Score: -17
(13/9/30)
Contra Costa County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
A Report by the 2017-2018 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
Published: June 05, 2018
11 pages
⚠️ 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 6 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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Auditor-Controller under Health and Safety Code Sections 34182-34188.8, should consider a review of JPAs under ABx1.26 (dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the designation of Successor Agencies) by June 30, 2019 to determine any violation of the prohibition on taking on new redevelopment or debt.
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. Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Auditor-Controller should consider posting on its website all financial and organizational data received from JPAs associated with an RDA or their Successor Agency in a manner readily available to the public
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.
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
F5
The Contra Costa Auditor-Controller's office maintains information only on JPAs of which the County is a member. The County Auditor could not verify that all JPAs in the County have filed an audit in accordance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505 et seq.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
F6
LAFCO has no JPA oversight and acts as a repository only for municipal services JPAs that choose to voluntarily file. This limits LAFCO's ability to review Financial JPAs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Contra Costa County LAFCO should consider seeking funds to expand their focus to include County Financial JPAs
Agency Responses 21
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
City of Antioch
September 12, 2018
•
6 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: -2
(+1, 0, -3)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
The Bay Area Earthquake Plan of July 6, 2016, establishes operational planning and preparation criteria for each Bay Area county.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
F1. function that each member has the legal authority to provide. This shared approach results in cost savings and better efficiency on behalf of taxpayers. The City agrees with the finding.
R1
Sheriff OES should consider creating a schedule for updating the Bay Area Earthquake Plan operational annexes
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
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 Decembe
F2
The Sheriff OES is charged with planning and coordinating the County’s response to a disaster.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
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. The City disagrees with the finding. Revenue bonds issued by a JPA still have to be approved by the governing board at a public meeting that is noticed. When issuing bonds, the City of Antioch utilizes independent bond counsel and financial advisor to ensure the proposed issuance is financially feasible and done in compliance with any government codes.
F3
Sheriff OES Catastrophic Mass Care and Shelter Plan and other earthquake operational planning and preparation plans, dated 2010, do not meet the 2016 Bay Area Earthquake Plan requirements.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
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 prohibition (Gov. Codes Sections 6505 3416/34170 et. Seq,) place on Successor Agencies. Based on the list provided by the Grand Jury, there are only 11 Circular JPA's as the Grand Jury inaccurately reported that the Antioch Public Facilities Financing is between the City of Antioch . . . entitus est a territoria. time complete the second क्ष्युचे प्रमानुसम्बद्धाः स्थान् । १...
F4
EHSD is responsible for executing the Mass Care and Shelter Plan and coordinating with the American Red Cross to operate emergency shelters.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
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. The City disagrees with the finding. The City of Antioch includes a section in its budget document entitled "Antioch Public Financing Authority" for the budget information of the JPA. Information on debt repayment is also included in the budget document. As far as the Antioch Area Public Facilities Financing Agency, this is not a component unit of the City or School District and therefo...
R4
Sheriff OES should consider including shelter selection, inspection and preparation when it establishes the Emergency Operations Center for a simulated disaster as part of disaster exercises.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
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 Decembe
R5
EHSD should consider access to view the NSS list
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5. All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by Decembe
R12
The Council should consider authorizing the selection of an independent community-based animal advisory group to routinely visit the Shelter to monitor animal welfare and Shelter conditions.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
r 12, 2018 Civil Grand Jury - Foreperson 725 Court Street P.O. Box 431 Martinez, CA 94553-0091 Dear Foreperson: On behalf of the Antioch City Council, this letter responds to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report: "Joint Powers Authorities" (Report No. 1808). The City Council authorized this response at its meeting on July 24, 2018. We appreciate the time and effort that the Grand Jury spent considering these matters. The Report emphasizes the transparency and financial accountability of JPA's. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.05, the City will respond to each finding and to each ...
▶
City of Brentwood (Response #1)
September 04, 2018
•
4 pages
• 6 responses
•
Score: +2
(+2, 4, 0)
View Details ▾
6 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City agrees with the finding, although it is not aware of the savings or efficiencies, if any, realized by other JPAs that it is not a party to. Grand Jury Finding #2: 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: The City partially disagrees with the finding. The "Circular" JPAs do not "avoid legal debt limits" they are just not generally subject to them by law. Financings entered into by JPAs are generally only undertaken by the JPA for one or more of th...
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
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2018
Scheduled: within 12 months
Score: +1
This recommendation will be implemented. The Government Code of the State of California requires general law cities, such as the City of Brentwood, to have its financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant. In compliance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505, the auditor's report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018 will be filed with the County Auditor within 12 months of the end of the fiscal year. Grand Jury Recommendation #4: The 11 cities that are members of a JPA associated with an RDA or their Successor Agencies should consider confirming their compliance with th...
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: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City partially disagrees with the finding. The "Circular" JPAs do not "avoid legal debt limits" they are just not generally subject to them by law. Financings entered into by JPAs are generally only undertaken by the JPA for one or more of the JPA's members (e.g., the City) to finance one or more projects of the members. The financial arrangements or debt that one or more of the JPA's members enter into or issue to support a particular JPA debt issue will have to independently satisfy all applicable state laws (including any applicable debt limits) in order to be valid. Disclosures are mad...
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. Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City disagrees with the finding. The dissolution statute specifically recognized the continuing validity of joint exercise of powers agreements that included a RDA/Successor Agency as a member at the time of dissolution (Health and Safety Code 34178). By contract and state statute, the Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority's (BIFA's) debts are not debts of the Successor Agency and, therefore, BIFA's ability to incur debt under state law is not generally limited by the dissolution statute. However, any post-dissolution financial arrangement entered into by the Successor Agency to sup...
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: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City disagrees with the finding. The dissolution statute specifically recognized the continuing validity of joint exercise of powers agreements that included a RDA/Successor Agency as a member at the time of dissolution (Health and Safety Code 34178). By contract and state statute, the Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority's (BIFA's) debts are not debts of the Successor Agency and, therefore, BIFA's ability to incur debt under state law is not generally limited by the dissolution statute. However, any post-dissolution financial arrangement entered into by the Successor Agency to sup...
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
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
This recommendation will be implemented. The City of Brentwood has confirmed its compliance with the provisions of ABx1 26. The City will report the lack of any findings or necessary corrective actions to the Auditor-Controller's office by December 31, 2018. Grand Jury Recommendation #5: All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 2018. City Response: This recommendation will be p...
▶
City of Brentwood (Response #2)
October 25, 2018
•
5 pages
• 6 responses
•
Score: +2
(+2, 4, 0)
View Details ▾
6 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City agrees with the finding, although it is not aware of the savings or efficiencies, if any, realized by other JPAs that it is not a party to. Grand Jury Finding #2: 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: The City partially disagrees with the finding. The "Circular" JPAs do not "avoid legal debt limits" they are just not generally subject to them by law. Financings entered into by JPAs are generally only undertaken by the JPA for one or more of th...
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
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2018
Scheduled: within 12 months
Score: +1
This recommendation will be implemented. The Government Code of the State of California requires general law cities, such as the City of Brentwood, to have its financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant. In compliance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505, the auditor's report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018 will be filed with the County Auditor within 12 months of the end of the fiscal year. Grand Jury Recommendation #4: The 11 cities that are members of a JPA associated with an RDA or their Successor Agencies should consider confirming their compliance with th...
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: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City partially disagrees with the finding. The "Circular" JPAs do not "avoid legal debt limits" they are just not generally subject to them by law. Financings entered into by JPAs are generally only undertaken by the JPA for one or more of the JPA's members (e.g., the City) to finance one or more projects of the members. The financial arrangements or debt that one or more of the JPA's members enter into or issue to support a particular JPA debt issue will have to independently satisfy all applicable state laws (including any applicable debt limits) in order to be valid. Disclosures are mad...
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. Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City disagrees with the finding. The dissolution statute specifically recognized the continuing validity of joint exercise of powers agreements that included a RDA/Successor Agency as a member at the time of dissolution (Health and Safety Code 34178). By contract and state statute, the Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority's (BIFA's) debts are not debts of the Successor Agency and, therefore, BIFA's ability to incur debt under state law is not generally limited by the dissolution statute. However, any post-dissolution financial arrangement entered into by the Successor Agency to sup...
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: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The City disagrees with the finding. The dissolution statute specifically recognized the continuing validity of joint exercise of powers agreements that included a RDA/Successor Agency as a member at the time of dissolution (Health and Safety Code 34178). By contract and state statute, the Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority's (BIFA's) debts are not debts of the Successor Agency and, therefore, BIFA's ability to incur debt under state law is not generally limited by the dissolution statute. However, any post-dissolution financial arrangement entered into by the Successor Agency to sup...
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
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
This recommendation will be implemented. The City of Brentwood has confirmed its compliance with the provisions of ABx1 26. The City will report the lack of any findings or necessary corrective actions to the Auditor-Controller's office by December 31, 2018. Grand Jury Recommendation #5: All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 2018. City Response: This recommendation has been ...
▶
City of Clayton
August 23, 2018
•
3 pages
• 2 responses
•
Score: 0
(+1, 0, -1)
View Details ▾
2 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Agree
Score: +1
The City of Clayton agrees with this Finding.
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. As noted above, JPAs are distinct and separate public entities. It is the responsibility of each JPA and not its member agencies to communicate its debt decisions and audit reports to the public on its particular website.
▶
City of Concord
September 05, 2018
•
4 pages
• 5 responses
•
Score: -5
(+0, 0, -5)
View Details ▾
5 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 Concord disagrees with the Finding. The Public Financing Authority referenced in the Grand Jury report describes a JPA (Public Financing Authority) between the City and its former Redevelopment Agency. With the dissolution of redevelopment by the State of California, the Public
Financing Authority (PFA) is no longer able to issue new debt. The PFA will continue to exist until all of the bonds issued und...
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. Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 Concord disagrees with this finding. As mentioned previously, the JPA between the City of Concord and Successor Agency for the City's former RDA cannot issue new debt.
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: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 Concord disagrees with the Finding. A complete picture of the debt service requirement for the JPA is found in the Notes Section of the City's CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). All annual debt service requirements are budgeted as part of the biennial budget document. II. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation No. 1: "All cities with JPAs in the County should co...
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
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
: "The 11 cities that are members of a FPA associated with an RDA or their Successor Agencies should consider confirming their compliance with the provisions of Abx1.26 (Gov. Codes Sections 34177 et se.) and report their findings and any corrective actions to the Auditor-Controller's office by December 31, 2018." Response: The recommendation is not warranted. Through the RDA dissolution process, the California Department of Finance (DOF) annually scrutinizes all transactions through the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) process. The DOF reviews a reconciliation of cash balances and...
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
: "All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings, and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 2018." Response: The recommendation is not warranted. All JPA debt decisions are publically communicated at City Council meetings. Information on all debt issuances is available in the City's CAFR. Karan Reid, Director of Finance, is available to answer any questions or provide any additional information concerning the above response...
▶
City of El Cerrito
September 11, 2018
•
3 pages
• 3 responses
•
Score: -3
(+0, 0, -3)
View Details ▾
3 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
LMCHD used obsolete data rather than the current health needs assessments to prioritize grants.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 El Cerrito 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 ...
F3
The Grand Jury found no evidence LMCHD collaborated with the County, non- profit hospitals, or other local districts to avoid duplication of services.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 El Cerrito disagrees with this finding. To the extent that this finding suggests that all JPAs between a city and successor agency are invalid, we direct you to the following provisions of the redevelopment dissolution laws. Health and Safety Code section 34173(...
F4
LMCHD’s level of administrative costs is high compared to other government agencies that fund grants.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 El Cerrito disagrees with this finding. The City provides, and has provided for years, information on the El Cerrito Public Financing Authority in its biennial budget document and in its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), each of which are presented in a public meeting and are available to the public in both written and online formats. The City does not ...
▶
City of Lafayette
December 31, 2018
•
2 pages
• 5 responses
•
Score: -5
(+0, 0, -5)
View Details ▾
5 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 w...
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. Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 ...
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: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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. RECOMMENDATIONS R1: "All cities with JPAs in the County should confirm their compliance with Gov. C...
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
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
: "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. R5: "All cities with JPAs should consider making specia...
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
: "All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 2018." Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. Again, each JPA is a separate legal entity and the City does not have the responsibility nor the resources available to report on actions taken by every JPA of which it is a member. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or require additional inform...
▶
City of Martinez
August 31, 2018
•
2 pages
• 3 responses
•
Score: -1
(+1, 0, -2)
View Details ▾
3 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Agree
Score: +1
The City of Martinez agrees with this finding.
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
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
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 monitor each JPA as to its compliance.
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
: "All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 2018." Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. Again, each JPA is a separate legal entity and the City does not have the responsibility nor the resources available to report on actions taken by every JPA of which it is a member. We appreciate the Grand Jury's efforts on behalf of our communities and the residents of Con...
▶
City of Oakley
August 15, 2018
•
2 pages
• 3 responses
•
Score: +1
(+2, 0, -1)
View Details ▾
3 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Agree
Score: +1
The City believes this finding is accurate. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation # 1: "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: The City will provide all reports required by State law. Recommendation # 2: "R5. All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications ...
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
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2018
Scheduled: By December 31, 2018
Score: +1
The City will provide all reports required by State law.
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The City believes the particular JPA, not the City, should provide this information to the media outlets in each member jurisdiction and does not intend on implementing this recommendation.
▶
City of Orinda
August 21, 2018
•
2 pages
• 3 responses
•
Score: -1
(+1, 0, -2)
View Details ▾
3 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Agree
Score: +1
agrees with Finding #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
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is the responsibility of the JPA, not its member agencies (some but not all who may be
cities), to submit any required audit reports with the County Auditor. Under State law, JPAs are distinctly separate government entities. The City of Orinda is a member of several JPAs, some that cross multiple county jurisdictions, have their own full-time staff, and include over 20 member agencies. It is infeasible and unreasonable for member agencies to fulfill the duties of other government agencies, including JPAs. Recommendatio...
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. As stated earlier, JPAs are distinctly separate governmental entities. It is the responsibility of the JPA and not its member agencies to communicate its debt decisions and audit reports to the public on its website. As the Civil Grand Jury's Finding No. 1 states, "each member delegates to the JPA a function that each member has the legal authority to provide." Having cities with JPAs communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports on their websites, when the information should be available on the JPAs' websites, is count...
▶
City of Pinole
September 04, 2018
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City of Richmond
December 31, 2018
•
3 pages
• 4 responses
•
Score: -4
(+0, 0, -4)
View Details ▾
4 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Disagree
Score: -1
ln 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 Richmond agreeswith this finding. F2 The CircularJPAs with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have the potential to avoid legal debt limits and provide limited disclosures to taxpayer. Resoonse.' The City of Richmond disagrees with this finding. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a separate legal public entity as defined by the Government Code. ...
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. Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
ln Contra Costa County, there are 12 CircularJPAs created by cities with RDAs that no longerexist. These JPAs may no longerbe valid because each is a member of anotherFinancial JPAwhich maytake on newdebtwithoutthe prohibition (Gov. Codes Sections 6505 3416134170 et seq.) placed on Successor Agencies. Response; The Ci$ of Richmond disagrees with this finding. The Dissolution Law preserues the existence of joint powers authorities whose members included a former redevelopment agency.
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
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
Cities that have created the 12 Financial JPAs do not provide JPA-specific financial information in theirbudgetdocument. As a result, the public may have difficu lty evaluating JPA's fin ancial performan ce. Response; The City of Richmond disagreeswith this finding. The City of R i ch m o nd provi d e s fi n a n ci al i nfo rm ati on reg a rdi n g Ri ch m o n d's J oi nt P u bl i c Financing Authority in the "Combining Statement of Changes in Assef and Liabilities" report in the Comprehensive AnnualFinancial Report (CAFR).The CAFR rs presenfed to City Council and is available on the City's web...
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
Allcities with JPAs should considermaking specialefforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 201 8. Response.' This recommendation will not be implemented. JPAs are separate governmental entities and it is the responsibility of the JPA to cammunicate its debt decisions and audit reports to the public on its website. The City of R i ch m o n d p rovi d e s fi n a n ci al i nform ati on reg ard i n g Ri ch m o n d's J o i nt P u bl i...
▶
City of San Pablo (Response #1)
September 05, 2018
•
3 pages
• 5 responses
•
Score: -2
(+1, 0, -3)
View Details ▾
5 responses to findings and recommendations
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: Agree
Score: +1
The City of San Pablo agrees with this finding.
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: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 San Pablo 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 w...
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. Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
The City of San Pablo disagrees with this finding. 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). The City also does not know the structure of each agreement referred to in this report and therefore cannot provide an opinion on their validity. F4: "Cities that have created the 12 Financial JPAs do not provide JPA-specific financial information in their budget docume...
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: Disagree
Score: -1
: "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 San Pablo disagrees with this finding. The City provides financial information on the San Pablo Joint Powers Financing Authority in its budget document which is presented in a public meeting and is available to the public in both written and online formats. Please see San Pablo Budget Documents at: http://www.sanpabloca.gov/407/City-Financial-Reports. The City does...
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
This recommendation will be partially implemented as the City will consider making extra efforts, including through the City's website, to communicate additional information regarding its JPAs financial obligations. Again it should be noted that each JPA is a separate legal entity and the City does not have the responsibility nor the resources available to report on actions taken by every JPA of which it is a member. Furthermore, as the Civil Grand Jury's Finding No. 1 states, "each member delegates to the JPA a function that each member has the legal authority to provide." Having cities with ...
▶
City of San Pablo (Response #2)
October 16, 2018
•
2 pages
• 2 responses
•
Score: +2
(+2, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
2 responses to findings and recommendations
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
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2018
Scheduled: By December 31, 2018
Score: +1
The recommendation will be implemented as the City will confirm its compliance with relevant sections of the State Government Code with respect to JPAs in which the City participates.
R5
All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2018
Scheduled: In the future
Score: +1
: "All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 2018." Response: This recommendation has not been implemented yet but will be implemented in the future as the City will make extra efforts, including through the City's website, to communicate additional information regarding its JPAs financial obligations. Again it should be noted that each JPA is a separate legal entity and the Cit...
▶
City of San Ramon (Response #1)
∼ June 30, 2018
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City of San Ramon (Response #2)
∼ June 30, 2018
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City of Walnut Creek
∼ June 30, 2018
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller
July 26, 2018
•
2 pages
• 2 responses
•
Score: -1
(+0, 1, -1)
View Details ▾
2 responses to findings and recommendations
R3
The Auditor-Controller should consider posting on its website all financial and organizational data received from JPAs associated with an RDA or their Successor Agency in a manner readily available to the public
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Financial and organizational data pertaining to JPAs that are associated with RDAs or Successor Agencies are available on other websites, including the websites of Successor Agencies and the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission. I can be contacted at (925) 335-8600 if there are any questions regarding my response. Sincerely. let Campbe Robert Campbell Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors cc:
F5
The Contra Costa Auditor-Controller's office maintains information only on JPAs of which the County is a member. The County Auditor could not verify that all JPAs in the County have filed an audit in accordance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505 et seq.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Specifically, the first sentence of the finding is not correct. The Auditor-Controller's Office maintains documents it receives that pertain to all JPAs, including JPAs of which the County is not a member. <b>Recommendations:</b> R2. The Auditor-Controller under Health and Safety Code Sections 34182-34188.8, should consider a review of JPAs under ABx1.26 (dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the designation of Successor Agencies) by June 30, 2019 to determine any violation of the prohibition on taking on new redevelopment or debt. <b>Re...
▶
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission
∼ June 30, 2018
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Town of Danville
∼ June 30, 2018
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Town of Moraga
∼ June 30, 2018
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.