Score: -4
(0/0/4)
Contra Costa County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
A Report by the 2017-2018 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ 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 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office