Gran Jurado del Condado de Yolo
2018-2019
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (4)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F3:
Over the last four years, RD 537 and 900, City, and YLAFCo failed to
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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. Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. The earliest possible date the RD 537 and RD 900 boundary changes will take effect is July 1, 2020. Currently, LAFCo has the MSR for the reclamation districts scheduled for fiscal year 2023/24. Therefore, the current schedule would provide for an MSR three years after the boundary changes would occur. LAFCo reviews this schedule every year at a minimum or anytime as needed and can assess if an earlier review is warranted.
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. Response: We disagree wholly with this finding. The Report expresses confusion about the modification from the December 7, 2017, Draft Municipal Services Review (MSR), which provided two options for reorganizing the RDs' structure, to the February 22, 2018 Final MSR, which recommended the subsidiary district option1. Although the Grand Jury and the RDs may disagree with the Commission’s
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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 4 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. Response: This recommendation has been implemented by LAFCo. Notwithstanding the response to Finding F9, at its August 22, 2019 meeting LAFCo adopted a new Yolo LAFCo Project Policy 6.13 as follows: 6.13 Independent Third-Party Analysis One of LAFCo’s purposes is to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies in each county and to shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities. During the preparation of an MSR and/or SOI, LAFCo may consider obtaining any needed analysis or studies by soliciting or hiring consulting services.
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. Response: We disagree wholly with this finding, and believe it misses the point. While LAFCo is definitely concerned about the issue of cost, its main focus in matters such as this where public safety is involved is determining which entity will provide the most 1 See Grand Jury Report p. 1 (stating it is “impossible to determine why the consolidation option that was in the 2017 Draft report was removed before the 2018 Final report was published”); id. p. 11 (“[I]t cannot be determined who made this change or why it was changed.”); id. p. 13 (“[T]he Grand Jury [is] unclear of how YLAFCo selected one option over the other.”); Finding 5 (“LAFCo 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.”). 2 effective delivery of services over the long term. The Commission requested additional information regarding cost and liability, however its recommendation on governance did not hinge on these factors. A full analysis of potential cost savings or liability is not required per Government Code Section 56430, which states: 56430(a) “The Commission shall prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (2) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. (3) Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. (4) Financial ability of agencies to provide services. (5) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. (6) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. (7) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy.” 56430(b) “The commission may assess various alternatives for improving efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery within and contiguous to the sphere of influence, including, but not limited to, the consolidation of governmental agencies.” While costs savings or the issue of liability are relevant considerations, LAFCo deemed the information provided to be sufficient for the purposes of making a recommendation on governance for the municipal service review. Cost issues were further evaluated in the July 25, 2019 staff report on the competing proposals subsequent to issuance of the Grand Jury Report.
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. Response: We disagree wholly with this finding. LAFCo’s fee schedule provides a mechanism to pay for such an examination as follows, “Any additional expenses incurred by the Commission, in excess of the deposited amount, will be billed to and paid by the applicant before completion of the LAFCo proceedings, including final recordation and filings.” This includes any additional studies or analysis deemed necessary by LAFCo. A formal procedure is not required for third-party examination to occur. The Commission saw no need in this case to request a third party 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 3 practices. YLAFCo did not create the appearance of exercising due diligence in meeting its responsibilities to the community. Response: We disagree wholly with this finding. Please see the response to Finding F5. The Grand Jury Report confuses the difference between an MSR recommendation versus a change of organization decision. LAFCo’s MSR action was a recommendation, not a decision. A full examination of cost and liability was provided as part of the actual reclamation district reorganization proposal decision process, which was considered at a LAFCo public hearing on July 25, 2019 (i.e. the hearing that actually approved the reorganization as opposed to merely a recommendation), subsequent to the issuance of the Report on June 28, 2019. The Grand Jury Report made this finding without the benefit of the exhaustive analysis and due diligence provided in the 200-page staff report and attachments found on LAFCo’s website here.
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. Response: We disagree partially with this finding. While it is factually accurate that LAFCo took longer than five years to publish its MSR, LAFCo MSRs are not written in a vacuum and it was determined by the Commission during its Annual Work Plan items each year it was valuable to delay the MSR so the Yolo County Flood Governance Study could be completed by the UC Davis Collaboration Center first because it would critically inform LAFCo’s MSR. The UC Davis study was completed in 2014, and reviewed and adopted by the Department of Water Resources in 2015. LAFCo appropriately began its MSR/SOI process in FY 2015/16. In addition, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the timing of the MSR has had any effect on mistrust and disagreements. The law affords LAFCo the flexibility to perform the reviews on such a schedule. See Gov. Code § 56425(g) (“[E]very five years thereafter, the commission shall, as necessary, review and update each sphere of influence.”) (emphasis added). Since this statement appears to be an opinion and speculation, the language of the Grand Jury Report should have been modified accordingly. GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS (R)
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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). Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it already exists. LAFCo’s fee schedule already provides a mechanism to pay for such an examination as follows, “Any additional expenses incurred by the Commission, in excess of the deposited amount, will be billed to and paid by the applicant before completion of the LAFCo proceedings, including final recordation and filings.” This includes any additional studies or analysis deemed necessary by LAFCo.
R7:
By January 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should lead the creation of a multiagency 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. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis by Yolo County. This year, Yolo County reinitiated FloodSAFE Yolo 2.0, a coordinated comprehensive flood management planning effort for the west side of the county. One of the goals is to establish a sustainable governance structure. Once that is established, it may offer an opportunity for greater coordination, but for now, it is the desire of the parties involved to start with a smaller area and demonstrate success before expanding. Should, however, the cities express interest in a countywide approach in the near term, LAFCo’s understanding is the County stands ready to participate. Meanwhile, many agencies and stakeholders in Yolo County, including the County, participate in the following flood coordination groups: 5 Westside Sacramento Integrated Regional Water Management (Lake, Solano, Napa and Yolo counties with Yolo County chairing the effort) Lower-Sacramento/Delta North Regional Flood Management Planning Group (Yolo and Solano counties, Reclamation District 2068/2098, WSAFCA, SAFCA, Solano County Water Agency) Central Valley Flood Control Association (50+ reclamation districts, 6 counties and 4 flood control agencies; Yolo County holds a seat on the Board) Central Valley Ag Floodplain Task Force Executive Committee Water Resources Association of Yolo County (County, all cities within Yolo County and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation) 6
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
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. WSAFCA agrees with Finding F1.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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. WSAFCA has taken steps to establish clear, open lines of communication with its local, state and federal flood control partners. See WSAFCA's response to Findings 2 above. Additionally, WSAFCA meets regularly with our state partner to coordinate implementation of both local-led flood projects as well as the federal flood project. WSAFCA also leads an active stakeholder flood protection committee in Yolo County, the planning team for the Lower Sacramento River/ Delta North Region, funded by DWR. Yolo County is a member of that group, along with Solano County and SAFCA.
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. WSAFCA disagrees with Finding F2. Agency staff meets regularly with the USACE, DWR, CVFCB and SAFCA as part of the Oversight Management Group to coordinate flood control project implementation in the Sacramento Region. This monthly coordination meeting is unprecedented with regard to federal flood control projects and has been in place for over two years. Based in part through this coordination, WSAFCA effectively: executed a Credit MOU with the USACE for work on the Southport Levee Project (up to $130 million federal investment value); secured $400,000 in FY2019 federal appropriations; and secured a recommendation of $400,000 in the FY 2020 President's Budget. WSAFCA has also secured approximately $161 million in state funding for flood projects in advance of federal funding.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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. Since 2006, WSAFCA utilized the City of West Sacramento Lobbyist for a coordinated lobbying effort on federal priorities, including flood protection. Starting in Aug 2019, WSAFCA retained Federal Water Consulting as an additional, and separate, lobbyist specializing and focused solely on federal flood control funding and federal project implementation. Sincerely, Kenric Jameson WSAFCA General Manager Enclosure cc: Yolo County Grand Jury Foreperson RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT The governance of responses to the Grand Jury Final Report is contained in Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Responses must be submitted within 60 or 90 days. Elected officials must respond within sixty (60) days, governing bodies (for example, the Board of Supervisors) must respond within ninety (90) days. Please submit all responses in writing and digital format to the Presiding Judge and the Grand Jury Foreperson. Report Title: "Missed Funding Opportunities: West Sacramento Flood Control Projects" Response by: WSAFCA Board
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. WSAFCA partially disagrees with Finding F3. The West Sacramento Project BCR was in fact recalculated from 1.2 to 2.2 and was approved in May 2018. That resulted in the West Sacramento Project receiving $400,000 in federal funding in the FY2019 USACE Work Plan and recommended in the FY 2020 Presidents' Budget for an additional $400,000 of federal funding. Regarding a lack of expertise in the nuances of flood procurement, the Agency retained additional expertise in this area. See response to recommendation R2 below.
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. WSAFCA disagrees with Finding F4. There is no increased flood risk on the Yolo County side of the Sacramento River. In fact, the flood risk will be reduced because a portion of SAFCA's project currently in design widens the Sacramento Bypass thereby reducing flood stages on the Sacramento River.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.