Yolo County Grand Jury
2018-2019
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The quality and quantity of work performed by RD 537 and RD 900 met all expectations and requirements by oversight agencies for local maintaining agencies.
F2:
Whether RD 537 and RD 900 consolidate or remain separate, transparency and information for the public could be improved and expanded.
F3:
Over the last four years, RD 537 and 900, City, and YLAFCo failed to effectively collaborate and communicate.
F4:
Both reclamation districts and the City had ample opportunity to reach out to one another in numerous ways to improve communication and solve issues concerning their common goals.
F5:
YLAFCo removed the recommendation that allows for the more common option of reclamation district consolidation from the Final MSR/SOI for RD 537 and 900 for unknown reasons.
F6:
WSAFCA could better serve the citizens of the City with a larger board and the inclusion of a public member, similar to the approach taken with similar flood protection entities in other nearby counties.
F7:
It is unclear if WSAFCA can remain intact under the City’s proposals for a reclamation district governance change.
F8:
It is unclear and untested if the City’s General Fund is shielded from liability in a major flood event if the City Council becomes the board of the two local maintaining agencies.
F9:
YLAFCo did not fully examine the potential cost savings or issue of liability before recommending in the Final MSR/SOI the singular option of the reclamation districts becoming subsidiaries of the City.
F10:
YLAFCo has no internal procedure to trigger an independent, third-party examination into topics such as costs resulting from a governance change when the proposals are clearly contentious or unique. In addition, there is no mechanism to pay for such an examination.
F11:
Creating a governance change for a landowner district is fully within the authority of YLAFCo. However, YLAFCo knew its MSR decision came with “potentially significant ramifications,” yet did so in contrast to its mission statement and stated best practices. YLAFCo did not create the appearance of exercising due diligence in meeting its responsibilities to the community.
F12:
YLAFCo took much longer than the five years mandated by LAFCo law to publish an MSR/SOI for Yolo County reclamation districts (13 years) and the City (eight years). This allowed mistrust and disagreements to fester. Flood Management in the Urban Environment
F13:
Although Yolo County had flood issue committees or working groups in the past, the County has no such active committees now.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By December 31, 2019, each reclamation district website should highlight its purpose, history, and the important work done or planned, in order to improve transparency.
R2:
By October 1, 2019, General Managers for RD 537 and RD 900 should have regularly scheduled formal meetings (minimally quarterly) with the City Manager to discuss joint directives and goals.
R3:
By February 1, 2022, YLAFCo should revisit and publish the MSR/SOI for RD 537 and 900 earlier than scheduled to ensure whatever final decision in governance is made, the result is not detrimental to the functioning of flood protection.
R4:
By January 1, 2020, increase the size of the WSAFCA Board from three to seven members and include a public member.
R5:
By January 1, 2020, YLAFCo should create an internal procedure/policy to conduct an independent, third-party examination when confronted by an extremely impactful or unique issue on topics such as costs and liability, before any final recommendation is made by the YLAFCo Commission. Reliance on opinions paid for by affected parties should only be one basis for consideration. This new procedure/policy ensures due diligence, best practices, and is in the public’s best interest.
R6:
By January 1, 2020, YLAFCo should ensure a mechanism exists, if legally feasible, for funding independent, third-party examinations when considering impactful or unique proposals (such as billing the affected or impacted parties).
R7:
By January 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should lead the creation of a multi- agency and stakeholder flood committee or working group to facilitate collaboration among all Yolo County communities on all flood topics, plan for global warming flood changes, and present these discussions to the citizens. Since two Yolo County Supervisors are YLAFCo commissioners, those supervisors should present the formation of this committee to the full board.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The process for WSAFCA to secure state and federal funding for flood control projects is complicated and is an actively evolving process making it essential to have the appropriate specialists, lobbyists and consultants involved.
F2:
The potential for partnerships among agencies is readily available but communication and leadership between multiple levels of government is significantly lacking. There was a lack of effective coordination between regional, state, and federal agencies when navigating the process to secure state and federal grant funding.
F3:
WSAFCA failed to secure federal funding for two appropriation cycles because of the recalculated BCR and a lack of expertise in the nuances of flood funding procurement.
F4:
Because the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) obtained full funding to improve levees on the east side of the Sacramento River whereas WSAFCA did not, there will be an increased flood risk on the unimproved Yolo County side.
F5:
Although Yolo County had FloodSAFE Yolo in the past, the County has no active stakeholder flood protection committee now. Missed Funding Opportunities: West Sacramento Flood Control Projects
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
By October 1, 2019, WSAFCA (and by extension, the City of West Sacramento) should reinforce clear, open lines of communication with its local, state, and federal flood control partners.
R2:
By October 1, 2019, WSAFCA (and by extension, the City of West Sacramento) should build additional relationships with consultants and lobbyists with expertise in current practices who specialize in flood protection funding.
R3:
By January 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should lead the creation or reactivation of a multi-agency and stakeholder flood protection committee or working group to facilitate collaboration among all Yolo County communities on all flood topics, and to present these discussions to the citizens.