Laserfiche WebLink
7.B. - Page 36 of 42 <br />Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency <br />FAQ <br />leverage Federal and State Funding, and legal authority were used to select the recommended <br />governance structure. <br />9. What governance options were ruled out? <br />• MOUs will be used for new projects, but they would not provide the range of functions <br />proposed for the new agency. <br />• A new special district does not provide any advantage over a modified County FCD and could not <br />incorporate work funded by pre -Prop 13 revenue within existing FCD. It would likely take longer <br />to form and encounter greater political resistance in Sacramento. <br />• Modifying the C/CAGJPA would require modifications to the existing JPA, would need to include <br />all 21 agencies in the county from the beginning and would represent a significant shift in the <br />focus of the agency to include design, construction and maintenance of flood and sea level rise <br />improvements. <br />• Using San Mateo Public Works Department is not a viable option. The Department currently <br />manages the flood resiliency projects and the existing FCD. It can provide implementation of <br />projects for a new agency. However, governance would need to remain the Board of Supervisors <br />which would not likely be supported by some cities. It would not be feasible to modify the <br />governance structure to include city partners. <br />• Forming a new JPA would take a significant amount of time to draft the agreement and obtain <br />support from local agencies. It would not be as effective in developing a reliable on-going <br />revenue stream and bonding for projects could be more complicated. Pre -Prop 13 revenue to <br />the Flood Control District could not be transferred to JPA. <br />10. What is the recommended governance structure? <br />The Staff Advisory Team (SAT) supports modifying the existing San Mateo FCD through legislation to <br />include flooding, SLR, coastal erosion and stormwater infrastructure in its mission. The <br />recommended legislation to move governance from the Board of Supervisors to a City/County Board <br />removes one of the largest drawbacks to the FCD option. The pre -Prop 13 revenue would be <br />retained and could help fund staffing as it is related to eligible projects. MOU projects within the <br />adapted FCD would retain local agency control of projects from which they benefit. <br />Figure 1 - Proposed Governance Structure <br />Page 3 <br />228 <br />