HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04242017 - Finance Cte Agenda Pkt
FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 24, 2017
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the March 27, 2017, Finance
Committee meeting (Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director)
4. CONSIDER Countywide Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016 (Lisa
Driscoll, County Finance Director)
5. CONSIDER recommending a draft policy for the review of Compensation Agreements
submitted to the County, including all entities governed by the Board of Supervisors, by
Successor Agencies to former Redevelopment Agencies throughout the County and
FORWARD to the Board of Supervisors for final consideration. (Timothy Ewell,
County Administrator's Office)
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for May 22, 2017.
7.Adjourn
The Finance Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities
planning to attend Finance Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72
hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Finance Committee less than 96 hours
prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during
normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Lisa Driscoll, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1021, Fax (925) 646-1353
lisa.driscoll@cao.cccounty.us
FINANCE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:04/24/2017
Subject:Record of Action for March 27, 2017 Finance Committee Meeting
Submitted For: FINANCE COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Record of Action
Presenter: Lisa Driscoll, County
Finance Director
Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director
925-335-1023
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the discussions made in the
meetings.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its March 27, 2017
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the Record of Action for the March 27, 2017 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Draft Record of Action March 27, 2017
FINANCE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:04/24/2017
Subject:Countywide Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 11/8/1999
Referral Name: Countywide Single Audit
Presenter: Lisa Driscoll, County
Finance Director
Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director
(925) 335-1023
Referral History:
On November 8, 1999, the Board established a policy and procedure for addressing the annual
findings and recommendations of the County's external auditors. The procedure directs that the
Board refer the annual Single Audit findings to the Finance Committee, and that the County
Administrator make a report to the Finance Committee on the current- and prior-year audit
findings and recommendations that identifies what corrective action has been taken or is planned
to be taken on each recommendation.
Referral Update:
Inasmuch as the current year Single Audit report encompasses all unresolved or pending audit
issues from prior-year audits, this report responds directly to the current-year Single Audit report
(FY ending June 30, 2016).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Accept attached report regarding the Countywide Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ending June
30, 2016 (also attached).
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Not applicable.
Attachments
Single Audit - June 30, 2016
Staff Report regarding the Countywide Single Audit for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016
County of Contra Costa
Office of the County Administrator
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2017
TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE:
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
FROM: DAVID TWA, County Administrator
BY: LISA DRISCOLL, Finance Director
SUBJECT: COUNTYWIDE SINGLE AUDIT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2016
On November 8, 1999, the Board established a policy and procedure for addressing the annual
findings and recommendations of the County's external auditors. The procedure directs that the
Board refer the annual Single Audit findings to the Finance Committee, and that the County
Administrator make a report to the Finance Committee on the current- and prior-year audit
findings and recommendations that identifies what corrective action has been taken or is planned
to be taken on each recommendation. Inasmuch as the current year Single Audit report
encompasses all unresolved or pending audit issues from prior-year audits, this report responds
directly to the current-year Single Audit report (FY ending June 30, 2016).
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Government Auditing standards require the external
auditor to obtain reasonable assurance that the general-purpose financial statements are free of
material misstatement. The external auditor found one instance of significant deficiency in
internal control with 2016-001 “Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Completeness”. No
instances of material weakness in internal control were identified.
Internal Control Over Compliance. Government Auditing Standards and OMB Circular A-133
(which is applicable to federal programs) require the external auditor to report on both
compliance with and internal controls over the major federal programs carried out by the
County. The external auditor found two instances of noncompliance with 2016-002
“Subrecipient Monitoring” and 2016-003 “Reporting”.
The reportable conditions are described in the following report:
Finding 2016-001: Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Completeness
Recommendation: The County should improve its review process by requiring department
management to review and sign off program expenditures prior to being submitted to the
Auditor-Controller. Additionally, the Auditor-Controller should reconcile the detailed listing
of expenditures to the SEFA for each significant federal program prior to the submission to
Finance Committee
Page 2 Countywide Single Audit Follow-up
the external auditors.
Background: The auditor noted several misstatements in the County’s draft schedule of
expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Employment and Human Services’ WIA Cluster
expenditures were overstated by $130,688 and expenditures of Trade Adjustment Assistance
Community College and Career Training grants were understated by the same amount due to
management oversight. WIA Cluster subrecipients expenditures were also understated by
$116,352 due to management oversight. The Sheriff’s Homeland Security Grant Program
expenditures were overstated by $6,464 and subrecipient expenditures were overstated by
$230,447 due to misclassification of expenditures. Special Programs for the Aging Title III,
Parts B & C, were overstated by $258,497 and $48,829 respectively, due to a misclassification
of expenditures.
The County was able to correct the expenditure amounts reported in its SEFA prior to its
issuance.
Corrective Action: The Auditor-Controller revised the grant inventory listing sheets sent to
departments to include a recommended management signature line in order to validate that
the inventory sheets were reviewed and approved by management. The Auditor-Controller,
however, does not have the resources available to reconcile the SEFA. The following
measures have been put in place to promote the accuracy of the SEFA using available
resources: Board of Supervisor’s agendas are reviewed to identify federal grants applied for
during the fiscal year; current year SEFA is compared to the prior year SEFA to determine if
any programs are missing; the information on the grant inventory sheets is compared to the
department generated grant questionnaires and discrepancies are investigated; and
departments are required to provide a schedule of any costs disallowed by grantors. Lastly,
the County has set up several work sessions and webinars between the auditors and
department program personnel to improve the accuracy of the SEFA.
Finding 2016-002: Subrecipient Monitoring
Recommendation: The Health Services Department should ensure that policies and
procedures are in place for timely responses to new federal award requirements and any
implementation of changes resulting from the new requirements. The Department should
document a formal process for performing risk assessments over its subrecipients of federal
awards in order to determine the frequency and extent of monitoring activities to be
performed.
Background: The auditor noted that the Health Services Department has not yet developed
and documented a formal risk assessment process over its subrecipients of federal awards.
Corrective Action: The Health Services Department will draft a process to conduct risk
assessments of subrecipients receiving federal awards and will finalize and implement this
process by October, 2017.
Finance Committee
Page 3 Countywide Single Audit Follow-up
Finding 2016-003: Reporting
Recommendation: The Employment and Human Services Department should meet all
mandated reporting deadlines.
Background: The Employment and Human Services Department did not submit two monthly
reports for funding received from the California Department of Aging until after the due
dates.
Corrective Action: Employment and Human Services reports that they implemented a
corrective action plan as of April 1, 2017 which includes strengthening internal controls to
insure California Department of Aging Reports are filed timely and the Fiscal Compliance
Accountant will monitor submittals on a tracking worksheet. Deadlines will be
communicated in staff meetings and documented in staff work plans.
Prior Year Findings
Finding 2015-001: Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Completeness
Recommendation: The County should improve its review process by requiring department
management to review and sign off program expenditures prior to being submitted to the
Auditor-Controller. Additionally, the Auditor-Controller should reconcile the detailed listing
of expenditures to the SEFA for each significant federal program prior to the submission to
the external auditors.
Background: The auditor noted several misstatements in the County’s draft schedule of
expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). The State Planning and Establishment Grants for the
Affordable Care Act Exchange understated expenditures by $9,999,762 in prior years due to
management oversight. The Consolidated Health Centers overstated expenditures by 60,823
by using the federal fiscal year instead of the County fiscal year. Block Grants for Prevention
and Treatment of Substance Abuse understated expenditures by $159,812 by reporting
projected amounts instead of actual expenditures. The County was able to correct the
expenditure amounts reported in its SEFA prior to its issuance.
Corrective Action: In progress – see Finding 2016-001. The Auditor-Controller revised the
grant inventory listing sheets sent to departments to include a recommended management
signature line in order to validate that the inventory sheets were reviewed and approved by
management. The Auditor-Controller, however, does not have the resources available to
reconcile the SEFA. The following measures have been put in place to promote the accuracy
of the SEFA using available resources: Board of Supervisor’s agendas are reviewed to
identify federal grants applied for during the fiscal year; current year SEFA is compared to
the prior year SEFA to determine if any programs are missing; the information on the grant
inventory sheets is compared to the department generated grant questionnaires and
discrepancies are investigated; and departments are required to provide a schedule of any
costs disallowed by grantors. Lastly, the County has set up several work sessions and
Finance Committee
Page 4 Countywide Single Audit Follow-up
webinars between the auditors and department program personnel to improve the accuracy of
the SEFA.
Finding 2015-002: Subrecipient Monitoring
Recommendation: The County should implement policies to ensure that audit reports are
received from subrecipients. In addition, the County should develop appropriate follow-up
procedures to ensure that appropriate corrective actions are taken by subrecipients with
regard to instances of non-compliance.
Background: The auditor noted that the Health Services, Behavioral Health Division had
two subrecipients who did not submit audit reports.
Corrective Action: In progress – see Finding 2016-002. While there were no questioned
costs and the Health Services Department does monitor its subrecipients, it has not yet
developed and documented a formal risk assessment process over its subrecipients of federal
awards by which to determine the frequency and extent of subrecipient monitoring to be
performed annually.
Attachments
cc: Elizabeth Verigin, Assistant Auditor-Controller, Auditor-Controller’s Office
Joanne Bohren, Chief of Audit Services, Auditor-Controller’s Office
Dr. William Walker, Health Services Director
Kathy Gallagher, Director, Employment & Human Services
David Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner
FINANCE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:04/24/2017
Subject:ESTABLISH POLICY FOR REVIEW OF MASTER COMPENSATION
AGREEMENTS WITH RDA SUCCESSOR AGENCIES
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: ESTABLISH POLICY FOR REVIEW OF MASTER COMPENSATION
AGREEMENTS WITH RDA SUCCESSOR AGENCIES
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036
Referral History:
As part of the 2011 Budget Act, and in order to protect funding for core public services at the local level, the
Legislature approved the dissolution of the state’s 400 plus Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs). After a period of litigation, RDAs were officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012. As a result of the elimination of the RDAs,
litigation, RDAs were officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012. As a result of the elimination of the RDAs,
property tax revenues are now being used to pay required payments on existing bonds, other obligations, and
pass-through payments to local governments. The remaining property tax revenues that exceed the enforceable
obligations are now being allocated to cities, counties, special districts, and school and community college districts,
thereby providing critical resources to preserve core public services.
To help facilitate the wind-down process at the local level, successor agencies were established to manage
redevelopment projects currently underway, make payments on enforceable obligations, and dispose of
redevelopment assets and properties. Each Successor Agency has an Oversight Board that supervises its work. The
Oversight Board is comprised of representatives of the local agencies that serve the redevelopment project area: the
city, county, special districts, and K-14 educational agencies. Oversight Board members have a fiduciary
responsibility to holders of enforceable obligations, as well as to the local agencies that would benefit from property
tax distributions from the former redevelopment project area.
FINDING OF COMPLETION
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 34179.7, the California Department of Finance (DOF) was
authorized to issue a finding of completion to a Successor Agency, once the following conditions had been met and verified by December 31, 2015:
verified by December 31, 2015:
The Successor Agency had paid the full amount as determined during the Due Diligence Reviews and the County Auditor-Controller has reported those payments to DOF, and
County Auditor-Controller has reported those payments to DOF, and The Successor Agency had paid the full
amount as determined during the July True-Up process, or
The Successor Agency had paid the full amount upon a final judicial determination of the amounts due and confirmation that those amounts have been paid by the County Auditor-Controller, or
confirmation that those amounts have been paid by the County Auditor-Controller, or
The Successor Agency had entered into a written installment payment plan with DOF for the payments owed from above.
from above.
Upon receiving the finding of completion, a Successor Agency is allowed to do the following:
Place loan agreements between the former redevelopment agency and sponsoring entity on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), as an enforceable obligation, provided the oversight board makes a
Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), as an enforceable obligation, provided the oversight board makes a
finding that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes per HSC Section 34191.4 (b) (1) Loan repayments will be governed by criteria in HSC section 34191.4 9 (a) (2).
repayments will be governed by criteria in HSC section 34191.4 9 (a) (2).
Utilize proceeds derived from bonds issued prior to Jan. 1, 2011 in a manner consistent with the original
bond covenants per HSC Section 34191.4 (c)
However, if on a payment plan, and a Successor Agency fails to fully make one or more payments agreed to
in the written installment plan, the benefits above may be revoked.
LONG RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34191.5, within six months after receiving a Finding of Completion
from DOF, a Successor Agency is required to submit for approval to it's Oversight Board and DOF a Long-Range Property Management Plan(LRPMP) that addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of the former
Property Management Plan(LRPMP) that addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of the former
redevelopment agency. If DOF had not approved a plan by January 1, 2016, then the Successor Agency was to
have disposed of their property pursuant to HSC 34177 (e).
COMPENSATION AGREEMENTS
Some LRPMPs prepared by successor agencies include a provision providing that certain real property of the
former redevelopment agency would be retained and used for future development purposes pursuant to HSC 34179.5(c)(5)(C). As part of that, LRPMPs submitted by successor agencies have contemplated the use of
34179.5(c)(5)(C). As part of that, LRPMPs submitted by successor agencies have contemplated the use of “compensation agreements” between an individual successor agency and affected taxing entities (ATEs), the terms of
“compensation agreements” between an individual successor agency and affected taxing entities (ATEs), the terms
of which are not subject to approval by DOF, pursuant to HSC 34180(f)(1).
Specifically, HSC 34180(f)(1) states that:
"If a city, county, or city and county wishes to retain any properties or other assets for future redevelopment
activities, funded from its own funds and under its own auspices, it must reach a compensation agreement with the
other taxing entities to provide payments to them in proportion to their shares of the base property tax, as
determined pursuant to Section 34188, for the value of the property retained."
Referral Update:
The County has received multiple requests to enter into compensation agreements from successor agencies and is
likely to receive additional requests in the future. Today’s action is requesting that the Committee consider a
recommendation to establish policy guidelines for evaluating whether or not to enter into compensation
agreements with successor agencies and under what terms and forward to the Board of Supervisors for final
consideration. This will ensure that the County, including Affected Taxing Entities (ATEs) governed by the Board of
Supervisors, receive appropriate financial compensation, consistent with the spirit of RDA dissolution.
Staff from the County Administrator's Office has worked with County Counsel to develop three, draft policy
scenarios for discussion and consideration by the Committee at today's meeting. This follows a survey of the
California County Counsels Association to determine how other counties are dealing with this issue. The policy
scenarios are attached to this staff report.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. RECOMMEND a draft policy for the review of Compensation Agreements submitted to the
1. RECOMMEND a draft policy for the review of Compensation Agreements submitted to the
County, including all entities governed by the Board of Supervisors, by Successor Agencies to
former Redevelopment Agencies throughout the County and FORWARD to the Board of
Supervisors for final consideration; and,
2. PROVIDE additional direction to staff as necessary.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No immediate fiscal impact. Depending on what policy structure is ultimately adopted by the
Board of Supervisors, staff will be able to assess the revenue impacts to the County, including all
entities governed by the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments
Potential Policies
PowerPoint Presentation
RDA Master Compensation Agreement
Potential Policy Options for Contra Costa County
1. City compensates County (and County agencies) at transfer from Successor RDA to City for gross
market value based on independent appraiser report. If cannot agree on market value, then
value as of 2011 pursuant to H&S § 34180(f)
Other Counties doing this: Similar to San Diego County above
2. City compensates County (and County agencies) a certain % share of gross market value at
transfer from Successor RDA to City based on independent appraiser report. Remaining % share
due when City enters into sale agreement with developer or other private party. Require Deed
restriction and record Compensation Agreement against all properties
Other counties doing this: Hybrid of above County examples
3. County defers payment of current gross market value until City enters into sale agreement with
a developer or other private party. Require Deed restriction and record Compensation
Agreement against all properties
Other counties doing this: San Mateo, Santa Clara.
April 24, 2017
1
Section 1 of ABx1 26 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011):
(a) The economy and the residents of this state are slowly
recovering from the worst recession since the Great
Depression.
(b) State and local governments are still facing incredibly
significant declines in revenues and increased need for core
governmental services.
(c) Local governments across this state continue to confront
difficult choices and have had to reduce fire and police
protection among other services.
2
(d) Schools have faced reductions in funding that have caused
school districts to increase class size and layoff teachers, as
well as make other hurtful cuts.
(e) Redevelopment agencies have expanded over the years in
this state. The expansion of redevelopment agencies has
increasingly shifted property taxes away from services
provided to schools, counties, special districts, and cities.
(f) Redevelopment agencies take in approximately 12 percent
of all of the property taxes collected across this state.
(g) It is estimated that under current law, redevelopment
agencies will divert $5 billion in property tax revenue from
other taxing agencies in the 2011−12 fiscal year.
3
2011 Budget Act: Approved dissolution of
Redevelopment agencies throughout California.
February 1, 2012: RDAs officially dissolved following
litigation on the matter.
December 31, 2015: CA Dept. of Finance (DOF) to issue
a Finding of Completion after former RDA meets certain
conditions by this date. (HSC 34179.7)
January 1, 2016: Within 6 months following issuance of
a Finding of Completion, Successor Agencies required to
submit a Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP)
to DOF for approval. (HSC 34191.5)
4
5
Addresses the disposition and use of real property of the
former RDA.
Must be have been approved by DOF by January 1, 2016.
◦If not approved by DOF, then the Successor Agency must have
disposed of their property. (HSC 34177(e))
LRPMPs have contemplated “compensation agreements”
between the former RDA and Affected Taxing Entities
(ATEs).
DOF has approved LRPMPs, which contemplate
“compensation agreements”; however, such agreements
do not require approval by the State.
6
Designed to allow cities and counties to retain properties for
future development.
Negotiations directly with the Affected Taxing Entities, no
State approval required.
Health and Safety Code Section 34180(f):
◦(1) If a city, county, or city and county wishes to retain any properties or other assets for future redevelopment activities, funded from its own funds and under its own auspices, it must reach a compensation agreement with the other taxing entities to provide payments to them in proportion to their shares of the base property tax, as determined pursuant to Section 34188, for the value of the property retained.
◦(2) If no other agreement is reached on valuation of the retained assets, the value will be the fair market value as of the 2011 property tax lien date as determined by an independent appraiser approved by the oversight board.
7
County is entitled to compensation for real property that
cities intend to retain for future development.
Terms of a compensation agreement are negotiated by
the County, as an ATE, and the City.
HSC 34180(f)(2) provides that is no agreement is
reached as to the value of certain real property, then fair
market value as of the 2011 property tax lien date is
operable.
No State approval of compensation agreements reached
between the parties
8
City compensates County (and County agencies) at transfer from Successor RDA to City for gross market value based on independent appraiser report. If cannot agree on market value, then value as of 2011 pursuant to H&S § 34180(f)
City compensates County (and County agencies) a certain % share of gross market value at transfer from Successor RDA to City based on independent appraiser report. Remaining % share due when City enters into sale agreement with developer or other private party. Require Deed restriction and record Compensation Agreement against all properties
County defers payment of current gross market value until City enters into sale agreement with a developer or other private party. Require Deed restriction and record Compensation Agreement against all properties
9