1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. Creating One Voice

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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. Additional Slides

15. 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

16. 50/50 Cost Share Based on Population
County
Cities
$100,000
Population
# of
Cities
Cost per City
0 - 10,000 5
$20,000
10, ,000 2
$25,000
20,001-30,000 4
$30,000
30,000-60,000
$40,000
60,001+
$55,000
$50,000
$120,000
$700,000
$200,000
$220,000

17. Add a arrow to coast.