HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Clean Water Program~~~~ Off' nU~~~
/ii ~ 111
L~~ - ~ ~~~
DATE: May 1, 2012
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
~~
Joni Pattillo, City Manager ° ~'
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Memorandum of Agreement
Prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Agreement to implement the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program was
initially adopted in 1991. In October 2009, the Regional Water Board reissued a permit covering
Alameda County and 56 other storm water dischargers throughout the San Francisco Bay
Region. In light of the new requirements in the permit, it is recommended that each agency
within Alameda County adopt the new updated Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds to cover the increase to the City's cost share are included in the proposed Fiscal
Year 2012 - 2013 Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the new Agreement to
Implement the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.
H _~ ...
~µ,
Submitted By"
Assistant to the City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
~,
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
The City of Dublin is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
(ACCWP), which includes Alameda County, its 14 cities, the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (District) and Zone 7 Water Agency. The Agreement to Implement
the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (Agreement) was initially adopted in
1991 by all of the member agencies of the ACCWP. The current Agreement created the
Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program as a method for the Parties to implement
permit compliance measures for stormwater quality in conformance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and to work collaboratively in implementing a
number of the permit requirements that could be done more cost-effectively as a group. The
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #600-40
Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8.1
permit requires implementation of a program designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants
discharges from a member agency's storm drain system.
This NPDES permit is issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Water Board). In October 2009, the Regional Water Board reissued the Parties'
permit as a permit covering the member agencies of the ACCWP as well as 56 other cities and
counties that maintain MS4's (municipal separate stormwater sewer systems) throughout the
San Francisco Bay Region. This permit is referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit or MRP.
The Agreement was amended in 1997, 2001 and 2003. Previous amendments to the
Agreement included revisions to the cost sharing formula, changing the name of the Program
from Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program to the Alameda Countywide Clean
Water Program, extending the term of the current contract and allowing for Parties other than
the District to contract on behalf of the Program. Recent changes in the cost allocation method,
as well as population changes for member agencies, required that the current agreement be
modified. The proposed new Agreement must be approved by the governing bodies of all
Parties representing two-thirds or more of the votes as allocated under the current Agreement.
ANALYSIS:
The current agreement is set to expire on April 1, 2013. A workgroup from the Program's
Management Committee reviewed the current Agreement in light of the requirements in the
Municipal Regional Permit. After considering the workgroup's findings, the Program's
Management Committee is recommending that each Party to the current agreement approve a
new Agreement to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Improve equity by making changes in the allocation of Program costs and voting shares
so that the benefits received by the member agencies are proportional to their cost share;
2. Increase flexibility of the Program's operations by allowing parties other than the District
to take on the role of program manager and fiscal agent;
3. Establish a new 15- year term starting July 1, 2012; and
4. Improve clarity by adopting a new stand-alone agreement that incorporates the changes
described above as well as a number of minor additional changes to reflect current
conditions.
The following objectives noted above are discussed in more detail below.
Proposed Changes in the Allocation of Costs and Voting Shares
The current cost sharing formula is weighted evenly between the relative area of each
municipality and the relative population of each municipality.
Following adoption of the MRP, which included numerous new requirements and increased
compliance costs, several member agencies requested that the cost share methodology be
reviewed with regard to each agency's cost share versus the benefits it receives. Based on
this request, the Program's Management Committee established a budget workgroup
(Workgroup), consisting of member cities, to review the existing cost allocation formula.
Page 2 of 5
The Workgroup reviewed the Program's budget and assessed how well the current
allocation reflected Program costs under the MRP. The review suggested that there are
baseline Program costs that are not affected by the area or population of the member
agencies. These costs include program management by the District, subcommittee
support, legal assistance, annual reporting, management of the website, program trainings,
green business program contribution, event participation at the County Fair, among other
things. The Workgroup calculated that these costs account for approximately 22% of
overall Program expenditures.
The Workgroup recommended to the Management Committee that these baseline costs be
distributed equally among the member agencies as all members benefit from these
activities equally. This results in a minimum allocation for each Party equivalent to 1.3% of
total Program costs. For the remaining Program expenditures (78%), the Workgroup
recommended that the expenses be allocated based upon the existing formula of 50%
population and 50% area. The Management Committee approved these recommendations
in September 2010. Table 1 illustrates the cost allocation under the Current Agreement
and the New Agreement.
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED COST ALLOCATIONS
PARTY CURRENT
AGREEMENT COST
ALLOCATION NEW AGREEMENT
COST
ALLOCATION
Alameda 3.97% 4.42%
Alameda County 11.82% 10.76%
Albany 1.00% 1.85%
Berkeley 4.87% 5.13%
Dublin 2.50% 3.42%
Emeryville 1.00% 1.69%
Fremont 15.92% 14.03%
Hayward 11.05% 10.14%
Livermore 5.65% 6.09%
Newark 2.69% 3.45%
Oakland 21.58% 18.51
Piedmont 1.00% 1.80%
Pleasanton 5.12% 5.64%
San Leandro 4.82% 5.15%
Union City 5.02% 5.31
District 1.00% 1.30%
Zone 7 1.00% 1.30%
Total 100% 100%
Page 3 of 5
The proposed revisions to the Agreement would increase the City of Dublin's contribution from
2.50% to 3.42%. From FY 2006/07 to FY 2009/10, the ACCWP program costs were
approximately $1,800,000 per year. From FY 2010/11 through FY 2015/16, the ACCWP
program costs increased to $2,005,000 as a result of the new requirements in the MRP. In FY
2010/11 and 2011/12, ACCWP had adequate fund balance reserves to offset the increase in
the program costs for these fiscal years, such that there were no impacts to the member
agencies' contributions. However, starting in FY 2012/13, the member agencies will be paying
their full proportionate share in accordance with the revised calculated cost allocations.
Therefore, the City of Dublin's contribution will increase from $43,645 in FY 2011/12 to $68,571
in FY 2012/13.
The Current Agreement requires atwo-thirds affirmative vote of all allocated shares. The voting
shares are equivalent to the cost allocation (how much each member agency pays). Under that
system, the largest parties have a great deal of influence and the smallest parties have very
little. For example, it would only take the votes of the largest cities in Alameda County (Oakland,
Hayward, Fremont and Alameda County) to pass new program rules or make other decisions
since they pay the largest cost share. However, many issues the Program considers are not
related to the expenditure of funds and smaller agencies may have more significant concerns
regarding some issues than the larger agencies. To address this issue, the Management
Committee is recommending that, for most issues, the voting requirement be changed to a
simple majority vote of the Parties to the New Agreement. However, adoption of the Program
budget and changes to the New Agreement would require an affirmative vote of both a majority
of the parties to the New Agreement and a majority of allocated votes based upon the new cost
allocation (50% of the member agencies and 50% of the allocated costs).
Proposal to Allow Any Party or Outside Contractor to Provide Program Management
Services
District staff has provided management services to the Program since its inception. The
Management Committee anticipates that District staff will continue to provide management
services to the Program for the foreseeable future. However, considering the resource and
staffing constraints currently faced by local governments, the Management Committee
recommends providing other options in the event that the District is unable to provide
management services in the future or if the Management Committee determines a change is
necessary or desirable. The new agreement allows the Management Committee to select
another party or outside contractor to act as Program Manager in the event the District is not
able to continue providing program management services or if the Management Committee
determines a change is necessary or desirable.
Page 4 of 5
Proposal to Allow any Party to the Agreement to Act as Fiscal Agent
The District has been the fiscal agent for the Program since its inception. The Management
Committee anticipates that the District will continue to act as the fiscal agent for the foreseeable
future. However, considering the resource and staffing constraints currently faced by local
governments, the Management Committee recommends providing other options in the event
that the District is unable to or no longer desires to act as fiscal agent in the future, or if the
Management Committee determines a change is necessary or desirable. For example, if
another party takes on providing program management services, it may be more cost effective
to have the same party act as the fiscal agent.
Establish a New 15-year Term:
The new Agreement proposes to establish a new 15-year term. Each time that the Agreement is
amended, it needs to be approved by two-thirds of the member agencies. The purpose of the
long term is to minimize the need for cities to take the Agreements to their respective City
Councils to receive approval simply to extend the agreement term.
Improve the Clarity by Adopting a New Agreement
The Current Agreement is a combination of several previous Agreements. Each revision to the
Current Agreement refers back to these previous agreements and fails to adequately update the
Current Agreement. This has resulted in a lack of clarity in the Current Agreement. Adoption of a
new stand-alone agreement that is current in its provisions would allow the member agencies to
look to one agreement and its appendices regarding all operations of the Program. This New
Agreement would supersede all prior agreements.
The New Agreement includes additional changes including the following: incorporates the new
name of the Program (Clean Water Program Alameda County); refers to the most recent Basin
Plan and NPDES permits; eliminates reference to outdated funding commitments; clarifies
Program invoicing and termination procedures; establishes a 15-year term for the New
Agreement; clarifies and modifies procedures for a Party to terminate participation in the New
Agreement; updates duties of the Parties; and, clarifies that Management Committee approval
of a report submittal to the Regional Water Board is approved by all Parties.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving the Memorandum of Agreement with the
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***********
APPROVING ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Agreement to implement the County's Urban Runoff Clean Water
Program was initially adopted in 1991 by all of the 14 cities within the County, Alameda County,
the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and Zone 7 Water
Agency; and
WHEREAS, the current Agreement created the County Urban Runoff Clean Water
Program as a method for each member agency to apply for the required municipal storm water
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and to work collaboratively in
implementing a number of permit requirements that could be done more cost-effectively as a
group; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement was amended in 1997, 2001 and 2003; and
WHEREAS, in October 2009, the Regional Water Board reissued a permit covering
Alameda County in addition to 56 other storm water dischargers throughout the San Francisco
Bay Region. This permit is referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit or MRP; and
WHEREAS, in general, the new Agreement accomplishes the following objectives:
1. Improve equity by making changes in the allocation of Program costs and voting
shares;
2. Increase flexibility of the Program's operations by allowing Parties other than the
District to take on the role of program manager and fiscal agent;
3. Establish a new 15-year term starting July 1, 2012;
4. Improve the clarity by adopting a new stand-alone agreement that incorporates
changes described above as well as a number of minor additional changes to reflect
current changes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed new Agreement must be approved by the governing bodies of
Parties representing two-thirds or more of the votes as allocated under the agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin
hereby approves the Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, providing for the implementation
of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and authorizes the Mayor to execute the
Agreement.
Attachment 1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of May, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
Attachment 1
AGREEMENT
PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into by and bet~yeen the ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of
California: Zone 7 of ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of California: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a subdivision of
the State of California: CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California: CITY
OF ALBANY, a municipal corporation of the State of California: CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal
corporation of the State of California: CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal corporation of the State of
California: CITY OF EMERYVILLE, a municipal corporation of the State of California: CITY OF
FREMONT, a municipal corporation of the State of California: CITY OF HAYWARD, a municipal
corporation of the State of California: CITY OF LIVERMORE, a municipal corporation of the State of
California: CITY OF NEWARK, a municipal corporation of the State of California: CITY OF
OAKLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of California: CITY OF PIEDMONT, a municipal
corporation of the State of California: CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal corporation of the State of
California: CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; and CITY OF
UNION CITY, a municipal corporation of the State of California.
All of the above-mentioned entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as "PARTIES" or individually
as `PARTY."
RECITALS:
A. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (hereinafter "Basin Plan"),
adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
(hereinafter "Regional Water Board"), in implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act, and the
Municipal Regional Stonmyater NPDES Permit (hereinafter `NPDES Permit") required that the
PARTIES develop a program to control the discharge of pollutants from urban runoff in the
Alameda County area.
B. In furtherance of their responsibilities pursuant to the Basin Plan and the applicable NPDES
Permit, the PARTIES have previously entered into a series of agreements to jointly fund the costs
of preparing an action plan to evaluate nonpoint source pollutants, monitor indentified pollutants,
and develop control measures to mitigate or reduce the discharge of pollutants. Collectively, the
measures undertaken pursuant to the previous agreements and anticipated to continue pursuant to
this Agreement and upon eiecution of this agreement henceforth shall continue to be lcno~yn as
the Alameda County-~yide Clean Water Program (hereafter "the Program"). The Program
contains elements that provide a general benefit to the PARTIES (such as monitoring, public
education, staff training, program administration, etc.). In addition to the Program elements, each
Party has the responsibility to implement permit requirements ~yithin its jurisdiction. Activities
carried out by a Party may include but are not limited to municipal operations and maintenance,
construction site inspections and enforcement, commercial and industrial inspection and
enforcement, illicit and illegal connection inspections, and implementation of ne~y development
and redevelopment treatment requirements.
C. In 1987 Congress added Section 402 (p) to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
Section 1342 (p), ~yhich requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for
certain storim~ ater discharges from municipal separate storm se~~ er systems, stonm~ ater
discharges associated ~~ith industrial activity (including construction activity), and designated
stonm~ ater discharges, ~~ hich are considered significant contributors of pollutants to ~~ aters of the
United States.
D. Previous agreements have been eiecuted bet«een the PARTIES for the administration of the
Program, and it is the intention of the PARTIES that this Agreement supersedes all prior
agreements. In and for the mutual interests of the PARTIES, the PARTIES desire to continue the
Program and to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of ensuring continued participation, in
terms of cost and administrative responsibilities, and to make certain updates and procedural
revisions to facilitate implementation of the Program in compliance ~~ ith the NPDES Permit.
E. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (hereinafter "the District")
and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (hereinafter
"Zone 7") are local public agencies of the State of California duly organized, existing and
empo« ered to conserve «ater and to provide maintenance and flood control management of the
~~ ater courses and have the authority to control the discharge of surface ~~ aters to their facilities.
The County of Alameda and all the cities herein are political subdivisions of the State of
California ~~ ith authority to control the discharge of surface ~~ aters from their respective
jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Alameda County-~~ ide Clean Water Pro~rasn
1.01 The Alameda County~~ ide Clean Water Program is hereby continued (hereinafter "the
Program") to assist the PARTIES to fulfill the requirements of NPDES Permit No. CAS612008
as it exists, may be modified, or may be reissued in the future (hereinafter `NPDES Permit").
1.02 The Program is a collective effort and implementation of area-~~ ide activities, designed to
benefit all PARTIES.
Section 2. Management Committee
2.01 A Management Committee shall provide overall Program direction and coordination. The
Management Committee shall revie~~ and adopt an annual budget.
2.02 The Management Committee may, as necessar<-, adopt and revise Byla~~ s for its governance.
2.03 The Management Committee shall consider NPDES Permit compliance, including benefit to a
majority of the PARTIES, as a primar<- objective in approving Program tasks and corresponding
budgets.
2.04 Management Committee members, and their alternates, shall be appointed by the City Manager
or the equivalent of the respective PARTIES and a confirming letter sent to the Program
Manager. The voting membership of the Management Committee shall consist of one designated
voting representative from each PARTY. Alternate voting representatives may be appointed by
each PARTY.
2.05 Each PARTY to this Agreement is assigned a "Proportional Vote" in proportion to the Cost
Allocation in Eihibit A.
2.06 A quorum for the conduct of business by the Management Committee shall be a majority (50%
plus one) of the voting PARTIES to the Agreement. The Proportional Vote allocated to a
PARTY shall not be considered in the determination of a quorum.
2.07 The PARTIES shall continue to utilize the Program's preferred approach of achieving consensus
to resolve issues and reach decisions and to rely on a simple majority vote (50% plus one) for all
decisions requiring a vote, eicept for changes to the Agreement (including changes to the Cost
Allocation) and approval of the Annual Budget. Approval of Annual Budgets require both an
affirmative vote by a majority of the PARTIES and an affirmative vote by PARTIES representing
more than 50% of the Proportional Votes. Changes to the Agreement require an affirmative vote
by a majority of the PARTIES, an affirmative vote by PARTIES representing more than 50% of
the Proportional Votes of the PARTIES, and the approval by the governing bodies of the
PARTIES representing both a majority of the PARTIES and more than 50% of the Proportional
Votes of the PARTIES.
2.08 Management Committee approval is required prior to any Program eipenditure by the Fiscal
Agent or any other PARTY to this Agreement.
2.09 Approval by the Management Committee of a motion to submit a report to the Regional Water
Board or the State Water Board ~~ i11 be considered a submittal on behalf of all PARTIES unless a
PARTY notifies the Management Committee in ~~riting that it does not ~~ish the report to be
submitted on its behalf.
Section 3. Program Budget Cost Allocation
3.01 The PARTIES shall each pay a yearly contribution into a fund established for Program
operations.. Each PARTY's contribution shall be based upon the cost allocation in Exhibit A.
The cost allocation in Exhibit A shall remain in effect unless and until a revised cost allocation is
adopted through an amendment to the Agreement.
3.02 Invoices for payment of Program cost allocations ~~i11 be sent out by July 30 of each year. If
payment has not been received by the Fiscal Agent by September 30, a notice of non-payment
~~ i11 be mailed to the PARTY. If payment has not been received ~~ ithin 60 days of the notice of
non-payment, the PARTY ~~ i11 receive notice that their participation in the Program ~~ i11 be
terminated effective 30 da~-s from the notice of termination.
Section 4. Fiscal Agent
4.01 DISTRICT shall serve as the initial Fiscal Agent for the Program. If the District, or another
Fiscal Agent, decides to relinquish the role of Fiscal Agent, the Fiscal Agent ~~ i11 notify the
Management Committee prior to December 30 and ~~i11 continue to act as Fiscal Agent until June
30 of the follo~~ ing year. In the event that the District or another Fiscal Agent ~~ ithdra~~ s from
the Program or from providing Fiscal Agent services to the Program, the Management Committee
~~ i11 then select a ~~ filling PARTY as Fiscal Agent to serve commencing July 1.
4.02 If the Management Committee decides to select a ne~~ Fiscal Agent, the Management Committee
~~ fill notifi- the Fiscal Agent prior to December 30`i' that another entity ~~ fill become the ne~~ Fiscal
Agent as ofthe follo~~ing July 1~`.
4.03 The Fiscal Agent shall be the treasurer of Program funds. The Fiscal Agent, in accordance ~~ith
generally accepted accounting procedures, shall keep the Program funds segregated from any
other funds administered by the Fiscal Agent: shall credit the Program ~~ith appropriate interest
income earned on Program funds in each fiscal year; and shall not expend any funds except in
accordance ~~ ith the annual budget approved by the Management Committee or as othert~ ise
directed by the Management Committee.
4.04 The Fiscal Agent ~~i11 provide a proper accounting of funds and reports of all receipts and
disbursements. The Fiscal Agent shall eiecute contracts and process invoices in a timely manner.
The Fiscal Agent may be reimbursed for reasonable eipenses associated ~~ith oversight of
Program accounts ~~ith the agreement of the Management Committee. In addition, a PARTY to
this Agreement, pursuant to the direction of the Management Committee, may let and administer
approved consultant contracts on behalf of the Program. Any PARTY to this Agreement ~~ho is
administering a contract for the Program (Contracting Agent) shall be compensated for its
services and/or contract costs as agreed to in advance by the Management Committee. All
consultant contracts ~~ i11 contain hold harmless and indemnity provisions and insurance
requirements for the benefit of all PARTIES.
Section 5 Pro~rasn Management
5.01 The District shall serve as the initial Program Manager for the Program. If the District, or another
Program Manager, decides to relinquish the role of Program Manager, the Program Manager ~~ i11
notifi- the Management Committee at least 90 days prior to their termination of Program
Management services.
5.02 The Management Committee may select a ~~ filling PARTY or outside contractor to act as Program
Manager. If the Management committee decides to select a ne~~ Program Manager, the
Management Committee ~~ fill notifi- the current Program Manager at least 90 days prior to the
termination of the current Program Manager's services.
5.03 The Program Manager shall be responsible for Program management and administration, and
technical program management in accordance ~~ith the PARTIES' NPDES Permit and as directed
by the Management Committee. The Program Manager shall be paid from Program funds in
accordance «ith the adopted Program budget.
Section 6. Duties of the PARTIES
6.01 In addition to the participation in the Management Committee, the PARTIES accept and agree to
perform the follo~~ ing duties:
1. Each ~~ fill authorize a representative to reapply for an NPDES Permit at the appropriate
time as co-applicant ~~ ith the other PARTIES:
2. Each ~~ fill comply ~~ ith its applicable identified portion of Program implementation;
3. Each ~~ fill select a representative to participate in Management Committee meetings and
other required meetings of the PARTIES as set forth in subsection 2.04 above:
4. Each ~~ fill fund and implement its share of the Program;
5. Each has the responsibility to implement permit requirements ~~ ithin its jurisdiction.
6.02 This Agreement does not restrict the PARTIES from the ability to individually (or collectively)
request NPDES Pernit modifications and/or initiate NPDES Pernit appeals or related actions
relating to permit provisions to the ei-tent that a provision affects an individual Party (or group of
PARTIES).
Section 7. Tenn of Agreement
4
7.01 The term of this Agreement shall commence upon eiecution by the PARTIES and terminate on
June 30, 2027. The cost allocation in Eihibit A shall become effective starting July 1, 2012, so
that costs are allocated based on one amount for the fiscal near.
7.02 Any PARTY may terminate its participation in this Agreement by giving the Chair of the
Management Committee at least ninety (90) days ~~ ritten notice. The terminating PARTY ~~ i11
bear the full responsibility for its compliance ~~ith the NPDES Permit commencing on the date it
terminates its participation. Unless the termination is scheduled to be effective at the close of the
fiscal year in ~~hich the notice is given, termination shall constitute forfeiture of all the
terminating PARTY's share of the Program Budget, for the fiscal year in ~~hich the termination
occurred (both paid and obligated but unpaid amounts). The Management Committee shall
recalculate the cost allocations for the remaining PARTIES accordingly for the follo~~ing fiscal
year by the PARTIES ~~ ithout the ~~ ithdra~~ ing PARTY's participation.
Section 8. General Leal Provisions
8.01 This Agreement may be amended from time to time by an_affirnative vote of the PARTIES and
an affirmative vote of the governing bodies of the PARTIES as specified in Section 2.07..
8.02 This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreement among all the PARTIES regarding the
Program, but does not supersede any other agreements bet« een any of the PARTIES.
8.03 This Agreement may be eiecuted and delivered in any number of copies ("counterpart") by the
PARTIES, including by means of facsimile. When each PARTY has signed and delivered at
least one counterpart to the Program, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and, taken
together, shall constitute one and the same Agreement, ~~hich shall be binding and effective as to
the PARTIES hereto.
8.04 No PARTY shall, by entering into this Agreement, participating in the Management Committee,
or agreeing to serve as Fiscal Agent, Contracting Agent and/or Program Manager assume or be
deemed to assume responsibility for any other PARTY in complying ~~ ith the requirements of the
NPDES Permit. This Agreement is intended solely for the convenience and benefit of the
PARTIES hereto and shall not be deemed to be for the benefit of any third party and may not be
enforced by any third party, including, but not limited to, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Board, and
private non-governmental organizations, or any person acting on their behalf of in their stead.
8.05 It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, each PARTY
("indemnitor") shall, to the ei-tent permitted by la~~, defend, indemnifi- and save harmless each
other PARTY, and its officers, employees, volunteers, and contractors from all claims, suits or
actions of evert- name, kind and description resulting from indemnitor's performance of this
Agreement, excluding any injuries, death, damage or liability resulting from the gross negligence
or ~~ illful misconduct of the other PARTIES or their officers or employees.
[remainder of page intentionally blank]
EXHIBIT A
AGENCY COST
ALLOCATION
Alameda 4.42%
Alameda County 10.76%
Albany 1.85%
Berkeley 5.13%
Dublin 3.42%
Emeryville 1.69%
Fremont 14.03%
Hayward 10.14%
Livermore 6.09%
Newark 3.45%
Oakland 18.51
Piedmont 1.80%
Pleasanton 5.64%
San Leandro 5.15%
Union City 5.31%
District 1.30%
Zone 7 1.30%
Total* 100%
'~ Sum equals 9999% due to rounding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have eiecuted this Agreement on the dates
hereafter set forth.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political
subdivision of the State of California
B~
President, Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DONNA ZIEGLER
County Counsel
B~:
Deputy
Date
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury
that the President of the Board of
Supervisors was duly authorized to execute
this document on behalf of the County of
Alameda by a majority vote of the Board on
and that a copy has
been delivered to the President as provided
by Government Code Section 25103.
Attest:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors, County
of Alameda, State of
California
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
a local public agency of the State of California
B~
President, Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM
DONNA R. ZIEGLER
County Counsel
B~:
Deputy
Date
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury
that the President of the Board of
Supervisors was duly authorized to execute
this document on behalf of the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District by a majority vote of
the Board on ,and that a
copy has been delivered to the President as
provided by Government Code Section
25103.
Attest:
Clerk, Board of Supervisors,
Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District
7
ZONE 7 OF ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State
of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney
By
Chair, Board of Directors
Date
ATTEST:
Secretar<-, Board of Directors
CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date
City Attorney ATTEST:
CITY OF ALBANY, a municipal corporation
of the State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
10
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF BERKEYLEY, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
11
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal corporation
of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
12
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF EMERYVILLE, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
13
CITY OF FREMONT, a municipal corporation
of the State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
14
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF HAYWARD, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
15
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF LIVERMORE, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
16
CITY OF NEWARK, a municipal corporation
of the State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
17
CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation
of the State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
18
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF PIEDMONT, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
19
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
20
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
21
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF UNION CITY, a municipal
corporation of the State of California
By
Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
22