Staff Advisory Team Meeting #5 October 18, 2018 New Agency Proposal for San Mateo County Staff Advisory Team Meeting #5 October 18, 2018 August 2, 2018

Key Deliverables In October Flood Resiliency Flyer Supposal Review and Distribution Governance Technical Memorandum City Managers Meeting Presentation City Managers Letter

Stakeholder Outreach City Manager Meeting October 11 Jim Porter, Jim O’Toole Letter to City Managers with Elected Officials Invite City Review Meetings Scheduled November 14 and December 3 Existing Flood Resiliency Program Flyer Establishes Baseline and Identifies Successful Collaboration Highlights Sunset in June 2019 Identifies potential to leverage current program

Proposal Framework Updated Functions Matrix To Address SAT Comments Established Baseline vs. Subscription Services Continued Development of Budget Estimates Helps Define Anticipated Costs for City Review Staffing Plan, FTEs, Annual Budget

New Agency - Funding Summary Costs for a new agency in Year 1 Salaries and Benefits * Resource Conservation Specialist III (J081) Senior Civil Engineer (D064) Associate Civil Engineer (N020) Administrative Services Manager I (D045) Director (D080)   $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 ** $1,294,000 * 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 - 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 Recommendation: Option 4: Supposal provides distinct advantages

Supposal: What does it Provide? 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

Supposal: Outstanding Issues Opt In and Opt Out Provisions Estimated Cost of City Participation Timing and Requirement of City Participation Near Term vs. Long-Term Funding Sources: “Pot A and Pot B” Timing/Effort of Legislation Long-Term Financing Options Others?

Supposal Consideration What Other Advantages would a JPA Provide? Would C/CAG be a better option? What Other Advantages would a New Special District Provide? Would you support roll out of the Supposal at City Meetings in Nov/Dec? Submittal to C/CAG Water Committee in November? If not, what would you change?