Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2023-2024
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Antioch’s City Manager has broad responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of the city, including supervision of an approximately $100 million general fund budget and an authorized staff of over 400 employees.
F2:
The city began the process of recruiting a new permanent City Manager in January 2024. As of June 10, 2024, no hiring decision has been announced.
F3:
As outlined in both the City Manager job description and in city recruitment materials, the City Manager position requires a qualified and experienced individual.
F4:
There has been a lack of continuity in City Managers in Antioch, with six City Managers or Acting City Managers since December 2013.
F5:
Under city ordinances the City Council, including the Mayor, has no direct authority to direct, supervise, hire, or fire any city employees, other than the City Manager and City Attorney (Ordinance 246-A).
F6:
The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion overstepped their authority in seeking to make personnel decisions, including terminating the then Public Works Director in December 2022, in ways not permitted by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Mayor and City Council should abide by city regulations (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10) that preclude the Mayor and City Council from having any direct authority to direct, supervise, hire or fire any city employee, other than the City Manager and City Attorney.
F7:
The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion sought to conduct meetings with City Staff without the approval or involvement of the City Manager, as required by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.10).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Mayor and City Council should abide by city regulations (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10) that preclude the Mayor and City Council from having any direct authority to direct, supervise, hire or fire any city employee, other than the City Manager and City Attorney.
F8:
Antioch’s city government had a 21.6% employee vacancy rate as of February 2024, roughly four-times the national average for government agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By 1/1/2025 the City Council should direct the City Manager to undertake a study to determine the factors leading to the city’s high employee turnover and vacancy rates.
F9:
In the absence of a permanent City Manager since March 2023, the city has deferred hiring new department heads when openings occur.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Mayor and City Council should follow through on the ongoing process of hiring an experienced and qualified City Manager.
F10:
The Police, Public Works and Community Development departments currently are without permanent department heads.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The new City Manager should, within 6 months of their appointment to the position of City Manager, recruit and appoint permanent department heads to fill current department head vacancies.
F11:
Seven of the eleven most senior positions in Antioch city government are currently held by acting or part-time personnel, including City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Directors of Community Development, Police Services, and Public Works (all acting) and the Directors of Economic Development and Recreation (both part-time).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The new City Manager should, within 6 months of their appointment to the position of City Manager, recruit and appoint permanent department heads to fill current department head vacancies.
F12:
The employee vacancy rate is above the city-wide average in the Public Works Department (26% vacancy rate) and Community Development Department (35% vacancy rate), both of which currently do not have permanent directors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The new City Manager should, within 6 months of their appointment to the position of City Manager, recruit and appoint permanent department heads to fill current department head vacancies.
R4:
By 1/1/2025 the City Council should direct the City Manager to undertake a study to determine the factors leading to the city’s high employee turnover and vacancy rates.
F13:
Recruitment and retention of staff has been impacted by the absence of a permanent City Manager and the lack of permanent department heads in multiple city departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Mayor and City Council should follow through on the ongoing process of hiring an experienced and qualified City Manager.
F14:
The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office conducted an investigation into alleged Brown Act violations by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Council Members Tamisha Torres-Walker and Monica Wilson, which was forwarded to the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By 1/1/2025 the Mayor and City Council should consider directing the City Manager and City Attorney to organize an annual training session focused on Brown Act requirements and compliance for the Mayor, City Council members, relevant city employees and members of city boards and commissions.
F15:
The District Attorney’s Office noted serious concerns that noncompliance with the Brown Act may have occurred, however, there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intentional violations of the statute occurred.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By 1/1/2025 the Mayor and City Council should consider directing the City Manager and City Attorney to organize an annual training session focused on Brown Act requirements and compliance for the Mayor, City Council members, relevant city employees and members of city boards and commissions.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Civil Code Section 55.53 (d)(1) requires public agencies to employ or retain at least one building inspector who is a CASp.
F2:
Contra Costa County is a public agency covered by this Civil Code Section.
F3:
DCD did not comply with Civil Code Section 55.53 (d)(1) between 6/8/2013 and 6/21/2021 or between 9/21/2021 and 12/31/2023.
F4:
Civil Code Section 55.53 (d)(2) requires public agencies to employ or retain a sufficient number of CASps to conduct permitting and plan check services, effective 1/1/2014.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should consider commissioning an independent CASp review to determine how many CASps is a sufficient number to conduct permitting and plan check services at DCD.
R3:
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing DCD to employ or retain the sufficient number of CASps to conduct permitting and plan check services.
R4:
By September 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing DCD to report to the County Administrator periodically to confirm the number of CASps employed or retained.
F5:
CASps currently retained by DCD are available for consultation on accessibility requirements.
F6:
DCD does not have a procedure for any CASps to conduct permitting and plan check services in the building permit approval process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing DCD to have a procedure in the building permit approval process that identifies those situations where a CASp review is required.
F7:
Government Code Section 4469.5 requires public agencies to provide an informational notice about accessibility laws to applicants for building permits for additions, alterations, and structural repairs to commercial property, or building permits for new construction of commercial property. This notice encourages business permit applicants to consult CASps.
F8:
DCD was not providing the informational notice required by Government Code Section 4469.5 as of 12/31/2023.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
By September 30, 2024.The Board of Supervisors should direct DCD to develop the informational notice required by California Code 4469.5 for current and new commercial building permit applications.
R7:
By September 30, 2024.The Board of Supervisors should direct DCD to provide the informational notice required by California Code 4469.5 to current and new commercial building permit applications.
F9:
The law requires that moneys in the Accessibility Compliance Fund shall be used for increased certified access specialist (CASp) training and certification within that local jurisdiction and to facilitate compliance with construction-related accessibility requirements.
F10:
DCD, as of 2022, had used less than 28% of the Accessibility Compliance Fund. The expenditure was used for training.
F11:
The staff being trained for CASp certification are primarily senior staff and may not be involved in most construction-related accessibility reviews.
F12:
The Grand Jury has not been able to independently verify that DCD staff have been adequately trained to review building plans and building inspections for compliance with the accessibility requirements in the Building Code as none have been certified by DSA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should consider commissioning an independent CASp review of how DCD is ensuring that the building permit process enforces federal and state accessibility requirements.
F13:
Building permit fees and the Accessibility Compliance Fund are both allowable sources of funding for review of the effective use of CASps in the building department.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
36 findings
F1:
The CWS is used in response to emergencies in the County.
F2:
About 30% of County residents have created a CWS account and entered their contact data.
F3:
The approximately 70% of residents who haven’t registered with CWS may not receive any alerts in the event that other alerting tools not reliant on registration in the CWS – WEA, radios, and TVs – are not activated.
F4:
Additional redundancies in the processes and operation of the CWS can increase the potential for more people to receive timely alerts.
F5:
To enable the redundancy of other alerting tools – sending recorded voice messages to cell and VoIP phones, text messages, and emails – the contact data for these devices must be registered in the CWS.
F6:
Phone numbers and associated physical addresses can be loaded into the CWS for all businesses and residents in the County from the various telecom providers that serve the County.
F7:
In an opt-out warning system, County residents and businesses that do not want their phone and/or email data in the CWS can request to have their data removed.
F8:
The reliance of the CWS on voluntary registration creates a risk that too few residents will register their phones and email in CWS.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
R2:
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should complete the implementation of the plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
F9:
An opt-out system would incur annual costs for data subscriptions on the order of $100,000.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
R2:
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should complete the implementation of the plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
F10:
An opt-out system would incur an initial cost to educate residents and businesses of the CWS system change on the order of $500,000.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
R2:
By December 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should complete the implementation of the plan to modify the CWS so that it automatically registers all available contact data for all County residents and businesses into its system and provides a mechanism for residents and businesses to opt out of the automatic registration process.
F11:
Outdoor warning systems supplement other warning tools by providing acoustic (voice or siren sounds) to people who are outdoors.
F12:
Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) can broadcast audible instructions to people outdoors when cell phones and other alert-receiving devices may not be working or heard.
F13:
A sound study is needed to evaluate where, if at all, LRADs might be effective in Contra Costa County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should commission a sound study by an independent, third party to determine the feasibility of deploying LRADs in any areas of the County.
F14:
Sites where LRADs could be located would need to be identified for any areas in which LRADs are found to be effective.
F15:
The County would incur a cost for a sound study on the feasibility to deploy LRADs within the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should commission a sound study by an independent, third party to determine the feasibility of deploying LRADs in any areas of the County.
F16:
There is no estimate of the cost for an independent, third party to conduct a feasibility study for the use of LRADs within the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should commission a sound study by an independent, third party to determine the feasibility of deploying LRADs in any areas of the County.
F17:
LRADs would be part of the County’s emergency response warning tools.
F18:
Costs related to emergency response can be funded from Measure X revenue.
F19:
At all times, one of the three CWS employees is the designated on-call duty officer who responds to requests for activation of the CWS.
F20:
In the event of disasters such as fast-moving wildfires, a reasonable time for alerts to be sent to the public is within 20 minutes of when the incident commander contacts the CWS duty officer.
F21:
Once the CWS duty officer is contacted by the Sheriff’s dispatch center the CWS duty officer has up to 10 minutes to call the incident commander.
F22:
In the event the CWS duty officer is not reached after two attempts to contact them, the dispatch center attempts to contact a backup person to the duty officer.
F23:
Additional time is required to contact CWS backup personnel and have them get to a computer and establish a secure connection into the CWS.
F24:
In the event the CWS duty officer is not reached after two attempts by the dispatch center to contact them, the time required to contact backup personnel to the on-call CWS duty officer is uncertain.
F25:
Reliance on a single person to operate the CWS, the on-call CWS duty officer, creates a risk that alerts and notifications could be delayed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By June 30, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should train employees in the Sheriff’s dispatch center to operate the CWS.
F26:
Two evacuation drills in the city of Richmond in 2022 and 2023 resulted in half of the drill participants claiming they should have received a drill alert but did not, or received the alert hours later after the drill was completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By March 31, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a plan to conduct testing of the CWS to determine the causes of the failure of CWS alerts to reach all the intended recipients of test alerts within 10 – 20 minutes of the time the alert is sent.
F27:
The CWS did not conduct any studies to verify or understand the claims Richmond evacuation drill participants made that they should have received a drill alert but did not, or received the alert hours later after the drill was completed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By March 31, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a plan to conduct testing of the CWS to determine the causes of the failure of CWS alerts to reach all the intended recipients of test alerts within 10 – 20 minutes of the time the alert is sent.
F28:
The CWS is not tested to determine the extent to which people actually notice, read, or hear alerts sent by the CWS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By March 31, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a plan to conduct testing of the CWS to determine the causes of the failure of CWS alerts to reach all the intended recipients of test alerts within 10 – 20 minutes of the time the alert is sent.
F29:
The CWS staff evaluates its systems and processes for risks.
F30:
The County has not engaged a firm with expertise in risk analysis of community warning systems to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis of the CWS since the County took control of the system in 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By June 30, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should execute a contract with a third-party consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis of the CWS, including its processes, procedures, contracts, hardware, and software.
F31:
The current process for improving the design and operation of the CWS for alerts not related to releases of hazardous chemicals resides within the Sheriff’s Office.
F32:
There is no formal body or process that brings together emergency response experts from emergency response agencies in the County to focus and advise solely on the design and operation of the CWS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Chief Administrative Officer to establish a CWS advisory subcommittee of the Emergency Services Policy Board.
F33:
The functioning and effectiveness of the CWS can be improved, and operational risks reduced, with the implementation of a CWS advisory body.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By March 31, 2025, the Board of Supervisors should direct the County’s Chief Administrative Officer to establish a CWS advisory subcommittee of the Emergency Services Policy Board.
F34:
The Emergency Services Policy Board (ESPB) can create subcommittees, such as a CWS advisory committee.
F35:
The CWS staff provides training materials to the fire districts/departments, police departments, and dispatch centers in the County on the use of CWS, its tools, types of warnings, activation, and information needed by the CWS duty officer.
F36:
The CWS staff does not have a process to determine if the recipients of the training it provides to the first responders of the fire districts/departments, police departments, and dispatch centers who receive the training materials on CWS have read and understood the training materials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By June 30, 2025, the Office of the Sheriff should implement a process to ensure that first responders in County agencies who take the CWS training certify they have reviewed and understood the training materials.