Protecting Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure: Flood Risk Reduction Program Overview

1. Advisory Committee Meeting June 29, 2010 Protecting public safety, the regional economy and critical infrastructure.

2. Presentation Overview • Operating Program Overview • 2011 Proposed Expenditures and Revenues • 2011 Proposed Advisory Committee Recommendations

3. Flood Risk Reduction Approach: Identify hazards Assess risk and vulnerabilities Build awareness of hazards Develop a plan and strategy to reduce risks Actions to avoid risk Actions to reduce or mitigate risk Evaluation and adaptation Flood District Work Program Flood Preparedness, Regional Flood Warning Center, and Post Flood Recovery Planning, Grants, Mitigation, and Public Outreach Flood Hazard Assessments, Mapping, and Technical Studies Resource Management, Annual Maintenance, and Facility Monitoring + Capital Projects Flood Control District Work Program Overview

4. Efforts for Enhanced, Countywide Flood Warning and Preparation • Implemented new automated call-out system in 2009 • Provides flood warning notifications via voice mail, e-mail, text message • > Over 3,100 subscribers so far • Partnering with cities for sandbag distribution • FCD is providing materials or cash equivalent • Supports cities’ efforts and makes supplies available to unincorporated residents • Signed agreements with multiple cities in each basin

6. http://green.kingcounty.gov/FloodAlertSystem/

7. Public Outreach

8. KCFCD Planning Activities • Complete FEMA-required Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2010, adoption 7/10 • 2006 Flood Plan update • Update required January 2012 • Integrate planning documents required for Community Rating System and Disaster Mitigation Act • Provide greater clarity on key policy issues (levee certification, levee vegetation, coastal hazards) • Revenue-backed with FEMA PDM planning grant ($200,000)

9. Technical Studies • Channel Migration Studies • White River • South Fork Skykomish • Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis • Phase I – Vashon-Maury draft maps expected in summer 2010 • Phase II - $270K cooperating agreement with FEMA extends work to incorporated shorelines • Sediment Monitoring • Cost-share for Lower Puyallup (White)

10. Grants and Other External Funding • Currently managing 17 grants • Received over $7.4M in 2010 • FEMA grants, FEMA public assistance, SRFB, Conservation Futures • Capital Projects • Buyouts • Elevations • Levee setbacks • Pending Grants • Levee Vegetation (EPA) • Flood Plan Update (FEMA)

11. River Facility Inspections, Maintenance, and River Safety Source: USACE, 2010

12. 2011 Proposal Summary (Assumes current revenue levels) • $30M capital program, two ‘new starts’ ($125,000 total) • Focus on implementation of large-scale levee rehabilitation projects adopted in 2008-2010 • Respond to Advisory Committee concern regarding project deferrals and delays by completing adopted projects! • Increase capital from 9 to 13 FTEs, overall increase of 6 FTEs • Overall increase of about $750,000 from $6.5M 2010 budget • $280,000 is revenue-backed from external funding • FCD funding increase is 7% ($470K) and includes 6 addl staff, include 4 FTE for capital program • $3.6M for Jurisdictions through Subregional Opportunity Fund • Leverages $2.4M in external funds ($280,000 programs, $2.12M projects)

13. 2011 Budget Summary(Assuming Current Revenue Levels) • Expenditures ($38.3M) • $30.6M Capital projects • $7.25M Flood Risk Reduction Operating Programs • $477,000 District Administration • Revenues ($39M) • $36.3M Flood District Levy • $216,000 Interest earnings • $60,000 River Improvement and Inter-County River Funds • $2.4M Grants and external funding • Fund Balance ($3.6M) • Emergency Reserve Target is $3.5M

14. 2011 Advisory Committee Proposed Recommendations • How can the Advisory Committee provide meaningful and useful recommendations in the face of two significant sources of uncertainty? • Revenue levels contingent upon levy suppression issue • Capital program scope (beyond 2011) contingent upon coastal construction policy • Recommendations due by August 31

15. Question 1: 2011 Work Program and Budget • Does the Advisory Committee agree with the draft position statement on the 2011 budget and work program? “The Advisory Committee recommends using the staff recommendations as a placeholder for the 2011 budget process, with the expectation and understanding that the 2011 capital and operating budget assumptions will be revisited by the Advisory Committee in the first quarter of 2011 once revenue levels are determined and policy questions related to construction in marine coastal areas are resolved.”

16. Question 2: 2012-2016 Capital Program • Does the Advisory Committee agree with the draft position statement regarding the 2012-2016 capital program? “The Advisory Committee recommends that the Board request Advisory Committee input by March 31 2011 once the policy question and revenue projections are clarified…. If the Board considers expanding the scope of the capital program to fund the Seawall in all or in part, the Advisory Committee encourages the Board to explore alternative funding options such as bonding (which would require a public vote) so that the impacts on other high-priority capital projects is minimized.”

17. Question 3: • Does the Advisory Committee agree with the draft position statement on flood district revenues? • “The Board should seek full funding of the Flood District’s work program so that the integrity of the District’s work program can be maintained. • The Advisory Committee recommends that the Board consider seeking state legislative changes necessary to make Flood Control Districts a similar priority as other public safety tax levies, or seek legislative changes that would make flood districts exempt from the $5.90 levy rate cap. • The Advisory Committee encourages the Board of Supervisors to pursue all possible avenues to reduce the impacts of tax suppression on Flood District Funding.” • Contingency Plan?

18. Questions?