1. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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?

12. 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?