Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 CON County of San Diego Co-Permittees - MOU NPDESNOTE TO FILE IN THE MATTER OF: Authorizing the City Manager to execute an MOU by and between co-permittees regarding the sharing of costs associated with the prosecution an unfunded State mandates claim, in order to recover a portion of the City's expenses arising from compliance within the 2007 Regional Water Quality Control Board's Stormwater Permit. A FULLY EXECUTED ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2009. Note: • No original co-permittees signature pages have been received. NTF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN CO-PERMITTEES REGARDING SHARING OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROSECUTION OF UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES CLAIM This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into as of this 28th day of June 2007 by and between the following local government agencies located in San Diego County: The County of San Diego; City of Carlsbad, City of Chula Vista, City of Coronado, City of Del Mar; City of El Cajon; City of Encinitas, City of Escondido; City of Imperial Beach; City of La Mesa; City of Lemon Grove; City of National City; City of Oceanside; City of Poway; City of San Diego, City of San Marcos; City of Santee; City of Solana Beach, and City of Vista (collectively, Co-permittees") with regard to the following: RECITALS A. Co-permittees are individually and collectively subject to Order No. R9- 2007-0001/NPDES Permit No. CAS0108758 ("Permit") adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region ("Regional Board") on January 24, 2007. B. Neither the Regional Board nor the State Water Resources Control Board have acknowledged that any portion of the Permit constitutes a State mandate that exceeds the scope of the Federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations. Co-permittees believe that portions of the Permit do in fact constitute unfunded State mandates and that pursuant to Article XIII B §6 of the California Constitution, a State subvention of funds is required before Co-permittees must implement those portions that exceed the Federal requirements. C. Co-permittees desire to pursue the issue of unfunded State mandates, and believe that the necessary administrative and procedural actions associated with the same should be jointly undertaken to present a unified and coordinated front and to achieve cost savings where possible. These actions have included and will include, but may not be limited to, the following: Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board; preparation and presentation of a Test Case before the State Mandates Commission; Petition for Writ of Mandate; Appeals; Re -hearing and potential settlement with the State Mandates Commission (collectively, "Mandates Claim"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and of the Recitals, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Draft Budget. Co-permittees have prepared a draft budget of presently anticipated costs and expenses associated with pursuit of the Mandates Claim and Page 1 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding the elements thereof, which budget is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference ("Draft Budget"). Co-permittees acknowledge that the Draft Budget is based on information presently known, that it is only an estimate of potential costs and expenses, and agree that they will share the actual costs and expenses for the Mandates Claim as outlined herein. 2. Mandates Claim Counsel, Lead Counsel. The work contemplated by this Agreement shall be performed by the legal counsel identified in the attached Draft Budget ("Mandates Claim Co -Counsel"). Co-permittees agree that County Counsel for the County of San Diego shall be identified as lead counsel and that the County of San Diego shall be the Test Claimant in the Test Case. In the event a Test Case is filed, each Co-permittee, including those represented by Mandates Claim Co - Counsel, may join as an Interested Party. 3. Obligations of Co-permittees - Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board. Except with respect to the efforts of Mandates Claim Co -Counsel as addressed in Section 5, below and Exhibit A, Co-permittees, and each of them, shall hold the remaining Co-permittees harmless from costs and expenses associated with the efforts expended by their individual attorneys in this regard. 4. Obligations in Test Case and Associated "Appeals". While County of San Diego shall prepare documents on behalf of Co-permittees for the Test Case and associated "appeals", Co-permittees acknowledge and agree that Mandates Claim Co -Counsel may assist in preparing such documents. All documents shall be distributed to each attorney for Co-permittees for review. In the event a Co-permittee joins as an Interested Party, such joinder documents shall be distributed to all individual attorneys for Co-permittees for review. Except with respect to the efforts of Mandates Claim Co -Counsel as addressed in Section 5, below and Exhibit A, Co- permittees, and each of them, shall hold the remaining Co-permittees harmless from costs and expenses associated with the efforts expended by their individual attorneys in this regard. 5. Cost Sharing by Co-Permittees. Co-permittees agree that the costs and expenses associated with pursuit of the Mandates Claim shall be allocated among the Co-permittees as follows: 5.1 Co-permittees agree to utilize the formula for the allocation of costs and expenses set forth in Section IV.B of that certain NPDES San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees Memorandum of Understanding dated December 3, 2001, modified hereinbelow as necessary to eliminate references to entities not party to this Agreement and to individual program cost expenses not allocated by this Agreement. 5.1.1 Ten percent (10%) of the cost shall be divided equally among all Copermittees. Page 2 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding 5.1.2 Forty-five percent (45%) of the cost shall be divided based on population. Population -based costs shall be divided among all Copermittees as follows: 5.1.2.1 The percentage of Population Share Costs for which each Copermittee is responsible shall be calculated by dividing their total population by the combined total population of all participating Copermittees within San Diego County. These percentages shall be calculated using the "Household" population figures of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) "Population and Housing Estimates" for the year 2000 or as formally updated or amended by SANDAG. 5.1.2.2 The calculation of the County's population shall be based upon the entire population of the unincorporated County. 5.1.3 Forty-five percent (45%) of the cost shall be based on urbanized land area to be divided among all participating Copermittees as follows. 5.1.3.1 The percentage of land area costs for which each Copermittee is responsible shall be calculated by dividing their total urbanized land area by the combined total urbanized land area of all participating Copermittees within the geographic area applicable to the shared program or activity. 5.1.3.2 These totals shall be calculated using the most recently available San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) land use statistics. 5.2 Mandates Claim Co -Counsel shall each submit their invoices and statements of work to Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak, Attn: Helen Holmes Peak, on at least on a quarterly basis reflecting such costs and expenses, and the Co- permittees agree that Helen Holmes Peak shall facilitate payment for the same in the same manner and method as the Co-permittees have borne shared technical and associated costs relating to the Permit to date. Work performed by County Counsel as Mandates Claim Co -Counsel shall be accounted for and shall represent a credit in favor of Co-permittee, County of San Diego against its share of Mandates Claim costs and expenses. Co-permittees shall each submit payment for their share of such costs and expenses to Helen Holmes Peak within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Helen Holmes Peak's request for the same. Such costs and expenses shall be deemed to have accrued from and after January 24, 2007. 6. Sharing of Costs with Other Entities When Feasible. To the extent possible, Mandates Claim Counsel shall endeavor to share costs with other entities that may be pursuing their own remedies with respect to the Permit. For example, Co- permittees may share the cost of the transcript of the Regional Board hearings on the Permit with the Building Industry Association. Page 3 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding 7. Conflict of Interest. Co-permittees acknowledge and agree that Mandates Claim Counsel represent individual entities within the Co-permittee group for all purposes. Individual Mandates Claim Counsel may also have unrelated matters pending before other entities within the Co-permittee group. Participation in a joint prosecution of the Mandates Claim as contemplated by this Agreement shall not be considered to constitute representation by counsel for any individual Co-permittee of another Co-permittee, nor shall such participation be grounds to disqualify counsel or experts from representing any Co-permittee. For purposes of pursuit of the Mandates Claim, each individual Co-permittee acknowledges such other representation, or possibility of such other representation, agrees to the participation of Mandates Claim Counsel, and each of them, in the Mandates Claim, and waives any conflict of interest that may arise or be created as a result of the involvement of Mandates Claim Counsel in the Mandates Claim, or between Co-permittees and/or their counsel and experts as a result of this Agreement. 8. Joint Prosecution of Mandates Claim. Co-permittees agree that all communications between Co-permittee counsel in furtherance of the purpose of this Agreement shall be protected by the attorney -client privilege and the attorney work - product privilege to the fullest extent permitted by the law. Each Co-permittee will take all reasonable steps necessary to protect such communications and information from disclosure to third parties not subject to this Agreement. If such information is demanded by any person, each Co-permittee shall assert all relevant privileges. 9. Withdrawal from Agreement. Any Co-permittee may withdraw from participation in this Agreement upon fifteen (15) days' prior written notice to the other Co-permittees, and payment of its share of costs and expenses incurred through the date of termination. If a Co-permittee withdraws from this Agreement under this paragraph, the withdrawing Co-permittee and the remaining Co-permittees will remain obligated to preserve the confidentiality of all confidential information received from or disclosed to the withdrawing Co-permittee pursuant to this Agreement. A withdrawing Co-permittee will remain obligated under Paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Agreement and will not assert participation in this Agreement as grounds for disqualification of counsel or experts of any Co-permittee and agrees to waive any conflict that may be created between Co-permittees and/or their counsel and experts as a result of this Agreement. A withdrawing Co-permittee will have no other obligation under this Agreement, with the exception of its share of costs incurred through the date of its withdrawal. Upon the withdrawal of any Co-permittee, the remaining Co-permittees shall continue to share costs and expenses in the resultant number of equal shares. 10. Breach. Co-permittees, and each of them, shall have the right, in the event of any breach of any agreement or covenant contained herein by the other parties, to exercise all of the rights and remedies, and to maintain any actions at law or suit in equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach of agreement or covenant. Damages, if any, arising from any breach of this Agreement shall be Page 4 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding limited to the amount due and owing under the cost sharing mechanism set forth in Sections 5 and 6, above, at the time of the alleged breach. 11. Notices. Unless otherwise specifically permitted by this MOU, all notices or other communications required or permitted under this MOU shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or sent by telecopy, provided that the telecopy cover sheet contain a notation of the date and time of transmission, and shall be deemed received: (i) if personally delivered, upon the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, (ii) if mailed in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, two (2) business days after the date placed in the United States mail, (iii) if mailed other than in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph or mailed from outside the United States, upon the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice, or (iv) if given by telecopier during business hours when delivered can be confirmed, when delivered. Notices shall be given at the following addresses: To County of San Diego: Attn: Walter F. Ekard County Chief Administrative Officer 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 209 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-531-5250 Facsimile: 619-557-4060 To City of Carlsbad: Attn: Lisa Hildabrand, Interim City Manager 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: 760-434-2821 Facsimile 760-720-9461 To City of Chula Vista: Attn: David Garcia, City Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Telephone: 619-691-5031 Facsimile: 619-585-5774 To City of Coronado: Attn: Mark Achenduszko, City Manager 1825 Strand Way Coronado, CA 92118 Telephone: 619-522-7335 Facsimile: 619-522-7846 Page 5 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding To City of Del Mar: Attn: Lauraine Brekke-Esparza, City Manager 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: 858-755-9313 Facsimile: 858-755-2794 To City of El Cajon: Attn: Kathi Henry, City Manager 200 E. Main Street El Cajon, CA 92020 Telephone: 619-441-1716 Facsimile: 619-441-1770 To City of Encinitas Attn: Phillip E. Cotton, City Manager 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: 760-633-2610 Facsimile: 760-633-2627 To City of Escondido: Attn: Clay Phillips, City Manager 201 North Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 Telephone: 760-839-4578 Facsimile: 760-839-4578 To City of Imperial Beach Attn: Gary R. Brown, City Manager 825 Imperial Beach Blvd. Imperial Beach, CA 91932 Telephone: 619-423-8303 Facsimile: 619-628-1395 To City of La Mesa Attn: Sandra L. Keri, City Manager 8131 Allison Avenue La Mesa, CA 91941 Telephone: 619-667-1105 Facsimile: 619-667-1131 To City of Lemon Grove: Attn: Graham Mitchell, City Manager 3232 Main Street Lemon Grove, CA 91945 Telephone: 619-825-3800 Facsimile: 619-825-3804 Page 6 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding To City of National City: Attn: Chris Zapata, City Manager 1243 National City Blvd National City, CA 91950 Telephone: 619-336-4240 Facsimile: 619-336-4327 To City of Oceanside: Attn: Peter A. Weiss, Interim City Manager 300 North Coast Hwy Oceanside, CA 92054 Telephone: 760-735-4365 Facsimile: 760-435-3078 To City of Poway: Attn: Rod Gould, City Manager P.O. Box 789 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 Telephone: 858-668-4500 Facsimile: 858-668-1207 To City of San Diego: Attn: Gerald R. Sanders, Mayor Office of the Mayor City of San Diego 202 "C: Street, 11th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 To City of San Marcos: Attn: Paul Malone, City Manager 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 Telephone: (760) 744-1050, ext. 3114 Facsimile: (760) 744-7543 To City of Santee: Attn: Keith Till, City Manager 10601 Magnolia Avenue Santee, CA 92071 Telephone: 619-258-4100 x100 Facsimile: 619-562-0649 To City of Solana Beach: Attn: David Ott, City Manager 635 S. Hwy 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: 858-720-2431 Facsimile: 858-792-6513 Page 7 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding To City of Vista: Attn: Rita Geldert, City Manager 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, CA 92084 Telephone: 760-726-1340 x1401 Facsimile: 760-639-6132 12. No Employment, Partnership. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to create an employment, partnership, joint venture or any other similar relationship between the parties hereto or cause Co-permittees to be responsible in any way for the debts or obligations of other individual Co-permittees, or any other person. 13. Authority to Sign. Each Co-permittee warrants and represents that the persons executing this MOU on its behalf has full authority to do so and to bind such Co-permittee to perform pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts with the same force and effect as if all original signatures appeared on one copy; and in the event this Agreement is signed in counterparts, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and all of the counterparts shall be deemed to be one agreement. 15. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law if enforcement would not frustrate the overall intent of the parties (as such intent is manifested by all provisions of the Agreement, including such invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable portion). 16. Attorneys' Fees. Should any litigation (including any proceedings in a bankruptcy) or arbitration be commenced between the parties hereto or their representatives concerning any provision of this Agreement or the rights and duties of any person or entity hereunder, the party or parties prevailing in such litigation or arbitration shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to the attorneys' fees and court or arbitration costs incurred by reason of such litigation or arbitration, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees incurred in preparation for or investigation of any matter relating to such litigation or arbitration. 17. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California. 18. Headings. The headings in this Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience, and in no way define, limit, extend or interpret the scope of this Page 8 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding Agreement or of any particular provision hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO By: hn ansone y Counsel Approved as t• For . Ma Jo Lan Senior Dep 1 aunty ounsel County of San Diego [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 9 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF CARLSBAD By Lisa Hiidabrand Interim City Manager Attest: LorrainWood, City Clerk City of Carlsbad Approved as to Form: onald R. Ball, City Attorney �yosaee+rii. LSD 1i mom: .. /%Z++ s estl\ City of Carlsbad [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 10 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: City Manager Attest: a Donna Norris, Interim City Clerk City of Chula Vista Approved as to Form: Bart Miesfeld, Interim City Attorney City of Chula Vista [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 11 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: David Garcia City Manager Attest: Donna Norris, Interim City Clerk City of Chula Vista Approved as to Form: Ba Miesfeld, City of Chula 'i a [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] m City Attorney Page 11 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF CORONADO By: duszko City M. . er Attest: je Linda K. Hascup, City Clerk City of Coronado Approved as to Form: Moey, City Ajtorney Ci of C onad [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 12 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE 4TY OF' DEL MAR Ka en Brus Cry Manager Attest: AO - Mercedes Martin, Ci Clerk City of Del Mar Approved as to Form: l Tamara Smith, City Attorney City of Del Mar [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 13 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF EL CAJON By:;.(,�t�.tc Kathi Henry City Manager Attest: Lt) Kat ie Rutle City o I Cajon Approved as to Form: G4 Moran oley, pity /;<ttomey Cajon [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 14 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF ENCINITAS By: Phillip E. Cotton City Manager Attest: eborah Cervone, City Clerk City of Encinitas Approved a,to Form: Gfen Sabine, City Attorney Encinitas [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 15 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO By; ay vnsnips City Manager Attest: Marsha Whalen, City Clerk" / -4'5 City of Escondido ed as to _• rm: Je City of Escondido [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] ney Page 16 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH By: A Gary R. Br' n City Manager Attest: ij4 e M. Haid, City C -rk penal Beach ed as to F. s P. Lou W City Atto ney of Imperial Beach [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 17 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF LA MESA By: Sarfdra L. Kerl City Manager Attest: Mary J. Ken wady, City Clerk City of La Mesa Approve as to Form: Glenn Sabine,, City Attorney City of La Mesa [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 18 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF LEMON GROVE By: Graham Mitchell City Manager Attest: Susan Garcia, City Clerk City of Lemon Grove Approved as t9-Fgrm: es P. Lough, City Attorney of Lemon Grove [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 19 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITYF NATIONAL CITY By: City M er Attest: A Michael Dalla, 2ity Clerk City of National City Approved as to Form: 14416. George Eiser, City Attorney City of National City [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 20 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE By: tVIA eter A. Weiss Interim City Manager Attest: (1C.•t(t .r Barbara Rie 1 WaynCci Clerk City of Oceanside Approved as to Form: Mullen, City Attorney ity of Oceanside [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 21 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF POWAY By: Rod Gould City Manager Attest: Diane Shea, City Clerk City of Poway Approved as to Form: Lisa Foster, City Attorney City of Poway [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 22 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CI RCVS Paul Malone City Manager By: Attest: Susie Vasquez, Ciiiic City of San Marc. Approved as to Form: elen Holmes Peak, City Attorney City of San Marcos [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 24 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF SANTEE By: Keith Till City Manager Attest Li a)l-royan, City Clerk ity,of Santee. Approved as to Form: ,/ / , Shawn Hagerty, City Attorney City of Santee [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO. BE BLANK] Page .25..of 27 kleniOratidurn of Uhderstanding C. THE By: Davi Mana Atte gela lye City City of Solana Beach A. proved as t s P. Tgh, City Attorney of Solana Beach [THIS SPACE INTENDED TO BE BLANK] Page 26 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding THE CITY OF VISTA By: Rt a e eldert City anager Attest: Marci Kilfan, City Clerk City of Vista Approved as to Form: Darold P'- .er, City Attorney City of Vista Page 27 of 27 Memorandum of Understanding RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — 77 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN CO-PERMITTEES REGARDING THE SHARING OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF AN UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES CLAIM, IN ORDER TO RECOVER A PORTION OF THE CITY'S EXPENSES ARISING FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2007 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S STORMWATER PERMIT WHEREAS, the City of National City, together with the County of San Diego and the 17 other cities in the County (Co-permittees") are individually and collectively subject to Order No. R9-2007-0001/NPDES Permit No. CAS0108758 ("Permit") adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region ("Regional Board") on January 24, 2007; and WHEREAS, neither the Regional Board nor the California State Water Resources Control Board have acknowledged that any portion of the Permit constitutes a State mandate that exceeds the scope of the Federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations. Co- permittees believe that portions of the Permit do in fact constitute unfunded State mandates, and that pursuant to Article XIII B Section 6 of the California Constitution, a State subvention of funds is required before Co-permittees must implement those portions that exceed the Federal requirements; and WHEREAS, Co-permittees desire to pursue the issue of unfunded State mandates, and believe that the necessary administrative and procedural actions associated with the same should be jointly undertaken to present a unified and coordinated front, and to achieve cost savings where possible. These actions have included and will include, but may not be limited to, the following: Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board; Preparation and Presentation of a Test Case before the State Mandates Commission; Petition for Writ of Mandate; Appeals; Re -hearing and Potential Settlement with the State Mandates Commission (collectively, "Mandates Claims"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding by and between Co-permittees for the sharing of costs associated with the prosecution of an unfunded State Mandate Claim. Said Memorandum of Understanding is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ATTEST: PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of May Ron Morrison, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mi e Dalla, City •'erk George H. iser, Ill, City Attorney Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on May 6, 2008 by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Councilmembers Morrison, Natividad, Parra, Ungab, Zarate. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. AUTHENTICATED BY: RON MORRISON Mayor of the City of National City, California CIrk of the City City ` ati4 - onal City, California 2a,;(4jii) /I of By: Deputy I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2008-77 of the City of National City, California, passed and adopted by the Council of said City on May 6, 2008. City Clerk of the City of National City, California By: Deputy C oo'J-%0 City of National City, California CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE May 6, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15 ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN CO-PERMITTEES REGARDING THE SHARING OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF AN UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE CLAIM, IN ORDER TO RECOVER A PORTION OF THE CITY'S EXPENSES ARISING FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2007 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S STORMWATER PERMIT PREPARED BY George H. Eiser, III (Ext. 4221) EXPLANATION DEPARTMENT City Attorney Please see attached memorandum. Environmental Review 'J N/A Financial Statement Approved By: Finance Director Formula for Allocation of Costs among Participants is set forth in Section 5 of the MOU. Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. Memorandum Resolution MOU A-200 (9/99)