Staff Advisory Team Meeting #6 November 1, 2018 New Agency Proposal for San Mateo County Staff Advisory Team Meeting #6 November 1, 2018 August 2, 2018

Key Efforts Since SAT #5 Conversion of Supposal to Draft Proposal SAT Review and Comment: Supposal SAT Review and Comment: Governance Matrix TM Re-Draft of Supposal to Narrative Discussion Continued Refinement of Staff and Budget Information Incorporation of SAT Comments received Friday Oct 27

Proposal Development and Key Comments Revised Agency Name Inclusion of Mission Statement Definition of Core vs. Subscription Services Budget and Anticipated Breakdown of Costs Pie Chart Graphics Core vs. Subscription Services Upgrade of Functions Matrix Use of an Letter of Intent or MOA Refined Roles & Responsibilities Provide Additional Detail On Agency Transition Provide additional information on Flood Control District

Proposal: Outstanding Issues Estimated Cost of City Participation Timing and Requirement of City Participation Opt In and Opt Out Provisions Key Tasks for New Agency Timing/Effort of Legislation Long-Term Financing Options Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Implementation Plan Other Outstanding Issues?

Moving Proposal Towards Endorsement Would you support roll out of the New Agency Proposal at City Meetings in Nov/Dec? Submittal to C/CAG Water Committee in November? Submittal to C/CAG Board and SMC Board of Supervisors? If not, what would you change?

Developed graphic in response to the Water Committee.

Proposed Endorsement Schedule Nov. 1:   SAT #6: New Agency Proposal Nov. 14: Part 2 City Review Meeting Nov 16:  Council of Cities Meeting Dec. 3:    Part 2 City Meetings Nov. 30: CCAG Water Committee (changed from Nov 16th) Dec. 6:    SAT #7 Endorsement Dec. 21:  CCAG Water Committee Endorsement Jan. 10:   CCAG Water Committee present to C/CAG Board Meeting for Endorsement Jan. 29:    CCAG Water Committee present to County Board Meeting for Endorsement

Communications Plan: Roadshow Jan-Apr 2019 Draft Letter of Intent or Board Resolutions Establish mechanisms for participation Schedule Series of City Council Presentations: Following C/CAG/BOS Endorsements Include Updates at City Managers Meeting Supporting Materials: New Agency Proposal, Appendix A Webpage Development: Appendix B, All Supporting Materials

Additional Backup Slides from SAT #5

New Agency - Near Term Funding Sources Funding for baseline services (i.e. Program and Project Management and leadership of MOUs) would potentially come from 3 primary sources:   County of San Mateo – (50% max per year for up to three years, proportionate share thereafter) Cities – (50% max. for first three years, proportionate share thereafter) San Mateo County Flood Control District – (Proportionate funding based on cost allocation for administration costs associated directly with New Agency work within the District)

Governance TM Analysis Option 1: Department in San Mateo County (PW, OOS) Easily implemented; BOS Governance, General Fund Option 2: Modify Existing C/CAG JPA Existing JPA and Governance Structure. JPA revision to address mission and funding. Option 3: Creation of New JPA Harder to start from scratch, but more flex in development Option 4: Modify Existing Special District: SMC Flood Existing Structure, Technical Capability, Funding. Would need to address governance. Option 5: Creation of New Special District Harder to start from scratch, carry legislation, LAFCo Recommended Option: Option 4: Supposal provides distinct advantages

Supposal Discussion: Matrix Criteria Ease of Implementation Flexibility through use of Building Block MOUs; Subscription Existing administrative structure and technical resources; Baseline Best match to mission of capital improvement projects Ability to Leverage Federal/State $ Financing Cooperative Participation by County and Cities Pre-Proposition 13 tax revenue to support administration Governance: New Board Ability to Expand: MOUs as Building Blocks, Legislation Near Term Benefits while continuing progress with MOUs Legislation Drafted Governance with New Board Permitting Relationships

Finance Options Local and Regional Public Revenue Sources State and Local Grants Federal Grants Alternative Revenue Sources

Resiliency by Design Public Finance Approaches

Resiliency by Design Public Finance Approaches GHADs EIFDs General Fund. BOS/City Councils Parcel Tax: 2/3 voter approval. Special Assessment Geological Hazard Abatement District Detailed assessment and ballot proceeding (majority landowner approval weighted by assessment +50%) Special Taxes: Community Facilities District No distinction between special/general benefits 2/3 vote, one person/one vote Discretion to create tax formula to max revenue and support Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Increment generated by increased assessment over a base year Majority Board Approval, 55% vote to issue bonds

Specific Public Revenue Approaches Near Term: General Fund. BOS/City Councils Special Assessment Geological Hazard Abatement District Detailed assessment and ballot proceeding (majority landowner approval weighted by assessment +50%) Special Taxes: Community Facilities District No distinction between special/general benefits 2/3 vote, one person/one vote Discretion to create tax formula to max revenue and support Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Increment generated by increased assessment over a base year Majority Board Approval, 55% vote to issue bonds Long-term strategy

NHA Advisors Decision Tree for Public Finance Strategies Driven By: Type of Revenue Source (taxes on land, utility rates, etc.) Number of Registered Voters (whether authorization is through land owner consent or voter consent) Number of jurisdictions involved (single/multiple jurisdictions)

NHA Advisors Decision Tree

NHA Advisors Decision Tree

Scenarios that may be applicable: Scenario 3. Multiple Private Property Owners Essentially the Measure AA Strategy. Special Tax, not ad valorem: 2/3 vote within the 9 county district, with Board Approvals Scenario 6,7,8. Public Water, Sewer, Power, Highway Users Revenue stream is utility rates approved under Prop. 218 Can use revenue for debt financing Scenarios 10 and 11. Sales Tax, Utility Users Tax, TOT Payers Sales Tax increase with a majority vote; increase in sales tax cannot be pledged to debt. Sales Tax increase with 2/3 vote. Increase in sales tax can be pledged to debt. Scenarios 12. Airport use. Can be challenging to establish direct benefit to the facility, and to bring public consensus on project Long Term Finance Strategy: TBD as part of Proposal Framework Goal 3

Other Funding Strategies State and Local Grant Programs SB 1, SB 5, Prop 1, SFBRA, SB 3 Federal Grant Programs FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Army Corps of Engineers Federal Legislation: WIIN Act Timing

New Agency - Funding Summary Costs for a new agency in Year 1 Salaries and Benefits * Resource Conservation Specialist Senior Civil Engineer Associate Civil Engineer Program Services Manager Director  $150,000 204,000 180,000 270,500 Services and Supplies   $200,000 Other Charges and finance charges $50,000 Grant writing support Consultant teams 60,000 Total ** $1,300,000 * These costs are fully loaded and do not include consultant fees. These are costs for full time staff. **Assuming a budget of 1.294 Million per year for 3 years, this could limit the new agency from scaling.

New Agency - Baseline Services Legislative Advocacy Public Engagement for Permanent Funding Identify and develop specific projects for sea level rise 2100 Staff recruitment and other agency setup activities Primary support for Flood Control District projects Support for existing MOU projects Pursuit of grant funding

50/50 Cost Share with 20 Cities Scenario #1 50/50 Cost Share with 20 Cities County County Cities Cost to County: $650,000 Cost per City: $32,500

Scenario #2 50/50 Cost Share Based on Population $100,000 Cities $50,000 County $120,000 Population # of Cities Cost per City 0 - 10,000 5 $20,000 10,001 - 20,000 2 $25,000 20,001-30,000 4 $30,000 30,000+ 9 $42,223 $650,000 $380,000

Scenario #3 50/50 Cost Share Based on Geographic Location Cities $81,250 County Type of City # of Cities Cost per City Inland 5 $16,250 Bay/Coast 15 $37,917 $650,000 $568,750

Scenario #4 50/50 Cost Share with 12 MOU Cities County Cities* Cost per City: $54,166 *Dashed lines indicate two potential MOU’s between Pacifica and Half Moon Bay between Burlingame, Millbrae, and San Bruno.

New Agency - Funding Sources Funding for baseline services (i.e. Program and Project Management and leadership of MOUs) would potentially come from 3 primary sources:   County of San Mateo – (50% max per year for up to three years, proportionate share thereafter) Cities – (50% max. for first three years, proportionate share thereafter) San Mateo County Flood Control District – (Proportionate funding based on cost allocation for administration costs associated directly with New Agency work within the District)