always been a part of our water
conservation program, and continues to encourage customers. We
are in support of her recommendations. The Committee moved it
forward and will be considered at Council in the near future. He
noted the requirements Councilmember Frye presented at IROC in
August have been modified after her workshop efforts and
feedback from stakeholders, due to the concern regarding making
the days of the week mandatory on a year-round basis.
o Presentation on Budget Based Billing Program. A pilot research
effort in the ability of the Utility to build based upon water budget
as opposed to fixed tiers. Engaging a consultant in this work and
expect to move forward on this.
o Briefing on the pending 5.86% Rate Increase. This will equally
affect all customers (approximately a $3.39 increase). He noted
the disagreement from Councilmember DeMaio, regarding the
basis for this increase. This pass through is solely due to the
increase of the cost of wholesale water. Councilmember DeMaio
did not vote in support of the Prop. 218 Notice, therefore, it was
moved to be forwarded to Council without a recommendation.
Continue to meet conservation targets that are in place for this fiscal year,
and are doing just about as well as last year. He feels we are on track for
the target reduction.
Due to the number of inquiries from media and a variety of stakeholders
and interested parties with regard to different elements of our budget,
expenditures, rate case, etc. It is a challenge for our staff, during this time
of preparing the 5-year financing plan, to respond to all of the requests for
Page 2 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
information. We want to be accurate in getting the information back. If

there are questions regarding budget type items, please give us the
opportunity to understand what the actual issues are to address, as there
may be already developed information to share.
Briefing to the Audit Committee on September 13 with regard to the
results of the Brown & Caldwell Study.
Next Monday, September 27th, we will have our new Director, Roger
Bailey. He comes from Glendale, Arizona. Currently, he is their Utility
Director, is a registered Engineer and comes to us will a lot of experience,
from Florida and Arizona, regarding water, wastewater and reclaimed
water issues. He will be at the next IROC meeting.
6. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) – Head End System Request for

Proposal and Project Financing Plan
This item was tabled to the next scheduled IROC meeting of October 18, 2010.
7. Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project Grant Opportunity

This item was tabled to the next scheduled IROC meeting of October 18, 2010.
8. Water Conservation Program – Request for Proposal for Public Outreach

Campaign
Chris Robbins and Jana Vierola from the Water Conservation section presented
this item. Mr. Robbins stated they are here to present their selection and
recommendations for approval of a Contract for public information and outreach
consulting services for the Water Conservation Program, with Collaborative
Services, Inc.
He stated the Public Utilities and Purchasing & Contracting Departments issued a
Request for Proposals on May 13, 2010, whereas 7 proposals were received on
the deadline by June 18. They were reviewed by a selection committee which
consisted of three City staff, both Water Conservation and Public Information,
and an outside employee from the Otay Water District, as well as an IROC
member, Gail Welch. He acknowledged her work in this effort.
Mr. Robbins gave an overview, including photos taken, of the deliverables which
included “No Time to Waste, No Water to Waste” campaign, Annual Children’s
Poster Contest, Annual Film Contest, Newsletters and Partnerships Program, and
more.
Requested Actions are to support the consultant agreement with Collaborative

Services, Inc., Support the expenditure of funds; not to exceed $200,000 per year.
The Contract Durations is three (3) years from the date of award with the option
to renew for two (2) additional one (1) year periods. He opened for questions.
Committee Member Kubota asked if the San Diego professional sport teams or
High School sports teams have the ability to advertise our water shortage for
Page 3 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
public outreach? He also asked about the radio and television advertising. Mr.
Robbins stated yes, they are all included in public outreach, with exception of the
high schools. He indicated this was a great approach, and he would take this idea
to the Mayor’s staff, the Consultant, and Water Conservation group.
Mr. Ruiz added this is an award winning program, AWWA and WEF for
example, recognized it as Leading the Charge in terms of getting the word out on
conservation. This is action now, however, as customers change their behavior
because it is important to do, they will adapt to it as a way of life, as water is a
precious thing. Committee Member Billings concurred, and supports this public
education, it is a huge payoff in many ways, to conserve water.
Mr. Robbins then explained the process of the As Needed contract using up to
$200,000. If less is needed, no funds need to be expended.
Chairperson Peugh asked for a motion to support approval of the Contract with
Collaborative Services, Inc. Committee Member Billings moved, Committee
Member Dull seconded, all others were in favor.
9. Draft IROC Report on the Metropolitan Water District and County Water
Authority Rate Increases
Committee Member Hollingworth pulled this item, he indicated it was moot at
this point.
10. Adoption of an external audit scope of work for the Department, on behalf of
IROC, to be performed by the Office of the City Auditor ($100,000 budget)
Chairperson Peugh indicated this item was discussed previously in today’s
Finance Subcommittee.
Chris Constantin, Audit Manager with the Office of the City Auditor (OCA),
introduced himself and Erin Noel, Supervising Auditor in charge of the team
which conducted the Risk Assessment. He recapped his prior meetings with
IROC, and provided handouts in the packet which outlined a group of 9 different
items within 5 categories where they believe value can be added in terms of audit
work. They are looking for IROC’s recommendation as to which option, or group
to be focused upon.
He then referred to the handouts and explained the process that took place in
developing the options. Mr. Constantin stated they looked at trends amongst
budgetary costs and FTE, interviews with constituents, IROC, staff, etc. to
identify where it is believed risks within this organization existed. He added,
when an audit is selected, it will be conducted within accordance with
government auditing standards. He stated they need to know exactly what the
scope will be in which specific area. He then explained the process. Ultimately,
at the end of this process, IROC will receive a written document that articulates
their justification for recommendations and what those recommendations are.
Page 4 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
Subsequently, they will conduct a 6 month follow-up period for all

recommendations until the administration fully implements them, which includes
status reports. He opened for questions and/or preference(s) from the provided
spreadsheet Appendix A:
Committee Member Hollingworth indicated one of the reasons IROC was formed
was due to the concern of cost shifting onto the enterprise and bond funds. He
shared his personal experience with examples of large entities shifting costs when
they are in a troubled situation, and because of this expressed item number 9
should be considered.
He stated his preference is item number 9, although item number 7 is also

important.
Committee Member Billings mentioned there are a variety of ways to use this
resource in the short run. He concurred with Committee Member Hollingworth
and added IROC’s role is to be honest and speak its mind, stepping back from the
politics, but foremost to protect the rate payer’s interest in the long run and
properly invest to maintain the existing infrastructure in a way to maximize the
effective life of existing assets and to operate it as efficiently as possible as a
business. But not to starve it of resources, which can cause catastrophic events.
He stated his preference is item number 7. This regards Capital Projects which is
where most of the money is spent, due to catching up on investments that were
not made in prior years because of actions of prior elected officials and others.
He added in reference to item 9, he personally feels false tales of pension benefits

being the driver of rate increases, should not be supported. The driver of rate
increases is to build the infrastructure and catch up on water main replacements
that were not completed in prior years, which does not have anything to do with
the management of this Department.
Committee Member Kubota stated he agrees with Committee Member Billings,

and his preference would be item number 7 as being the most important. He
expressed the chaos that occurs when pipes burst or break putting customers
without water for lengths of time. He feels the Capital Projects are most
important and the sooner the better.
Committee Member Dull concurred with Committee Members Billings and

Kubota. He stated his choice would be item number 7 which he indicated has a
bigger impact to the rate payers.
Chairperson Peugh stated he would like to have an amalgam of audit options 5

and 7. He stated that prioritization and planning of capital projects are also
important for the Department. He asked Mr. Constantin if this is a doable audit
given the timeframe and audit hours.
Page 5 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
Mr. Constantin agreed that OCA can also address prioritization and long-term
planning in audit option 5 with audit option 7 which focuses on efficiency and
oversight of capital projects, but this will reduce the depth of the audit. He also
stated that throughout the audit planning process, OCA staff will meet with IROC
and other key officials to further refine and define what the actual risk areas are
before moving to field work, testing, and analysis. While OCA cannot write
policies because the performance of management functions are precluded by
government auditing standards, based on the audit findings OCA will make
specific recommendations for improving efficiencies and reducing risks.
Committee Member Hollingworth reiterated his belief that item number 9 should
be considered because it would restore confidence with some members of the
Council and the public and IROC representing as rate payers, although he does
feel item number 7 is important.
Committee Member Hollingworth then made a motion to support the selection of

item number 9. Chairperson Peugh asked for a second to the motion. There was
no second motion.
Ex-Officio Williams asked for a clarification in selecting multiple items. Mr.

Constantin indicated he recommended focusing on the CIP area which covers
long-term planning, project prioritization, compliance with regulations and
requirements, and efficiency and oversight. He stated some review of overhead
rate charges that relate to CIP may be able to be included the audit scope,
however there will be less hours available to actually do the prioritization,
compliance and project efficiency and oversight parts of the scope. He reiterated
when choosing multiple selections, the hours will be spread out, which can
diminish depth in focusing on one or the other as a whole. Mr. Constantin also
added they are continuously conducting audits, and if focusing on one area at this
time, this does not mean they cannot come back and do further work. He stated
he wants this to be an ongoing relationship.
Ex-Officio Williams concurred with Item 7 being very important, and also
believes Item 9 is important, and should not be ignored, as it pertains to the
creation of the IROC. He personally would like to see an employee compensation
survey included, providing the rate payers satisfaction that the compensation
being paid to the large number of employees is appropriate.
Committee Member Billings commented he understands the importance of Item

9, it is important the public have confidence in this Department. However, he
indicated his reluctance is it may be a waste of time in the long run. Due to
individuals with political aspirations making false accusations, this is not a good
use of time. He indicated he serves the rate payers and respects telling them the
truth and staying the course, helping the Department plan and execute a long term
program in the benefits of ratepayers. Chairperson Peugh concurs, however there
Page 6 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
is a perception problem, and believes the compensation should be looked at larger

than the overhead level. Mr. Billings reiterated CIP should be the main focus.
Committee Member Hollingworth stated if Item 9 is not covered in this selection,

he will personally look into the controls on the CIP Program, as part of his work
plan for the Finance Subcommittee. He indicated the public’s confidence in the
Department and IROC is very important. Chairperson Peugh added Items 5 and 7
should be combined.
Ex-Officio Robak referred to a memorandum to Jim Peugh, dated September 14,

2010: Performance Audit of San Diego Public Utilities Department, from Augie
Caires, recommending IROC include listed topics outlined in the memo, in the
2010 Performance Audit of the Public Utilities Department. He asked if Mr.
Constantin had seen this. Mr. Constantin did not have it with him and reviewed
it. He answered, regarding the listed topics recommended in the memorandum,
they can possibly touch upon the first 3 topics (Prioritization, control and funding
of mandated capital projects, overhead rates and interdepartmental changes, and
CIP Program oversight). It will be important to identify an area during the audit
process that is raising some risks which can be highlighted and considered in a
future audit, coming back the following year if this relationship is continued, as a
priority. He reiterated he is looking for some guidance as to what area IROC is
looking for of potential concern. Then the audit scope can be tailored, and can
identify key risks and concerns.
Ms. Erin Noel, Office of the City Auditor, added because of the current City CIP,
they have a lot of background and knowledge on the issues, and who the contact
people are. This information is very helpful because they can get started
immediately into the field work.
Committee Member Billings moved to proceed with an audit of CIP with specific
emphasis on long-term planning and project prioritization as well as efficiency of
oversight of capital projects. Committee Member Hollingworth asked if this
includes Item 7-4? Mr. Constantin indicated that by identifying the overall audit
area, such as CIP, instead of specifically one of the nine options, the audit’s larger
audit scope would allow audit staff to determine the specific areas, such as
planning and prioritization, and depth of review that can be done based on the
available audit hours. The Auditor Office will work through the audit risk
assessment and determine what aspects of CIP can be value added. Ms. Noel
added it would be very likely it would be covered.
Committee Member Dull seconded, with Committee Member Hollingworth

opposing, and no abstentions, all others were in favor to proceed with an audit of
CIP with specific emphasis on long-term planning and project prioritization as
well as efficiency of oversight of capital projects.
Page 7 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
11. State Revolving Fund (SRF) Low Interest Loans for the Sewer Pipeline
Rehabilitation Project
Richard Enriquez, filling in for Jeanne Cole, presented. Mr. Enriquez referred to
the handouts provided. He gave an overview and the history of the Clean Water
Act, as amended in 1987, which provides for establishment of a Clean Water
State Revolving Fund Program. The current modified SRF loan interest rate is
2.7%, which is based upon one-half of the most recent State General Obligation
Bonds. He noted the SRF loans are paid back over a 20 year period from the
dedicated net revenues of the Wastewater Enterprise fund.
He indicated the loan would be used to fund the Sewer Pipeline Rehabilitation
Project. The State has determined a funding amount of $80 million for the
Project. The SRF Loan Program offers a lower interest rate compared to
traditional bond funding. He noted by utilizing an SRF loan for this Project, the
savings would be approximately $58.4 million over a 20 year term.
The requested action is to authorize entering into an SRF Funding Agreement an

related ordinance items, including dedicated source of revenue and reimbursement
requirements as requested by the State Water Resources Control Board as
conditions of financing. He added staff plan on taking this item to the City
Council within the next month, to obtain the necessary ordinance and Council
approval to enter into an agreement for this loan.
Committee Member Hollingworth asked if there are shovel-ready projects now

that would benefit from this loan program. Mr. Enriquez said yes, and would be
ready to begin in April, 2011.
Committee Member Billings moved approval, Committee Member Hollingworth

seconded, all others were in favor.
12. Bid to Goal Program Update

Mr. Crane, Assistant Director, presented. He stated the intent is to go to the Rules
Committee in October to seek approval of the MOU’s for Water and Wastewater
(amended) previously briefed to IROC who agreed to take forward. If approved,
would then move to full City Council as soon as possible. The Third Party Goal
Review (Executive Summary provided). He reminded the review has been
completed, and had them review 100% of the goals, rather than 50%. The
findings was: 48 of the 70 Goals were approved with minor or no revisions, 15
Goals were recommended for inclusion in the Program with significant revisions,
and 7 Goals were judged to lack justification for inclusion, but recommended to
be carried as goals but not be part of the Incentive Award Program.
Based on Brown & Caldwell’s recommendations after the 15 Goals were

identified, a letter has been received concluding they have reviewed the revised
goals and have agreed we have met the intent of their recommendations so we
now have 63 approved Goals for the FY11 Program.
Page 8 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
Mr. Crane added this item was brought to the Audit Committee last Monday. The
Committee moved to have the OCA perform an audit of the audit, asking them to
look at 3 areas for efficiency in the Third Party Audit, from their perspective. He
stated a memorandum has been sent out by Mr. Ruiz, asking staff to keep moving
forward toward achievement of these goals for this fiscal year.
Chairperson Peugh asked for comments from Mr. Constantin or Ms. Noel
regarding this item. Mr. Constantin added his understanding is Councilmember
Carl DeMaio wanted the OCA to look at each of the goals and ensure they are
measurable, and what the metric is behind how it is to be evaluated. When the
scope is refined, another performance audit will be done for Public Utilities,
working with the Consultant to accomplish that goal.
Chairperson Peugh asked if the changes were what were expected. Ms. Noel
indicated yes, the Department did in fact implement all of the recommendations
(Performance Audit) made with the exception of one goal, which was partially
implemented, in regard to how gain-sharing goals are getting front line input from
employees. The recommendation is to put a system in place for ensuring
employees are doing that. All others were fully implemented.
Mr. Ruiz shared his frustration with regard to the repeated audits of the audits, for
instance. He indicated Mr. Crane was diplomatic in outlining the results of the
Bid to Goal Program. He then gave a recap of the diligent steps taken to get this
far. The B&C Report stated their review placed the Public Utilities Department
among the very top tier of Public Utilities promoting a performance culture.
Other Public Utilities of similar size and complexity would likely not do as well
under the same level of scrutiny. He stated they were very complimentary of the
work and rigor with which we had developed these goals, as well as the efficiency
of the Program. He stated there were some recommendations of not including
some of the goals, and we accept this and are not including those within the
program. Now, there is yet another audit of the third party audit. At some point
you either accept the reports that have come back and rely on the work of the
individuals that have come before you, or you don’t. He added we are supporting
the OCA’s review as was requested and is our responsibility and commitment.
This Program has returned value to our customers and will continue to.
However, we need to move on, so our employees are not constantly wondering
there is faith in them as individuals for dedication in achieving savings. He also
pointed out the cost of the Program are borne specifically from savings, and it
should be supported
Committee Member Billings added he supports the Program, it does not cost the
rate payers, it saves the ratepayers and this is the reason it should be supported.
He concurs it has been through all of the appropriate reviews, and all goals benefit
the rate payers. He noted this Program turns employees, through a disciplined
Page 9 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
process, into knowing what is expected of them and makes them proud. He hopes
the Union Tribune be more accurately next time.
Committee Member Webster inquired about the cost to the City for the third party
review. Mr. Ruiz stated the first 50% was $60,000 and the remainder was
approximately $30,000 with a total of approximately $90,000. In the proposed
Bid to Goal program, Mr. Ruiz stated these costs will be taken out of the
employees share of the savings.
Ex-Officio Williams asked if with the meet and confer requirements with the
Unions, what is the City’s commitment regarding this Program and the Unions?
Mr. Crane stated the Unions ratified the conditions in the MOU’s. The MOU’s
now have to be approved by the City Council, which is the last action item. In
accordance, the Mayor then has the option to accept or not accept the bid that the
Water Branch has made, which meets the requirements of the MOU. We
anticipate this would be accepted. There is a commitment from July 2009, and
the employees have been working to meet these goals, still awaiting approval.
Wastewater’s MOU is still effective and would remain effective, as is the
Customer Support Division’s MOU. But there is no time requirement.
Committee Member Hollingworth asked if there is a dollar savings listed for each
goal. Mr. Crane stated he did not believe so generally savings are generated by
process change. Committee Member Hollingworth asked why certain goals seem
like they should be part of a normal routine of a given job. Mr. Crane stated these
goals are over and above the employee’s assigned tasks and have not been able to
accomplish some of the goals due many reasons beyond their control, such as
consolidation, new evolution and changes of computer programs, merging
processes, downsizing, etc. Mr. Ruiz added to emphasize that the goals are meant
to stretch the employees above and beyond their normal work load, in the context
of everything else we are asking them to do in a given year.
Committee Member Robak commented he has seen the Bid to Goal Program
reported at the Metro JPA for over 12 years and continue to get periodic updates.
He feels it has been very positive, but has wanted to know if there will ever by a
“real” bid to the private sector. Mr. Crane stated it is very difficult for businesses
to want to use their enterprise money to bid against the City. It would be too
difficult to find a company who would risk such a large amount of money to bid
on such a project. He added the goal we receive from the Consultant is very
competitive for us, so it is very real. Committee Member Billings added there is
already plenty of outsourcing.
13. Water Operations Efficiency Study

Mr. Crane gave a brief overview of this process. He stated the first year of the
planning was to consolidate the Business Support Branches, and this has been
done. The second year of the plan was to look at the Operating Divisions (Water,
Collections, Treatment & Disposal). One on one interviews of Senior Managers
Page 10 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
took place to get feedback on their perspective of how to make the operation more
efficient, and how to do a job better, etc. An efficiency package was put together.
He then introduced Jim Fisher, Assistant Director, Water Operations. He referred
to his slides and summarized the 9 efficiency study areas which are: 1) Corrosion
Control - was completed in conjunction with Bid-to-Goal and resulted in 1
position reduction; 2) Cooperative Yard Support - to work in conjunction with
overall Facilities Master Plan in consolidating 2 yards into 1; 3) Crew size for
construction, valve and other crew types - which is completed in conjunction with
Bid-to-Goal, resulting in 32 position reductions; 4) Metershop relocation –
completed in 10/2009, now looking into making things more efficient; 5) Water
Treatment Plant optimization – all plants currently producing high water quality
and surpassing established goals and awards have been given; 6) Central Stores
Open Purchase Orders – concerns raised about City’s open purchase order
process, Auditor’s Office issued Performance Audit of Purchasing and
Contracting in March 2010. Six recommendations have been given and
concurred; 7) Consolidation of Electricians and Instrumentation Technicians – 2
areas looked at separately, should the classifications be combined into a single
classification. For Public Utilities, it was not the best idea. The second part was
to look at these positions to consolidate the work activities. This will be
presented next month with Treatment and Disposal’s Efficiency Study; 8)
Department Emergency Services and Standby Response – Both systems had these
groups. As a result of this study it was determined and accepted by the Steering
Committee that no changes would occur as a result of the study. 9) Water System
Technician – is this classification still valid. This is on hold and will be addressed
in the future.
Committee Member Billings asked if the City Council is aware of the work going
on with this? Mr. Ruiz indicated it has not been briefed in detail. There is a lot of
work put into this and commended Mr. Fisher as he has identified position
reductions continuously through this effort, resulting in a net reduction of 387
position from FY07 when the rate case started.
14. Sub-Committee Reports

a. Finance – Subcommittee Chair Hollingworth
2011 Budget
OCA’s scope discussion. In October, the Department will have the
monthly Water and Wastewater Report describing finances of the
Department.
b. Environmental & Technical – Subcommittee Chair Webster

Update on the recent water main break and sewage spills. Asked
the Department come back regularly with recent breaks. Most
seem to be caused by old cast iron pipe reaching its lifetime
capacity.
Strategic Plan, measures and methods of implementation.
Page 11 of 12
10/14/2010
September 20, 2010
DRAFT M I N U T E S
Follow up discussion regarding CWA’s involvement with the De-

sal Plant and purchase from Poseidon and what the City’s position
is on this, and what the rate increase could possibly be.
c. Public Outreach, Education & Customer Service – Subcommittee

Chair Welch
Nothing to Report.
15. Metro JPA – Report Out

This item was not heard.
16. Proposed Agenda Items for the Next IROC Meeting

Please send comments to Chairperson Peugh or Ernie Linares via email.
17. IROC Members’ Comments

Committee Member Hollingworth asked when the Strategic Planning meeting
would occur so it can be discussed what IROC’s workload is, what issues will be
addressed and how IROC will report these issues and more timely inject into the
policy making process. He would like to work on the advise portion of IROC’s
duties. After discussion it was decided an Ad-Hoc would be formed with the
Chair of IROC and the 3 Subcommittee Chairs.
Committee Member Kubota pointed out the new Public Utilities Director, Roger
Bailey, will be coming aboard and commends the Executive Team and City staff
for the diligent work since Jim Barrett’s departure.
Adjournment of IROC
At approximately 12:22 Chairperson Peugh adjourned the meeting.
Recording Secretary: _______________________________________

Monica Musaraca
Page 12 of 12
10/14/2010
Item 7
CIP Status Report
Fiscal Year 2010
The left photo shows the 60-

inch diameter boring machine in
the receiving pit after a
successful Jack and Bore
operation approx. 30 ft below
Interstate I-8 in Mission Valley.
This work is part of the South
Mission Valley Trunk Sewer.
The photo to the right is the

36-inch micro tunneling
parallel to I-8 under Taylor
Street in South Mission
Valley.
Submitted by
Guann Hwang & James Nagelvoort
Mission Statement
To ensure the quality, reliability, and sustainability of water and wastewater
services for the benefit of the ratepayers and citizens served
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose …………………………………………………………………….…1
CIP Project Highlights …………………………………………….………….1 - 3
Regulatory Requirements and Department Goals ……………………..….….4 - 6
Program Expenditures & Schedules ………………………………………….7 - 20
Appendix 1 Sample P6 Schedule
Appendix 2 Sewer & Water CIP Projects in Construction during FY 2010 by Council
District
Appendix 3 Sample Notice to Proceed and Beneficial Occupancy/Use Certificate

PURPOSE
This report provides summary of financial and progress information of the Capital Improvements
Program between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010.
CIP PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
WATER PROJECTS
Rancho Peñasquitos Pump Station

The new Rancho Peñasquitos Pump Station is designed to
handle an increased capacity of 32 million gallons per day
(MGD). This project replaced the 25 MGD pump station
originally built in 1963.

This project was completed prior the Department of Public
Health compliance date of June 30, 2010.
Miramar Water Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion

The Miramar Water Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion
provides for upgrades to and the expansion of the Miramar Water
Treatment Plant, including construction of state-of-the-art filters,
rapid mix and de-aeration facilities, chlorine and chemical
facilities, four flocculation and sedimentation basins, an ozone
structure with generation equipment, site paving, landscaping, and
an administration building.
With exception of the landscaping and site paving, the upgrade

and expansion to the Miramar Water Treatment Plant have been The three tanks contain Liquid Oxygen (LOX)
completed. while the towers are ambient air vaporizers that
convert the LOX to gas.
This project earned the California Construction Best of 2008 Award and the American Public Works
Association (APWA) Project of the Year Awards in 2009 and 2010.
3012 Design/Build Water

Water Group Job 3012 is a Design/Build project that will replace nearly eight
miles (42,020 linear feet) of existing old and deteriorating cast iron water mains
located underground. Some of the mains in Pacific Beach to be replaced by this
project date back to 1933.
Construction is scheduled to begin in the September 2010 and is estimated to

complete by summer of 2013.
1
WASTEWATER PROJECTS - Municipal Sewage System Projects
South Mission Valley Trunk Sewer

The existing 30-inch VC (vitrified clay) trunk sewer pipe is
from the original 1947 installation. Most of the existing
pipe has reached its design life and is to be replaced with a
36-inch to meet accommodate future flows.
The project is currently under construction and estimated to

be completed in August 2011.
Lake Murray Trunk Sewer

The Lake Murray Trunk Sewer project consists of replacing nearly
three miles (14,942 linear feet) of trunk sewer main using a
combination of open-trench construction and tunnel boring
methods.

The project is estimated to be completed by the summer of 2012.
Citywide Pump Station Upgrades - Group I (North County

Sewer Pump Station Upgrades)
Pump Stations Upgrades PS Group I project involves the
improvement to seven existing sewer pump stations 71, 73, 74, 75,
76 and 80 in the Rancho Bernardo community.
This project started construction on July 13, 2009 and scheduled

to finish November 2010.
Sewer Pump Station 79

This pump station upgrades consists of replacing the pumps and
motors, installing a storage tanks, completing electrical
upgrades, improving odor control, adding SCADA controls and
alarms, and installing a redundant force main approximately
8,230 feet.
This pump station upgrades was completed in April 2010.
New Pumps to increase station capacity from

1,000 gpm to 1,800 gpm.
2
WASTEWATER PROJECTS - Metropolitan Wastewater System Projects
Metro Biosolids Center – Water Systems Improvements

This Design/Build project will improve the facilities potable water, process water, utility water, and
reclaimed water systems that are critical to the plant’s biosolids
processing operations.

This project to be awarded in August with an estimated completion by
September 2011.
Grit Processing Improvements at the Point Loma

Wastewater Treatment Plant
This proposed Grit Processing Improvements Project will
construct an interim Grit Processing Facility to allow plant
operations to continue while the original facility is demolished
and the new facility is constructed.

The project is anticipated to begin construction in March 2011
and complete in January 2014.
3
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND DEPARTMENT’s GOALS
The Public Utilities Department’s funding is provided by the water and sewer rates to replace,
upgrade and expand infrastructure. These improvements also include projects contained in the
Compliance Order from the California Department of Public Health (DPH) for water and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Consent Decree projects for the wastewater system.
WATER – Department of Public Health (DPH) Compliance Order for Contract Award.
The DPH compliance order requires the completion of eight pump stations, ten
reservoirs/standpipes, nine treatment related projects, four pipelines, and awarding ten miles of
Cast Iron (CI) main replacement per fiscal year.
As of June 30, 2010, all eight pump stations, ten reservoirs/standpipes, and four pipelines were
completed. Of the nine treatment related projects, six have been completed. The remaining three
projects are currently under construction.
The following table and graph show the awarded and completed CI main replacement for fiscal
years 2008 through 2010. To ensure a continued supply of water to customers and reduce the
number of water main breaks, Public Utilities Department has increased the awarding of CI main
replacement from 10 to 20 miles for fiscal years 2008 through 2010 and will further increase this
mileage from 20 to 35 miles in fiscal year 2011.
DPH Compliance Department’s

Fiscal Order Goal Awarded a Completed b
Year (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles)
FY08 10 20 18.66 0
FY09 10 20 20.94 10.23
FY10 10 20 20.10 18.39
FY11 10 35
Notes:
1. Completed water miles lag behind the Awarded water miles due to the length of time necessary to construct the new water
mains. The typical construction schedules can vary between 9 to 18 months. Also, some water projects have been executed
through Design Build Contracts which can result in longer construction schedules.
Footnotes:
a) Awarded miles are based on the Notice to Proceed issued by Purchasing Department.
b) Completed miles are based on the Notice of Completion issued by Field Engineering Division.
4
FY10 Awarded CI Water Mains
25.0
Department's Goal (20 miles ) 20.0

20.0
20.1
15.0 14.2 14.2

Miles
13.4 13.4
DPH Compliance Order (10 miles ) 9.5 9.5 9.5
10.0
8.0
9.0 9.0
5.8 8.0
7.6
5.0 4.2 4.2
Forecasted
1.0 3.1
1.0 Awarded
0.0
1.0
0.0 0.2
0.0
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
WASTEWATER – Environmental Protection Agency Consent Decree for Contract Completion
The EPA Consent Decree mandates the repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of 450 miles
of aged sewer pipes, upgrade and replace of 17 trunk sewers and 26 pump stations (PS) by
June 2013. Below is a list of mandated project updates as of June 30, 2010.
 333.88 of the 450 miles had already been completed.

 Of the 17 trunk sewers, four have been completed, four in construction, and the other nine
trunk sewers are in design and on-schedule to be completed by June 2013.
 10 of the 26 pump stations have been completed. One is currently under design and the
other remaining 15 pump stations are either in the award or construction phase.
5
Starting in fiscal year 2010, Public Utilities increases the mileage for sewer main replacement from
45 to 60 miles.
EPA Consent Department’s

Fiscal Decree Goal Awarded a Completed b
Year (Miles) (Miles) (Miles) (Miles)
FY08 30 30 39.35 30.1(1)
FY09 45 45 45.20 49.5
FY10 45 60 42.37 58.22
FY11 45 60
Notes:
(1) Includes 14.1 credited miles.
Footnotes:
a) Awarded miles are based on the Notice to Proceed issued by Purchasing Department.
b) Completed miles are based on the Beneficial Occupancy/Beneficial Use (BO/BU) issued by Field
Engineering Division.
FY10 Completed Sewer Miles

70.0
Department's Goal (60 miles ) 60.0

60.0
58.2
50.1
50.0
EPA Consent Decree (45 miles )
38.9
40.0
Miles
40.4
31.2
30.0 25.3 32.6
20.8 27.7
19.4
17.8
20.0 16.9
22.4
14.4
11.0 17.3
7.7 15.1 Baseline
10.0 13.8
Completed
10.2
6.5
4.7
0.0 2.3
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
6
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND SCHEDULES
Forecasted and actual expenditures for project management, design and construction of CIP
projects for the 2007 Rate Case (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2011).
The City was out of the public bond market during 2003 through December 2008 due to the lack of
audited financial statements. This had a significant impact on the City’s capital program and
ultimately resulted in the loss of city engineers and other necessary staff for executing the CIP
program. During this timeframe, Water and Wastewater funds were forced to reduce their capital
program and finance only legally mandated projects with cash and private financing. Although
Water and Wastewater funds had access to private financing in 2008, CIP execution was hampered
by the necessary ramp-up of E&CP in addition to City transitional issues due to the Business
Process Re-engineering.
Also, when the rate case was prepared back in 2007, design & construction cost were significantly
higher than today. It was anticipated that design & construction cost would gradually increase
from 2007 through 2011. However, the opposite has happened. Design and Construction cost
have dramatically reduced due to the weak economy.
These factors have led to significant CIP execution variances between actual expenditures for
Water and Wastewater funds and projected CIP expenditures in the Water and Wastewater 2007
rate cases.
WATER
The first chart below shows the FY08 thru FY11 rate case and actual expenditures. The second
chart shows the FY10 budgeted and actual expenditures by categories: Pipelines, Treatment Plants,
Pump Stations, Storage Facilities, Reclaimed Water Pipelines, Groundwater, and Miscellaneous.
Water
$700
Rate Case FY08‐FY11
$600 $585
$500
$400
Millions
$300
$163
$200 $158 $155 $144
$115 $122
$100 $55
$0
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
Rate Case Actual Rate Case (Cumm) Actual (Cumm)
7
FY2010 Water
$63.2
$65
$70
$60
$47
$50
$35.4
Millions
$40
$30 Rate Case
$20 Actual
$5.9
$9
$7
$7
$3.2
$0.8
$0.8
$1.0
$10
$1
$1
$0
WASTEWATER
The charts below show the FY08 thru FY11 rate case and actual expenditures for the entire
Wastewater System, the Metropolitan Wastewater System, and finally the Municipal Sewage
System Projects.
Wastewater
$700
$600 $585
$500
Millions
$400
$300
$185 $184
$200 $119
$96 $49
$100 $80
$30
$0
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
8
WASTEWATER - Metropolitan Wastewater System Projects
Watewater ‐ Metro
$120
Millions
$107
$100
$80
$60
$40 $28 $33
$19 $27
$20 $5 $10
$3
$0
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
WASTEWATER - Municipal Sewage System Projects
Wastewater‐ Muni
$600
Millions
$478
$400
$200 $157 $151

$77 $92
$27 $44 $70
$0
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Project Schedule
21
22
Council District 1
Sewer & Water CIP Projects
in Construction during FY 2010
15
5 T
U
56
Pacific Ocean
15
805
#
0
163
52
52
Sewer & Water CIP Projects not shown on map due to various locations
S00030, Otay Water Treatment Plant Phase 1 B00347, Sewer Main Rehab Phase J-1B
S00031, Otay WTP Upgrades Phase 2 (CLO2, GAC & PAC) B00464, Rehabilitation Phase "D-1"
S00077, Fluoridation Facilities Project @ Otay WTP B00468, Pipeline Rehabilitation Phase "G-1"
®
S00303, PS Group I - North County SPS Upgrades B00471, Sewer Main Rehab Phase J
S00306, PS Group IV (Mission Bay Comfort Pump Stations) B00520, Sewer Main Pipeline Rehab. PH I-1 GRC, Part 1
11000380, El Monte Valve Replacement B00525, Sewer Main Rehab Phase I-1D
B00135, Fault Crossing Retrofits to Lg Pipelines B00529, Sewer Main Rehab Phase J-1A
B00136, Landslide / Liquefaction Pipeline Mitigation S00341, Pipeline Rehabilitation Phase "F-1"
S00067, Dulzura Conduit Concrete Covers
Legend B00456, Sewer Group 715

T
U S00043, Rancho Penasquitos Sewer Pump Station B00457, Sewer Group 716
B00484, Penasquitos Views TS EPA (SEWER)
#
0 B00499, Sewer PS 27 Restoration EPA
B00041, 3002 - Wtr GJ 540A CI

Roads
PACIFIC
B00042, Water Group 541
Freeway
OCEAN
S10004, Water Group 790

B00352, Sewer Group 742 Council District Boundary
B00440, Bird Rock Sewer Improvements Ocean
THIS MAP/DATA IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Note: This product may contain information from the SANDAG Regional Information System which
cannot be reproduced without the written permission of SANDAG. This product may contain information reproduced with permission granted by RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY® to SanGIS. This map is copyrighted by RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale,
without the prior, written permission of RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY®. DATE: 9/21/10
Council District 2
163
52
52
15
163
805
15
163
Pacific Ocean
5 15
282 15
75 5
#
0 S00031, Otay WTP Upgrades Phase 2 (CLO2, GAC & PAC) B00464, Rehabilitation Phase "D-1"
®
75
Legend B00514, Bayside/Capistrano Sewer Accel

(S) = Sewer
B10147, Stairway Project at PLWTP B00510, Quincy Street & Wilbur Ave. (S)
#
0 (W) - Water
B00310, Old Rose Canyon TS Reloc. B00440, Bird Rock Sewer Impvmnts
B00326, Sewer Group 665 B00482, Crown Point TS EPA (S) B00071, 3000 - Wtr GJ 753 CI
B00349, Sewer Group 739 B00486, Sunset Cliffs TS EPA (S) B00073, 3010 - Wtr GJ 718A CI
B00336, Sewer Group 726 S00302, S Mission Valley TS EPA B00077, 3013 - Wtr GJ 764 CI
B00341, Sewer & Water Group 731 (S) B00020, 3008 - Wtr GJ 532 CI B00084, 3013 - Wtr GJ 764A CI
B00058, Sewer & Water Group 731 (W) B00021, 3008 - Wtr GJ 533 CI B00098, 3013 - Wtr GJ 821 CI
B00344, Water & Sewer Group 544 (S)
B00170, Crown Point TS - Water
PACIFIC
OCEAN
B00046, Water & Sewer Group 544 (S) B00126, 3012 - DB Water
B00355, Sewer & Water Group 747 (S) B00375, Sewer Group 766 B00047, Water Group 546
B00068, Sewer & Water Group 747 (W) B00045, 3010 - Wtr GJ 717 CI
Roads
B00330, Sewer & Water Group 676 (S) B00055, 3004 - Wtr GJ 727 CI
Freeway
B00028, Sewer & Water Group 676 (W) B00060, 3004 - Wtr GJ 735
Council District Boundary
B00513, Famosa Accel. Sewer B00064, Water Group 665
B00107, Famosa Accel. Water B00033, 3000 - Wtr GJ 464B CI Ocean
THIS MAP/DATA IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Note: This product may contain information from the SANDAG Regional Information System
which cannot be reproduced without the written permission of SANDAG. This product may contain information reproduced with permission granted by RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY® to SanGIS. This map is copyrighted by RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or
resale, without the prior, written permission of RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY®.
DATE: 9/21/10
Council District 3
15
163
805
15
163
5 15
805
®
B00135, Fault Crossing Retrofits to15Lg Pipelines B00529, Sewer Main Rehab Phase J-1A
Legend
B00024, 3011 - Swr & Wtr GJ 648 CI (W) B00112, Sewer & Water Group 683A (W)
(S) = Sewer
B00322, 3011 - Swr & Wtr GJ 648 (S) B00335, Sewer & Water Group 683A (S) (W) - Water
B00025, 3011 - Swr & Wtr GJ 650 CI (W) B00367, Sewer & Water Group 760 (S)
B00324, 3011 - Swr & Wtr GJ 650 (S) B00026, 3011 - Wtr GJ 651 CI
B00030, Sewer & Water Group 684A (W) B00038, 3000 - Wtr GJ 705 CI Roads
PACIFIC B00332, Sewer & Water Group 684A (W) B00323, 3011 - Sewer GJ 649 Freeway
B00052, Sewer & Water Group 644 (W)
OCEAN
B00453, Sewer Group 703
B00083, Sewer & Water Group 689 (W) Council District
B00454, Sewer Group 705 Boundary
B00334, Sewer & Water Group 689 (S)
S00302, S Mission Valley TS EPA (S) Ocean
Council District 4
94
15
805
15
54
54 Sewer & Water CIP Projects not shown on map due to various locations
805
®
Legend
B00397, Sewer & Water Group 796 (Sewer)
B00078, Water Group CI 911
B00118, D/B 555 - Wtr GJ 905 Roads
S00035, Otay 2nd PL - CI (Water)
PACIFIC
OCEAN Freeway
S00037, Otay 2nd PL - North Encanto (Water) Council District Boundary
S10004, Water Group 790 Ocean

Portion of Council District 5
15
56
U
T
U
T
U
T
15
#
0
805
163
52
®
Legend (all projects in this legend are shown above)

(S) = Sewer
U
T S00027, Miramar WTP Contract B - Floc & Sedimnt. Basin (W) (W) - Water
S00029, Miramar WTP Contract C - Ozone Eqpmt (W)
Roads
U
T
S00076, Fluoridation Facilities Project @ Miramar (W)
U
T Freeway
PACIFIC
#
0 B00527, N City Wtr Reclamation Plt Electrodialysis Reversal # 6 (S)
OCEAN
B00484, Penasquitos Views Sewer TS 12/10 EPA
Ocean
Council District 6
805
163
52
52
#
0 15
163
805
15
S00030, Otay Water Treatment Plant Phase 1 163 B00347, Sewer Main Rehab Phase J-1B
®
Legend B00326, Sewer Group 665

#
0 S00337, Sewer PS 41 Rehab EPA (S) B00341, Sewer & Water Group 731 (S)
B00053, D/B 554 - Wtr GJ 901 CI S00302, S Mission Valley TS 10/11 EPA (S)
B00115, D/B 554 - Wtr GJ 902 CI S00331, Balboa Ave. TS 5/13 EPA (S)
B00116, D/B 555 - Wtr GJ 903 CI Roads
B00117, D/B 555 - Wtr GJ 904 CI
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Freeway
B00065, 3003 - Wtr GJ 743 CI (S) = Sewer
(W) - Water
B00310, Old Rose Canyon TS Reloc. (S) Ocean
Council District 7
15
805
163 52
#
0
#
0
#
0
52
15
163
805
U
T
U
8 T
15
125
94
163 94
5 15 Sewer & Water CIP Projects not shown on map due to various locations
®
11000380, El Monte Valve Replacement
805 B00525, Sewer Main Rehab Phase I-1D
282 15
Legend B00101, 3011 - Wtr GJ 806 CI S00302, South Mission Valley TS EPA (S)
B00094, 3011 - Wtr GJ 807 CI S00335, Lake Murray In Canyon TS EPA (S)
S00022, Alvarado WTP Ph 4 Ozone (W)
U
T B00049, Water Group 549
S00023, Alvarado WTP Phase 3 Rehab Floc Sed Basins (W)
U
T B00076, Sewer & Water Group 760 (W) Roads
U
T S00075, Fluoridation Facilities Project @ Alvarado (W)
B00090, Sewer & Water Group 796 (W) Freeway
#
0 B00314, MBC - Screen & Blending Tank Imp. (S)
B00132, Sewer & Water Group 829 (W)
#
0 B00315, MBC - Chemical Storage & Handling (S)
B00441, Sewer & Water Group 829 (S) Council District Boundary
PACIFIC #
0 B00528, MBC - Water Systems Improvements (S)
B00367, Sewer & Water Group 760 (S)
OCEAN #
0 S00320, Facilities Control System Upgrade at MBC (S)
B00397, Sewer & Water Group 796 (S) Ocean
#
0 S00321, MBC - Centrate Collections Upgrades (S)
S00035, Otay 2nd PL - Cast Iron Replacement (W)
B00048, 3002 - Wtr GJ 550 CI
(S) = Sewer
B00040, 3011 - Wtr GJ 703A CI
B00508, 60th Street (S) (W) - Water
Portion of Council District 8
5 15
805
15
5
75
#
0
54
75
54
805
Pacific Ocean
5 805
®
75
Legend (all projects in this legend are shown above)
#
0 B00313, Sewer Pump Station 1 & 2 Electrical Upgrade & New Building at PS2 Proj.
Roads
PACIFIC
OCEAN
B00118, D/B 555 - Wtr GJ 905 CI Freeway
B00354, Sewer Group 745 Council District Boundary
B00505, Palm Ave. - Accel Sewer Ocean

San Diego IROC Packet Oct 18, 2010

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

San Diego IROC Packet Oct 18, 2010

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

City of San Diego

Independent Rates Oversight Committee (IROC)

X 3. Approval of Minutes from 9/20/10

4. Chair Updates Jim Peugh 5 Min.

5. City Staff Updates Department Staff 10 Min.

7. Public Utilities FY10 Annual Capital Improvement Guann 25 Min.

14. IROC Members’ Comments 5 Min.

3. Approval of Minutes from 8/9/2010

Chairperson Peugh asked for a motion to accept the corrections as stated.

4. Chair Updates – Chairperson Peugh

success of IROC, as well as what we have learned, and what our

Committee Member Hollingworth expressed to Mr. Ruiz he wanted to ask about a

5. City Staff Updates , Alex Ruiz, Interim Director

information. We want to be accurate in getting the information back. If

6. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) – Head End System Request for

7. Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project Grant Opportunity

8. Water Conservation Program – Request for Proposal for Public Outreach

Requested Actions are to support the consultant agreement with Collaborative

Subsequently, they will conduct a 6 month follow-up period for all

He stated his preference is item number 9, although item number 7 is also

He added in reference to item 9, he personally feels false tales of pension benefits

Committee Member Kubota stated he agrees with Committee Member Billings,

Committee Member Dull concurred with Committee Members Billings and

Chairperson Peugh stated he would like to have an amalgam of audit options 5

Committee Member Hollingworth then made a motion to support the selection of

Ex-Officio Williams asked for a clarification in selecting multiple items. Mr.

Committee Member Billings commented he understands the importance of Item

is a perception problem, and believes the compensation should be looked at larger

Committee Member Hollingworth stated if Item 9 is not covered in this selection,

Ex-Officio Robak referred to a memorandum to Jim Peugh, dated September 14,

Committee Member Dull seconded, with Committee Member Hollingworth

The requested action is to authorize entering into an SRF Funding Agreement an

Committee Member Hollingworth asked if there are shovel-ready projects now

Committee Member Billings moved approval, Committee Member Hollingworth

12. Bid to Goal Program Update

Based on Brown & Caldwell’s recommendations after the 15 Goals were

13. Water Operations Efficiency Study

14. Sub-Committee Reports

b. Environmental & Technical – Subcommittee Chair Webster

Follow up discussion regarding CWA’s involvement with the De-

c. Public Outreach, Education & Customer Service – Subcommittee

15. Metro JPA – Report Out

16. Proposed Agenda Items for the Next IROC Meeting

17. IROC Members’ Comments

Recording Secretary: _______________________________________

The left photo shows the 60-

The photo to the right is the

CIP Project Highlights …………………………………………….………….1 - 3

Regulatory Requirements and Department Goals ……………………..….….4 - 6

Program Expenditures & Schedules ………………………………………….7 - 20

Appendix 1 Sample P6 Schedule

Appendix 3 Sample Notice to Proceed and Beneficial Occupancy/Use Certificate

CIP PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Rancho Peñasquitos Pump Station

Miramar Water Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion

With exception of the landscaping and site paving, the upgrade

3012 Design/Build Water

Construction is scheduled to begin in the September 2010 and is estimated to

South Mission Valley Trunk Sewer

The project is currently under construction and estimated to

Lake Murray Trunk Sewer

Citywide Pump Station Upgrades - Group I (North County

This project started construction on July 13, 2009 and scheduled