Reclamation District 799 (Hotelikiss Tract)*

R4

After identifying the necessary funding, reclamation districts should consider adding a "training module" for new and re-elected Board members to their required governance training (i.e. Brown Act and Ethics). This "module" or session should cover the district's levee regulations and protocols, the consequences of noncompliance with regulations and protocols, flood preparedness, and emergency response training - or at a minimum a "back to basics" session with the consulting engineer to cover these concerns. The recommendation requires further analysis. While this District does not have a formal "training module" for new and re-elected trustees, staff (including legal and engineering staff) strives to provide each and every trustee with the information necessary to allow them to serve this District to the highest ability possible. The creation of formal "training module" will likely take significant staff time and be quite costly to the District. This District has very limited staff and it is more likely that the creation of this document will take place over several years.

R5

Reclamation districts should formalize, or at a minimum, document, all "Mutual Aid" agreements for future reference as reclamation district personnel change over time. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As noted earlier, this District is currently working towards formalizing a "Mutual Aid" agreement with several neighboring districts. Once the agreement has been finalized, a master file will be created for future reference. Further comments: All of the recommendations are, indeed, constructive and valid. However, the cavalier manner in which all of these recommendations are prefaced ("After identifying the necessary funding...") is extremely frustrating and troubling. The Achilles heel of all reclamation districts, not to mention most public agencies and districts, is the procurement of adequate funding. We are all faced with similar burdensome limitations of acquiring funding and must prioritize the most prudent usage of our scarce funds. After the most rudimentary necessities are covered, assuming they can be covered, there are simply no meaningful residual monies left. :.... Rather than expressing recommendations that require the expenditure of non-existent funds, would it not be more relevant to recommend and assist the reclamation districts with creative and innovative methods to identify, pursue, and procure these "necessary funding" mechanisms? Perhaps the Grand Jury would be more useful to the reclamation districts survival and effectiveness by exerting their influence and stature in an effort to expedite and/or streamline the subvention reimbursement process. The findings of this lengthy and costly study may be eye opening to the uninformed, however, these findings are nothing new or revolutionary to reclamation district staff, board members, or stakeholders. These chronic and nagging issues are well known and are the genesis of constant frustration within reclamation district operations for decades. Rather than "telling us what we already know", this District implores the Grand Jury to re-direct their focus and funding towards helping every reclamation district to remain viable. This focus and re-direction should be channeled towards a shake-up at the top levels of governmental funding decisions. More outreach, communication, and hands on filed visits by all applicable levee governance agencies is drastically needed. As stated earlier, the subventions payment structure, which is the life blood of all reclamation districts, needs to be streamlined, clarified, and expedited. Quarterly or bi- annual reimbursements would help to alleviate day to day cash flow burdens that hamstring daily reclamation district operations. The power, objectivity, respect, and reputation of the Grand Jury's findings may be used to leverage and influence the current status quo that all reclamation districts struggle to operate within.