Contra Costa County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
• Agency Response
Joint Powers Authorities
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
“In the Direct JPA model, each member delegates to the JPA a function that each member has the legal authority to provide. This shared approach results in cost savings and better efficiency on behalf of taxpayers.” Response: The City of Lafayette agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
“All cities with JPAs in the County should confirm their compliance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505 by submitting the required audit report to the County Auditor by December 31, 2018.” Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. JPAs are separate legal public entities, and compliance is the responsibility of each JPA, not the City. The City is a member of several JPAs and does not have the resources to continually monitor each JPA as to its compliance.
F2
“The Circular JPAs with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have the potential to avoid legal debt limits and provide limited disclosures to taxpayer.” Response: The City of Lafayette disagrees with this finding. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a separate legal public entity as defined by the Government Code. As such, JPAs have the ability to incur their own debt separate from the municipality. The “single controlling entity”, even if made up of the same members as a City Council, still serves in a separate legal role. All meetings of JPAs are publicly noticed and comply with the Brown Act, and disclosures and audits of JPAs are made in accordance with state law.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
“In Contra Costa County, there are 12 Circular JPAs created by cities with RDAs that no longer exist. These JPAs may no longer be valid because each is a member of another Financial JPA which may take on new debt without the prohibition (Gov. Codes Sections 6505 3416/34170 et seq,) placed on Successor Agencies.” Response: The City of Lafayette disagrees with this finding. The City also does not know the structure of 3675 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210, Lafayette, CA 94549 Phone: 925.284.1968 Fax: 925.284.3169 www.ci.lafayette.ca.us each agreement referred to in this report and therefore could not provide an opinion on their validity. In the case of the City of Lafayette, the JPA created with the former Redevelopment Agency and the City is no longer valid and cannot, by law, take on any additional debt because the RDA no longer exists.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
“Cities that have created the 12 Financial JPAs do not provide JPA‐specific financial information in their budget document. As a result, the public may have difficulty evaluating JPA’s financial performance.” Response: The City of Lafayette disagrees with this finding. The debt that the City took on via the JPA between the City and the RDA is reported annually in the City’s CAFR and budget documents. The City does not have information on whether or not other cities provide similar information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
“The 11 cities that are members of a JPA associated with an RDA or their Successor Agencies should consider confirming their compliance with the provisions of Abx1.26 (Gov. Codes Sections 34177 et seq.) and report their findings and any corrective actions to the Auditor‐Controller’s office by December 31, 2018.” Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. The Auditor‐Controller does not have jurisdiction over a JPA for this purpose. The City complies with state law with respect to the responsibilities of its Successor Agency.