1. 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

3. 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

4. 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

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. Developed graphic in response to the Water Committee.

11. 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

12. 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

13. Additional Backup Slides from SAT #5

14. 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)

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. Resiliency by Design Public Finance Approaches

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. NHA Advisors Decision Tree

23. NHA Advisors Decision Tree

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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 Million per year for 3 years, this could limit the new agency from scaling.

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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, ,000 2
$25,000
20,001-30,000 4
$30,000
30,000+ 9
$42,223
$650,000
$380,000

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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)