Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2017-2018 • Agency Response

Joint Powers Authorities

Published: August 07, 2018 17 pages
View Original PDF

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. City Response: Agree.
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
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. City Response: Partially disagree. A city may employ the lease exception to the State constitutional debt limit through a partnership with any type of joint powers authority (JPA) or another partner organization, not just a “circular JPA.” In addition, a city that assumes debt as part of a JPA would disclose that debt and associated payments through a number of channels, including its budget, comprehensive annual financial report, and ongoing disclosure requirements. Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 – (925) 671-5270 www.pleasanthillca.org
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. City Response: Partially disagree. While the Dissolution Law voided most agreements between former redevelopment agencies and their host cities, the Dissolution Law preserves the existence of joint powers authorities whose members included a former redevelopment agency. See Health & Safety Code section 34178(b).
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. City Response: Partially disagree. As noted above, a city that assumes debt as part of a JPA would disclose that debt and associated payments through a number of channels, including its budget, comprehensive annual financial report, and ongoing disclosure requirements.
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