1. Staff Advisory Team Meeting #4 October 4, 2018
New Agency Proposal for San Mateo County
Staff Advisory Team Meeting #4 October 4, 2018
August 2, 2018

3. Updated Proposal Framework
Incorporated comments received by the SAT
Updated Process Diagram
Added Appendices, Provided Full Package
Developed in response to Water Agency: New Agency, or Expansion. New agency will do these goals, but the Cities will need to visualize what the agency is going to do

4. Appendix Draft Graphics
Functions Matrix: Includes scale of Primary, Secondary, and Supporting roles for each function/responsibility
Collaboration/Benefits: Functional Relationship graphic shows Agency relationships and New Agency collaboration and benefit opportunity
Questions for SAT:
Does this align with your expectation of the New Agency and it’s interrelationship with existing agencies?
Are there responsibilities that these existing agencies would be willing to take on?

7. Governance Criteria Matrix: Version 2.0
Adjusted Criteria:
Anticipated Timeframe, Removed Land Use Authority
Added Existing Agency Modification
SMC Flood Control District
C/CAG JPA Modification
San Mateo County Public Works
San Mateo County Office of Sustainability
Added additional funding mechanisms
GHAD, Community Facilities District, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Draft Criteria Matrix Review

8. Governance TM Analysis
Baseline: Existing San Mateo County Flood Resilience Program. Sunsets June 2019.
Governance Options
Option 1: Department in San Mateo County
Option 2: Modify Existing C/CAG JPA
Option 3: Creation of New JPA
Option 4: Modify Existing Special District: SMC Flood
Option 5: Create New Special District

9. Resiliency by Design Finance Approaches

10. Resiliency by Design Finance Approaches
GHADs
EIFDs

11. 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 powers 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
All of these could implement one or combination of Financing Options

12. C/GAG Briefing Report Out
C/GAG Meeting September 21st
Ellen Cross, Sandy Wong
Presented Update on:
Roadmap
Information Gathering Meetings with Cities
Proposal Framework
Governance Criteria
Water Committee Feedback
Reiterated Crisp Vision for 2100
Agency similar to SCVWD
Funding Focus: Accomplishing projects
Governance: No land use regulatory role

13. Debrief on City Information Gathering Meeting
August 30th: 10 attendees from the following cities:
September 10th: 17 attendees from the following cities:
September 18th: 27 attendees from the following cities:
Atherton
Menlo Park
Redwood City
San Carlos
Brisbane
Colma
Daly City
Hillsborough
Portola Valley
San Bruno
South San Francisco
Woodside
What level of involvement does the SAT want in these meetings? Transparency, not aligned on a new agency. vs extending
Belmont
Burlingame
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Pacifica
Millbrae
San Mateo
See handout for City’s responses to questions

14. Supposal: Background and Discussion
Bottoms up Approach: Existing and future Building Block Projects
Funding:
Acknowledges County funding expires June 30, 2019
Addresses beneficiary pays
Anticipate 50% funding from County 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 decision making vehicle
Transfers governance from Board of Supervisors to local agencies/retains control with MOUs at local level
Ease of Establishment
Leverages existing agency to initiate quickly
Expands flexibility of services and participation

16. Upcoming Meetings City Managers Meeting: October 11th
Additional SAT Meeting: October 18th
Round 2 of Information Gathering Meetings
November 14th at City of Brisbane
December 3rd at San Mateo Public Library

17. SAT Preferences New Agency vs Modify Existing Agency?
If an existing agency, how do the Cities have input? Do they need input?
What is the appropriate Decision Making?
Advisory or Discretionary Board?
Appointed or Elected
Should each of the Cities plus the County have a vote (i.e. 21 representatives),
Group of representatives (i.e. geographic, demographic)?
Preference for funding mechanism?
Assessment District, Community Facilities District, Property Related Fee: require voter approval
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District requires Board Majority Approval voter approval to issue bonds.

18. Financing Options 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