Report 2007-108 Recommendations

When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below, is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor's assessment of auditee's response based on our review of the supporting documentation.

Recommendations in Report 2007-108: Department of Water Resources: Its Administration of Grants Under the Flood Protection Corridor Program Needs Improvement (Release Date: November 2007)

:
Recommendations to Water Resources, Department of
Number Recommendation Status
1

To provide consistency in its project selection process and to better justify its decisions on selecting future projects, Water Resources should when awarding direct-expenditure grants, select projects in a manner that allows it to justify its project rankings. One way Water Resources could achieve this would be to develop and use a consistent scoring process and use the scores as a basis for making funding decisions.

2

To provide consistency in its project selection process and to better justify its decisions on selecting future projects, Water Resources should adhere to the regulations of the flood protection program requiring a hydrologic study as part of the grant application. If Water Resources believes hydrologic studies are too costly for some grant applicants, it should consider establishing a process to obtain this information or substantial other evidence supporting its decisions before awarding grants. For example, Water Resources could use funds from the flood protection program to pay for a study after preliminary selection, before deciding whether to fund the entire project.

3

To provide consistency in its project selection process and to better justify its decisions on selecting future projects, Water Resources should for proposed projects involving land acquisitions, adhere to the regulations of the flood protection program requiring grant applicants to submit evidence of willing sellers.

4

To provide consistency in its project selection process and to better justify its decisions on selecting future projects, Water Resources should develop a rationale for determining whether scope changes are significant enough to warrant another review of a project?s merits or whether an unfunded project might be a better alternative.

5

To provide consistency in its project selection process and to better justify its decisions on selecting future projects, Water Resources should develop policies and procedures to consistently evaluate whether proposed structural and recreational enhancements conform to the goals of the flood protection program and are the most effective use of funds.

6

Water Resources should follow up with Santee to determine how the city spent its funds.

7

Water Resources should release the unspent portion of allocated funds to the city but only after Santee demonstrates it can use the funds for flood protection purposes, provides an audit report with an accounting of how the city used the $4.75 million previously disbursed, and submits a final inspection report by a registered civil engineer, as the letter of agreement with Santee requires.

8

To effectively monitor projects, Water Resources should develop policies and procedures to ensure that it receives sufficiently detailed and complete progress reports from grantees, with supporting records of expenditures, descriptions of project activities, status of budget and schedule, and key issues to resolve.

9

To effectively monitor projects, Water Resources should develop policies and procedures to ensure that it communicates to staff its expectations for conducting and documenting site visits.

10

To effectively monitor projects, Water Resources should develop policies and procedures to ensure that it establishes expectations for how often staff should communicate with grantees and develops a process to record communications consistently.

11

To effectively monitor projects, Water Resources should develop policies and procedures to ensure that it regularly updates its project budget-tracking sheets to adjust for contract amendments and changes in budgeted tasks and to accurately track funds disbursed to grantees.

12

To effectively monitor projects, Water Resources should develop policies and procedures to ensure that it withholds a percentage of payments to a grantee when appropriate and releases the funds only after it is satisfied that the project is reasonably complete.

13

To comply with reporting requirements for projects it funds under propositions 84 and 1E, and to ensure that its management is kept apprised of key issues, Water Resources should develop a process for reporting project status. This process should include regular reporting of each project?s budget and cost status, progress in meeting the goals and time schedules specified in the grant agreement, and any key events affecting the project.

14

To avoid paying more than fair market value for properties, Water Resources should, before disbursing funds, take steps to ensure that it resolves concerns about the quality of appraisals raised by its staff and General Services, when its advice is sought.



Print all recommendations and responses.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader