Conceptual Slides – Not for General Distribution Proposed Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency Stakeholder Meeting #2: Draft Proposal November 14 and December 3, 2018 SOURCE: Bay Meadows, San Mateo, 2018 Conceptual Slides – Not for General Distribution

Background of Process Round 2 City Meetings: November/December Mission, Vision and Goals Functions and Roles Definition Review of Potential Governance Structures Review of Potential Funding Mechanisms Development of Anticipated Costs Development of Proposal Role Out Materials to Support Engagement Question Answer Flyer Flood Resiliency Program Flyer New Agency Process Flyer

Governance Structure Review 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 flexibility in development Option 4: Modify Existing Special District: SMC Flood District 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: Modifying SMC Flood Control District provides distinct advantages

Draft Proposal: Key Advantages Bottom up Approach: MOUs as Building Block Projects Funding: Beneficiary pays Anticipate 50% funding from County for first 3 years Limits size of agency core services with subscription costs to moderate City’s investment Decision Making Uses MOUs for Building Block Projects as near-term decision making vehicle Transfers governance from Board of Supervisors to local agencies/MOUs at local level define city and agency roles Ease of Establishment Leverages existing agency to initiate new agreements/projects Closely aligned with FCD mission and technical capabilities Expands flexibility of services and participation

Modified SMC Flood Control District Draft Proposal: Modified SMC Flood Control District Core Services: Unified Approach to Flooding, SLR, and regional stormwater detention Subscription Services: Continued use of MOUs to provide project specific services Flood Control District: No change to FCD services Governance: (interim) MOUs to define city and agency roles & responsibilities, Appointed Board: C/CAG (6 members) and BoS (1 member) for oversight

Draft Proposal: Create Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency Legislation to Modify Existing SMC Flood control District New Governance Structure: 7 person board: 1 Supervisor, 4 City Councilmembers from specific geographic districts, 2 city council members for cities at large Long-Term Financing EIFD, GHAD, parcel tax, service tax, other

Modified FCD Services: Year 1-3 Core Services Legislative Advocacy, including legislation to modify FCD Long-Term Financing Analysis and Public Engagement Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Implementation Plan Identify/Prioritize Specific Projects Regional Stormwater Detention Agency Collaboration Subscription Services MOU Basis to Support Projects Flood Control District Continued Services: No Change Year 1 at a minimum core services and FCD.

Estimated Funding Amount (Per Year) Services Estimated Funding Amount (Per Year) Funding Source Staff (Estimated FTE) Entity Participants Subscription Services (including existing Flood Resilience Program)   $ 400k + TBD potential new MOU funding $400k – County $TBD - Entities pay to play 2 Participating cities and the County Core Services $1.0 million SMC pays $300k (plus $400k), 20 cities pay $700k 3 All 21 entities Flood Control District Services $3.8 million Per existing Flood Control District (Pre-Prop 13) Initially contracted to SMC Existing Active Flood Control District F: Colma Creek, San Bruno Creek, and San Francisquito Creek

Creating One Voice

Functions Matrix Note: This matrix is currently in draft form and is subject to change due to agency feedback.

Anticipated Budget Budget for 5 FTEs: $1.4 Million Annually Core Services $300k from SMC $700K FROM 20 cities Subscription Services $400k from SMC to continue three existing MOUs FCD Services No change. Paid for with pre-Prop 13 property tax revenue Example Estimated Contribution $1.4 Million Budget $700,000 County Contribution $700,000/20 Cities = $35,000 Different Methodologies for per City Costs Geography Based Population Based

Developed graphic In response to the Water Committee. Recommendation Developed graphic In response to the Water Committee.

Open Discussion Questions What information would be helpful to review with your Council? Do you feel the Proposal could be supported by your Council? Is there a preference between population based or geography based cost distribution methodology? Does the funding contribution seem reasonable for the services provided? Do you have enough information? Back this up with comment cards. Elected officials may not want to ask. Conceptual Slides – Not for General Distribution

Additional Slides

50/50 Cost Share Based on Geographic Location County Cities $87,500 Type of City # of Cities Cost per City Inland 5 $17,500 Bay/Coast 15 $40,833 $700,000 $612,495

50/50 Cost Share Based on Population County Cities $100,000 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 30,000-60,000 $40,000 60,001+ $55,000 $50,000 $120,000 $700,000 $200,000 $220,000

Add a arrow to coast.