Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2025-2026
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 (8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
44 findings
F1:
In FY2019, passenger fares generated $520 million in revenue, covering 66.7% of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s (BART) total operating expenses, nearly double the national heavy rail average of 32%, according to Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database data.
F2:
BART’s financial model depends on passenger fares for approximately two-thirds of its operating revenue, making the agency vulnerable to sustained declines in ridership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board of Directors (Board) should consider directing management to incorporate into the Long-Range Financial Plan measurable targets for non-fare revenue as a percentage of total operating revenue, with annual reporting to the Board on progress against those targets, as a structural strategy to reduce the agency’s dependence on fare revenue.
F3:
BART’s annual ridership peaked at approximately 132 million trips in FY2016 and declined 5.2% to 128.2 million trips by FY2019, according to BART’s National Transit Database reporting.
F4:
Ridership had begun declining prior to the pandemic due to factors including lower gas prices, more dispersed job locations, and increased ride-hailing.
F5:
In FY2025, passenger miles traveled amounted to 44.6% of the FY2019 figure, with year- over-year improvement slowing from 9.0% between FY2022 and FY2023 to 2.3% between FY2024 and FY2025.
F6:
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, BART operated 18.5% more service hours than in FY2019 while recording 44.6% of FY2019 passenger miles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to incorporate into the annual Rail Service Plan a formal service-to-ridership alignment framework that defines target service levels relative to ridership demand, establishes measurable utilization thresholds, and requires annual Board reporting on whether actual service hours are appropriately aligned with passenger miles traveled.
F7:
The gap between BART's service hours index and passenger miles index widened from 55.5% in FY2021 to 73.9% in FY2025, with no trend toward closure based on data through FY2025.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to incorporate into the annual Rail Service Plan a formal service-to-ridership alignment framework that defines target service levels relative to ridership demand, establishes measurable utilization thresholds, and requires annual Board reporting on whether actual service hours are appropriately aligned with passenger miles traveled.
F8:
Approximately 63% of BART’s FY2025 operating costs are fixed or semi-fixed and do not decline proportionally with service reductions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider incorporating its existing fixed/semi- variable/variable cost model into regular Board reporting and budget presentations and requiring that any proposed service reduction be accompanied by a written analysis applying that model to demonstrate projected cost savings, estimated effects on ridership and fare revenue, and net impact on the structural deficit.
F9:
Between FY2019 and FY2021, BART reduced service by approximately 40% while operating costs declined by only approximately 12%, demonstrating that large service reductions produce limited cost savings due to the fixed-cost nature of heavy rail operations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider incorporating its existing fixed/semi- variable/variable cost model into regular Board reporting and budget presentations and requiring that any proposed service reduction be accompanied by a written analysis applying that model to demonstrate projected cost savings, estimated effects on ridership and fare revenue, and net impact on the structural deficit.
F10:
BART’s FY2027 Preliminary Operating Budget, presented to the BART Board of Directors (Board) on March 31, 2026, projects a $375 million structural operating deficit beginning in FY2027.
F11:
BART’s operating cost model, as documented in the FY2027 Preliminary Operating Budget, indicates that service reductions alone cannot close the $375 million structural deficit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to develop structural cost reductions in future budgets.
F12:
BART’s cost-reduction strategies include both permanent savings and temporary cost deferrals, including $197 million in deferred capital contributions through FY2027 and a retirement incentive program that generated $18.5 million in net FY2022 savings but increased long-term retiree medical and pension obligations projected to begin in FY2028.
F13:
BART has pursued revenue enhancement initiatives including new faregate installation ($8–$10 million), Clipper BayPass ($7 million), fiber and cellular leases ($7.8 million), parking lot leases (approximately $1 million), Transit-Oriented Development ground leases (approximately $2 million), and Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits ($16 million).
F14:
BART estimates its planned revenue enhancement initiatives will generate approximately $43–$45 million in annualized recurring revenue above the FY2025 baseline, addressing approximately 11% of the projected $375 million structural deficit, according to BART’s FY2027 Preliminary Operating Budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to expand revenue initiatives.
F15:
The Connect Bay Area Measure is a regional sales tax authorized by Senate Bill 63 for the November 3, 2026 ballot, proposing a 0.5% tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties and a 1% tax in San Francisco, projected to generate approximately $975 million annually across the five-county area for a period of 14 years.
F16:
BART has identified the Connect Bay Area Measure as the primary mechanism to address its projected structural deficit, with BART’s projected annual allocation of approximately $310 million.
F17:
BART’s FY2027 Preliminary Operating Budget projects that the Connect Bay Area Measure’s $310 million annual allocation to BART is less than the $375 million FY2027 structural deficit, and that the Measure alone will not achieve structural balance in FY2027.
F18:
BART’s five-year financial forecast (FY2027-2031) projects cumulative net deficits of approximately $192 million through FY2031 even with Connect Bay Area Measure revenues beginning in FY2028, and projects that additional cost reduction or revenue measures will be required to achieve structural balance.
F19:
BART has not developed an integrated financial strategy combining Connect Bay Area Measure revenues with identified cost reduction measures sufficient to achieve structural balance across the FY2028-FY2031 forecast horizon.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to develop a plan to integrate projected Measure revenues with long-term cost reduction strategies in the event the Measure passes as part of a comprehensive financial plan to achieve structural balance across the forecast horizon.
F20:
BART’s five collective bargaining agreements have provisions that require minimum staffing levels tied to physical locations rather than service levels, and workforce protections that establish terms that can be expanded through bargaining but require further negotiation to modify.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management, during collective bargaining, to evaluate whether minimum staffing provisions tied to physical locations rather than service levels can be modified to provide greater operational flexibility in response to changing ridership demand.
F21:
BART’s overtime represented between 9.4% and 12.4% of regular Full-Time equivalent (FTE) staffing in every fiscal year from FY2015 through FY2025, with the exception of FY2021, when COVID-related service reductions and an early retirement program temporarily depressed the ratio.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to develop and implement a comprehensive workforce strategy informed by the analytical tools directed under
F22:
The FY2024 and FY2025 Quarterly Financial Reports did not identify overtime expenditure drivers by cause or category or establish a management target for overtime.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to implement analytical tools to identify, categorize, and manage the underlying drivers of overtime costs.
F23:
All five recommendations from the OIG’s 2024 span of control audit remain unimplemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to fully implement the outstanding Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommendations from the 2024 span of control audit and 2025 overtime management audit.
F24:
Four of the five recommendations from the OIG’s 2025 overtime management audit remain unimplemented at the time of this report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By March 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to fully implement the outstanding Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommendations from the 2024 span of control audit and 2025 overtime management audit.
F25:
BART’s organizational chart places Internal Audit within the executive management hierarchy, reporting through the Director of Performance and Audit and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to the General Manager, with no direct reporting line to the Audit Committee depicted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider restructuring Internal Audit’s reporting to establish a direct reporting relationship between Internal Audit and the Audit Committee— meaning the Committee approves the audit plan, receives engagement results, and exercises oversight of the internal audit function—consistent with IIA Standards 6.1 and 7.1 and GAGAS Section 3.56.
F26:
Internal Audit’s engagements include audits of financial reporting and other functions within the CFO’s organizational span of control.
F27:
Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) Section 3.44 and 3.52 and Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 7.1 identify the placement of an audit function within the reporting line of the areas it audits as a structural threat to independence.
F28:
BART’s Internal Audit Charter and Audit Committee Charter both reflect that final approval authority over the Internal Audit Charter and annual audit plan rests with executive management rather than the Audit Committee, while IIA Standards 6.2 and 6.3 require that the governing body hold this approval authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider amending the Audit Committee Charter to grant the Audit Committee authority to approve the Internal Audit Charter, the annual risk-based audit plan, and audit resources consistent with IIA Standards 6.1 (Organizational Positioning), 6.2 (Internal Audit Charter), and 7.1 (Organizational Independence).
F29:
Management’s approval of the Internal Audit Charter and annual audit plan does not comply with IIA Standards 6.2 and 6.3, which require the governing body to approve these documents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider amending the Audit Committee Charter to grant the Audit Committee authority to approve the Internal Audit Charter, the annual risk-based audit plan, and audit resources consistent with IIA Standards 6.1 (Organizational Positioning), 6.2 (Internal Audit Charter), and 7.1 (Organizational Independence).
F30:
The Audit Committee Charter is inconsistent with IIA Standards 6.2 and 6.3 because it requires only a review, rather than formal approval, of the Internal Audit Charter and the annual risk-based audit plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider amending the Audit Committee Charter to grant the Audit Committee authority to approve the Internal Audit Charter, the annual risk-based audit plan, and audit resources consistent with IIA Standards 6.1 (Organizational Positioning), 6.2 (Internal Audit Charter), and 7.1 (Organizational Independence).
F31:
BART’s Internal Audit Charter states that Internal Audit functionally reports to the Audit Committee—meaning the Committee is responsible for overseeing Internal Audit’s work, approving its plans, and receiving its findings.
F32:
BART’s organizational chart places Internal Audit within the executive management hierarchy with no direct reporting to the Audit Committee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider restructuring Internal Audit’s reporting to establish a direct reporting relationship between Internal Audit and the Audit Committee— meaning the Committee approves the audit plan, receives engagement results, and exercises oversight of the internal audit function—consistent with IIA Standards 6.1 and 7.1 and GAGAS Section 3.56.
F33:
There is no documented policy governing the form, content, or timing of Internal Audit’s communications to the Audit Committee, as IIA Standard 15.1 requires. The Grand Jury’s review of Audit Committee meeting materials found that the topics the Charter requires Internal Audit to address periodically were not always covered in Internal Audit’s appearances.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider requiring Internal Audit to develop and implement a documented policy governing the form, content, and timing of its communications to the Audit Committee, consistent with IIA Standard 15.1, and to report to the Audit Committee on the topics defined in the Internal Audit Charter at each scheduled Committee meeting.
F34:
Complete Internal Audit reports were not provided to the Audit Committee on a consistent basis in connection with Internal Audit’s appearances. Activity summaries were provided instead.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider requiring that full Internal Audit reports be provided on a timely basis to the Audit Committee, OIG, and Board without restriction consistent with GAGAS Section 9.57.
F35:
There is no documented policy establishing how Internal Audit reports are to be distributed to the Audit Committee following completion of an engagement, as required by GAGAS Section 9.57 and IIA Standard 15.1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider requiring that full Internal Audit reports be provided on a timely basis to the Audit Committee, OIG, and Board without restriction consistent with GAGAS Section 9.57.
F36:
Internal Audit’s public webpage includes the Internal Audit Charter and annual activity reports containing summarized audit findings but does not include the annual audit plan, completed audit reports, or the status of audit recommendation implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing Internal Audit to expand the Internal Audit webpage to include the annual audit plan, completed audit reports, and the status of recommendation implementation, consistent with the public availability requirements of GAGAS Section 9.56.
F37:
There are no documented restrictions precluding public availability of Internal Audit’s completed audit reports, indicating that BART’s Internal Audit function does not comply with the public distribution requirements of GAGAS Section 9.56.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing Internal Audit to expand the Internal Audit webpage to include the annual audit plan, completed audit reports, and the status of recommendation implementation, consistent with the public availability requirements of GAGAS Section 9.56.
F38:
Internal Audit’s risk assessment methodology does not comply with IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4 because it does not include documented scoring criteria, risk-weighting factors, a defined process for gathering risk information, or evidence of management input.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider requiring Internal Audit to formalize and document its risk assessment methodology, including scoring, weighting, and prioritization criteria.
F39:
The 2025 annual audit plan presented to the Audit Committee relied on internal surveys to identify risks and did not include documented input from the Audit Committee or Board of Directors, contrary to IIA Standard 9.4, which requires that the risk assessment be informed by input from the board and senior management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing Internal Audit to implement a formal, documented process to obtain and incorporate input from the Audit Committee and Board into the annual risk assessment process, ensuring alignment with the IIA Standards and GAGAS.
F40:
During the 2020 and 2025 external auditor procurement cycles, BART staff issued the Request for Proposals in both cycles without prior Audit Committee review, and in the 2025 cycle the Committee was not provided the RFP or the responses received from prospective auditors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider clarifying and formalizing the Audit Committee’s authority and role in external auditor procurement within the Audit Committee Charter, including defined responsibilities for participation in request for proposal development, evaluation criteria, and selection.
F41:
The Employee Code of Conduct was adopted in 2013.
F42:
The Audit Committee Charter requires the Audit Committee to conduct biennial reviews of the Employee Code of Conduct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider requiring the Audit Committee to conduct and document biennial reviews of the Employee Code of Conduct as required by the Audit Committee’s Charter.
F43:
The Employee Code of Conduct has not been reviewed by the Audit Committee since the Committee’s inception in 2021.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider requiring the Audit Committee to conduct and document biennial reviews of the Employee Code of Conduct as required by the Audit Committee’s Charter.
F44:
BART’s Internal Audit Charter, Audit Committee Charter, and organizational chart are inconsistent with one another regarding Internal Audit’s reporting relationships and the Audit Committee’s authority, creating ambiguity about where authority over Internal Audit actually resides. These conditions are inconsistent with IIA Standards 6.1 and 7.1, which require that internal audit authority, positioning, and reporting relationships be clearly defined and consistently reflected across governance frameworks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By April 1, 2027, the BART Board should consider directing management to align the Internal Audit Charter, Audit Committee Charter, and organizational chart to consistently reflect Internal Audit’s reporting relationships and the Audit Committee’s authority, as required by IIA Standards 6.1 and 7.1.
Findings & Recommendations
31 findings
F1:
Ambulance Patient Offload Time (APOT) is the time it takes from ambulance arrival at a hospital until the patient is accepted by the emergency department.
F2:
An Ambulance Patient Offload Delay (APOD) occurs when the time taken for an ambulance patient offload transfer to a hospital emergency department exceeds the required standard.
F3:
California Health & Safety Code Section 1797.120.5 (b)(1) mandates that every Local Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA) develop an APOT standard of not to exceed 30 minutes 90% of the time, measured monthly.
F4:
The County LEMSA has adopted an APOT standard not to exceed 20 minutes 90% of the time, measured monthly.
F5:
The County LEMSA Quarterly reports demonstrate that APODs in Contra Costa County have been occurring since at least 2020.
F6:
The County LEMSA does not have the authority to enforce compliance with its APOT standard.
F7:
County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Standard Policy 4010 requires that ambulance personnel provide continuity of care to patients until they are accepted into the emergency department.
F8:
APODs prevent EMS personnel from responding to other emergencies in the County.
F9:
ConFire’s ambulance transports have increased 14% from 2021 to 2025.
F10:
Emergency department usage at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) has increased 15% from 2021 through 2024.
F11:
CCRMC’s average monthly APOTs have consistently exceeded the County LEMSA standard of not to exceed 20 minutes 90% of the time since January 2020.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider retaining a consultant to evaluate CCRMC’s emergency department throughput and to make recommendations on how to reduce or eliminate APODs.
F12:
Contra Costa County Psychiatric Emergency Services (PES) has the highest APODs in the County, with monthly 90th percentile averages exceeding one hour for each year from 2020 to 2025.
F13:
PES does not have a prescreening area to triage patients who might not need a complete behavioral assessment.
F14:
PES has physical limitations that only allow one patient at a time to be given an intake assessment.
F15:
PES currently has unbudgeted architectural plans for expansion.
F16:
PES expansion would reduce the frequency and duration of APODs by providing additional screening and intake space.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider exploring sources of funding for construction of the proposed PES expansion.
F17:
The County EMS system is being used by low-acuity patients.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the County LEMSA to assess whether any current County LEMSA regulations and policies limit EMS personnel’s ability to redirect low-acuity patients to appropriate levels of care.
R6:
By April 1, 2027, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District should consider expanding the use of its Nurse Navigation Programs to divert low-acuity callers from 911 ambulance responses when clinically appropriate.
R7:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider using the County LEMSA’s ambulance response exceedance fines to expand the County’s “Right Care, Right Way” initiative countywide to reduce unnecessary emergency department usage.
F18:
Low acuity usage of the County emergency medical services system increases the risk of APODs.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the County LEMSA to assess whether any current County LEMSA regulations and policies limit EMS personnel’s ability to redirect low-acuity patients to appropriate levels of care.
R6:
By April 1, 2027, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District should consider expanding the use of its Nurse Navigation Programs to divert low-acuity callers from 911 ambulance responses when clinically appropriate.
R7:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider using the County LEMSA’s ambulance response exceedance fines to expand the County’s “Right Care, Right Way” initiative countywide to reduce unnecessary emergency department usage.
F19:
Redirecting people who do not require emergency medical services to appropriate alternative care reduces the risk of APODs.
F20:
County emergency medical and behavioral health responders use an ambulance with life support equipment to transport persons having a behavioral crisis and/or who are on a 5150 hold to PES when law enforcement does not do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should direct the County A3 Program to consider using non- ambulance vehicles to transport persons in a behavioral crisis and/or who are on a 5150 hold and not having a medical emergency, as recommended in the Fitch & Associates Report, titled EMS System Assessment Summary Briefing Report.
F21:
The County does not have a sobering center.
F22:
The County has plans and funding to build the Los Medanos Recovery Center.
F23:
The Board of Supervisors has a goal to reduce emergency department usage by building the Los Medanos Recovery Center.
F24:
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s Nurse Navigation Program can divert low-acuity patients from the emergency medical system by redirecting them to appropriate non- emergency care.
F25:
The County’s “Right Care, Right Way” initiative is designed to reduce low-acuity patient usage of ambulances and emergency departments by giving the public information about appropriate non-emergency alternatives.
F26:
CCRMC uses a dedicated nurse to triage patients arriving by ambulance with a goal of improving APOTs.
F27:
CCRMC’s APOT Reduction Protocol, implemented on September 1, 2024, does not cite the County LEMSA APOT standard not to exceed 20 minutes 90% of the time.
F28:
CCRMC’s APOT Reduction Protocol does not provide specific criteria for activation of the protocol, as required by California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 9, Chapter 1.2, Section 100002.03.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring CCRMC to update its APOT Reduction Protocol to meet the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 9, Chapter 1.2, Section 100002.03.
F29:
The County LEMSA has not notified the hospitals in the County that their APOT Reduction Protocols do not cite the applicable County LEMSA standard.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring the County LEMSA to notify CCRMC that its APOT Reduction Protocol does not cite the applicable LEMSA APOT standard of not to exceed 20 minutes 90% of the time.
R10:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring the County LEMSA to notify any hospital in the County when its APOT Reduction Protocol cites a standard longer than the County LEMSA standard.
F30:
As of March 2026, the County LEMSA has a current balance of $1,062,715 from fire district fines assessed when ambulance response times exceeded contracted times.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider using the County LEMSA’s ambulance exceedance fine collections for the cost of an emergency department throughput consultant.
F31:
The Board of Supervisors (Board) does not have the County LEMSA’s quarterly APOT reports as a standing agenda Board item.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
By April 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring the County LEMSA to provide the Board with its quarterly reporting on the status of APOTs in the County.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The present administrative policy for Electronic Home Detention (EHD) does not set out an individual’s right, or the procedure, to appeal the denial of participation in the EHD program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider revising the administrative policy for EHD to include an explanation of the right to appeal under California Penal Codes Sections 1203.018 and 1203.016.
F2:
The Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) “Notice of Disqualification” does not cite Penal Code Section 1203.018(g)(2) (pre-trial EHD).
F3:
The CAF “Notice of Disqualification” cites Penal Code Section 1203.016(d)(2) (post- sentencing EHD).
F4:
CAF does provide notice to attorneys of record of denials and disqualifications for pre-trial individuals.
F5:
If the participant is post-sentencing, the Notice of Disqualification is not sent to the last known attorney of record.
F6:
CAF sends the Notice of Disqualification to participants at their last known address.
F7:
Lack of notice of appeal rights to the last known attorney of record of a participant limits the participant’s opportunity for effective representation in the appeal of the CAF denial or removal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider directing CAF to send a post- sentencing “Notice of Disqualification” to the address of the last known attorney of record in addition to the notice mailed to the denied participant.
F8:
CAF does not report demographic information on denials or disqualifications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing demographic information on denials or disqualifications for all three CAF programs.
F9:
CAF does not report who is denied participation in the three programs.
F10:
CAF does not report reasons for denial or disqualification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing reasons for denials or disqualifications for all three CAF programs.
F11:
CAF does not report rates of recidivism for those who are on EHD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing rates of recidivism for EHD participants.
F12:
The costs of the three CAF programs are never disaggregated; therefore, there is insufficient information to identify the cost of each separate program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing separate cost data for each of the CAF programs.
F13:
In 2025, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Sheriff’s Office to hire and designate staff to facilitate data collection.
F14:
Not all EHD forms used by the public are available in languages other than English.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider translating all documents used by individuals in the CAF process into Spanish and Mandarin.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Sheriff’s Quarterly Oversight Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding the cost of detention borne by the Sheriff’s Department does not include costs borne by other County departments, such as the costs of medical and mental health services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring an audit to determine the full costs of adult detention facilities.
F2:
In 2025, the average daily cost to detain an adult in custody at the County’s three detention facilities, including mental and medical services, was $396.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Upon completion of the audit and no later than June 30, 2027, the Board should consider directing the auditor to report on the review of the full costs of operating each of the adult detention facilities.
F3:
At $627 per day, Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF) costs more to house inmates than Martinez Detention Facility ($511) or West County Detention Facility ($278).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By October 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider clarifying in its Quarterly Oversight Report that the detention costs reflect only the Sheriff’s Office costs.
F4:
MCDF operates at 20% of its capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office and the County Administrator’s Office to identify a methodology for determining and reporting the full costs of the adult detention facilities operated by Contra Costa County.
F5:
The Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) does not separately report the costs of the programs it administers: Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program, Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, and Electronic Home Detention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By July 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to close MCDF.
F6:
The most recently available Sheriff’s Community Transparency Portal does not report the costs to manage the adult detention facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to collect and report operating cost data separately for each CAF program.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
In 2018, Bay Area voters approved the creation of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
F2:
Public Utilities Code Section 28841 outlines the foundational structure and responsibilities of the OIG but does not establish details regarding the scope or exercise of the OIG’s authority.
F3:
The OIG does not presently have a charter.
F4:
In 2021, the OIG presented a draft charter to the BART Board of Directors (Board) and the Board’s Audit Committee.
F5:
Neither the Board nor the Audit Committee adopted or revised the draft charter received from the OIG in 2021.
F6:
Following its August 1, 2024, meeting that included on its agenda an “OIG Charter Discussion,” the Audit Committee has not placed on its agenda a discussion or review of an OIG charter.
F7:
The Board has not acted to adopt a charter for the OIG.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider directing the Audit Committee to begin the process of adopting a formal charter for the OIG.
F8:
The Board has not itself attempted to negotiate with its unions a resolution to the unions’ objections to any of the OIG’s proposed charters.
F9:
The Board asked the OIG to negotiate directly with the unions the issue of requiring advance notification to the unions when the OIG wishes to interview a union member as part of an investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider requesting that the OIG develop written procedures that clarify employee obligations and rights to union representation during an investigation, at the employee’s discretion.
F10:
BART adopted a written Internal Audit Charter confirming that its internal audit (IA) function has full and unrestricted access to data, records and information, physical property, and personnel, including union members, pertinent to carrying out IA responsibilities.
F11:
The Board has not issued a written policy or established formal procedures stating that the OIG is to have unrestricted access to data, records, information, physical property, and personnel as necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG is to have unrestricted access to data, records, information, physical property, and personnel as necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
F12:
A BART executive has taken the position that the OIG cannot interview them unless their supervisor approves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy affirming the authority of the OIG to interview any BART employee or officer, including executive leadership, without seeking prior approval.
F13:
A BART executive has questioned the OIG’s authority to conduct a retaliation investigation.
F14:
Questions raised by a BART executive regarding the scope of the OIG’s authority caused the OIG to halt a retaliation investigation for several months.
F15:
BART has adopted a written charter that states that IA has the authority to determine the adequacy of management’s actions taken in response to IA reports and recommendations.
F16:
The Board has not issued a written policy or established written procedures stating that the OIG has the authority to determine adequacy of BART management’s actions taken in response to OIG audit and investigative recommendations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG has the authority and responsibility to determine whether management’s planned actions will adequately address any issues identified in an audit or investigation.
R2:
In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG has the authority and responsibility to follow up on audit and investigation recommendations until the OIG is satisfied that management has either implemented the recommendations or otherwise adequately addressed the concerns brought forward by the OIG.
F17:
Assigning the Board the responsibility for determining whether management has adequately implemented OIG recommendations following an audit or investigation would bypass an independent evaluation by the OIG of management’s actions in response to OIG
F18:
The BART Employee Code of Conduct (ECOC) requires employees to act ethically, comply with District policies, and report misconduct.
F19:
The ECOC does not presently require cooperation with OIG investigations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider revising the ECOC to require all officers and employees to cooperate with OIG audits and investigations.
F20:
BART’s current Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) require employees to comply with BART’s rules but do not explicitly incorporate the ECOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
In the next negotiations of CBAs, the Board should consider seeking to have the ECOC explicitly incorporated by reference into new CBAs.
F21:
BART’s CBAs do not specifically require cooperation with OIG investigations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
California Government Code Section 1236 requires that employees conducting audits for public agencies follow standards of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) or the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).
F2:
The Internal Audit Division’s (IAD) Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 2.1, directs that it “follow applicable professional auditing standards in conducting our audits,” and defines which IIA or GAGAS standards are applicable to specific audit situations.
F3:
The IAD’s placement within the Auditor-Controller's organizational structure creates an organizational independence threat under GAGAS §§3.27–3.58 and IIA Standard 7.1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider evaluating alternative organizational reporting structures for IAD that reduce organizational and self-review threats, including placement outside the Auditor-Controller’s span of control.
F4:
The Internal Operation Committee’s (IOC) failure to exercise charter approval, audit plan pre-approval, and direct report receipt as required by IIA Standards 6.1, 6.2, 8.1, 9.4, 11.3 and Principle 8 leaves this organizational independence threat unmitigated, constituting an independence impairment in fact and appearance under GAGAS §3.56.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider evaluating alternative organizational reporting structures for IAD that reduce organizational and self-review threats, including placement outside the Auditor-Controller’s span of control.
R6:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring an annual review by the IOC of IAD’s organizational independence, documented safeguards, and any identified independence impairments to ensure continued compliance with IIA Standard 7.1 and GAGAS §§3.40–3.58.
F5:
IAD personnel participate in preparation of the County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), a management responsibility of the Auditor-Controller.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider prohibiting IAD personnel from participating in the preparation of the ACFR or performing other management functions to comply with IIA Standard 7.1 and GAGAS §§3.87-3.89.
F6:
The participation of IAD personnel in ACFR preparation and their subsequent auditing of those same financial reporting processes and controls represents a self-review threat as defined in GAGAS §§3.30 and 3.39.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider prohibiting IAD personnel from participating in the preparation of the ACFR or performing other management functions to comply with IIA Standard 7.1 and GAGAS §§3.87-3.89.
F7:
The IAD has no documentation demonstrating that organizational and self-review independence threats have been formally identified, evaluated, or mitigated through safeguards, as required by GAGAS §§3.40–3.58 and IIA Standard 7.1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the Auditor- Controller to develop, document, and implement a formal independence safeguards framework consistent with GAGAS §§3.40–3.58 and IIA Standards 7.1. Required safeguards shall include recusal protocols for audits involving Auditor-Controller functions, independent supervisory review of those audits, and documented segregation of duties between IAD personnel participating in ACFR preparation and those auditing associated financial reporting processes.
F8:
The IAD has no documentation that the impact of IAD staff participation in ACFR preparation (a non-audit management activity) on independence and objectivity has been formally assessed and disclosed to the oversight body, as required by GAGAS §3.59 and IIA Standards 7.1 and 8.1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the Auditor- Controller to annually disclose to the IOC, or, if established, the Audit Committee, all identified independence threats and the safeguards implemented to mitigate them, consistent with GAGAS §3.59 and IIA Standard 7.1.
F9:
The IOC of the Board of Supervisors (Board), consisting of two supervisors, is responsible for functional oversight of the IAD.
F10:
The IOC holds one meeting per year at which the IAD presents its prior year activities and upcoming audit plan.
F11:
No documentation was found of additional meetings, interim audit reporting, or direct communication between the IAD and the IOC between annual plan presentations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the IAD to report to the IOC no less than quarterly on the status of audit engagements, demonstrating alignment with the approved audit plan and documented risk assessment, consistent with IIA Principle 8, Standards 8.1 and 11.3, and GAGAS Chapter 6.
F12:
A single annual meeting does not satisfy the ongoing communication, timely reporting, and report distribution obligations imposed by IIA Principle 8, IIA Standards 8.1 and 15.1, GAGAS §§6.06 and 9.56, each of which requires engagement throughout the year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the IAD to report to the IOC no less than quarterly on the status of audit engagements, demonstrating alignment with the approved audit plan and documented risk assessment, consistent with IIA Principle 8, Standards 8.1 and 11.3, and GAGAS Chapter 6.
F13:
The Board’s Finance Committee, consisting of two supervisors, is responsible for functional oversight of external audit activity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider consolidating the internal and external auditor oversight as currently performed by the IOC and Finance Committee into a single Audit Committee.
F14:
Neither the IOC nor the Finance Committee requires financial or audit expertise as a condition of membership, inconsistent with the Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA’s) Audit Committees best practice and IIA guidance on audit committee effectiveness, both of which identify such expertise as a threshold condition for effective audit oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider adopting IOC, or Audit Committee, membership that conforms to GFOA's Audit Committees best practice guidance by including a minimum of three members, at least one with expertise in governmental accounting principles, internal controls, and audit committee functions, and at least one public member independent of County management.
F15:
Neither the IOC nor the Finance Committee includes public members independent of County management as a condition of membership. GFOA's Audit Committees best practice recommends that audit committees include public members independent of management to strengthen both the substance and credibility of financial oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider adopting IOC, or Audit Committee, membership that conforms to GFOA's Audit Committees best practice guidance by including a minimum of three members, at least one with expertise in governmental accounting principles, internal controls, and audit committee functions, and at least one public member independent of County management.
F16:
The County’s IAD operates under Administrative Bulletin 212.1 (1975), which does not include all the elements of an Audit Charter required by IIA Standard 6.2.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider developing an Audit Charter for the IAD aligned with IIA Standard 6.2.
R11:
By April 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider reviewing and approving the IAD's Audit Charter, consistent with IIA Standard 6.2, which requires that the governing body approve the internal audit charter and conduct periodic reviews to ensure it remains current.
F17:
The IAD presented its 2026 annual audit plan as “risk based.” However, the plan did not include a documented risk assessment as required by IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to revise its Policies and Procedures Manual and any applicable administrative bulletins to incorporate requirements for a documented, risk-based audit planning process aligned with IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4.
F18:
IAD has no documented risk-assessment methodology as required by IIA Standard 9.3.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider requiring the IAD to adopt and implement a documented risk assessment methodology that includes defined risk factors, risk- ranking or scoring criteria, and a systematic process for identifying and prioritizing risks as required by IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4.
F19:
IAD’s risk assessments do not include input from the Board or senior County executives, as required by IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider requiring that the annual risk assessment process include documented input from the Board of Supervisors, its designated oversight committee, and senior county leadership, consistent with IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4.
F20:
The IOC is not provided with information to determine whether proposed annual audit plans address the County’s highest-risk areas, as required by IIA Principle 8, IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4.
Related Recommendations (2)
R15:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring that all audit plans presented for its approval include a summary of the risk assessment methodology, key risks identified, and the rationale used to prioritize audit engagements, consistent with IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4 and GAGAS §§8.03–8.07.
R16:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the IAD to document the linkage between identified risks and the audit engagements included in the annual audit plan, including justification for inclusion or exclusion of high-risk areas.
F21:
IAD implements its annual audit plan without prior Board input or approval, eliminating the Board's opportunity to influence audit priorities before audit work has begun, inconsistent with IIA Principle 8 and IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4, which collectively require that the board review and approve the risk-based audit plan before implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
By December 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Auditor- Controller to submit the IAD's annual risk-based audit plan for Board approval before the fiscal year to which the plan applies begins.
F22:
Findings F4, F10, F11, F12, F18, F19, F20, F21, and F26 collectively establish that the IOC and Board do not fulfill the audit oversight responsibilities required by IIA Principle 8 and Standards 8.1 and 15.1, and GAGAS §§3.46 and 6.06 — including charter approval, prospective audit plan approval, ongoing engagement, risk-based planning oversight, and direct receipt of audit reports.
F23:
The IAD’s schedule is based on a calendar year, inconsistent with the fiscal year that governs the County’s overall planning, budgeting, and operational processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to shift the Internal Audit Division’s audit planning from a calendar to a fiscal year schedule beginning with the 2027-28 fiscal year.
F24:
The IAD does not maintain an ongoing quality assurance and improvement program, as required by IIA Standard 8.3 and GAGAS Chapter 5, which require audit organizations to establish and maintain internal quality assessment processes to evaluate conformance with professional standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to adopt and maintain an ongoing quality assurance and improvement program, as required by IIA Standard 8.3 and GAGAS Chapter 5.
F25:
The IAD has not undergone an external quality assessment review in more than 25 years. IIA Standard 8.4 requires an external assessment at least once every five years and GAGAS §5.179 requires an external peer review at least once every three years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to undergo an external quality assessment review as required by IIA Standard 8.4 and GAGAS §5.179.
F26:
The IAD does not distribute its reports to the IOC, as required by IIA standards 11.3 and 15.1 and GAGAS Chapter 9.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to distribute all completed audit reports, including management responses, directly to the IOC (or, if established, the Audit Committee) consistent with the direct communication requirements of IIA Standards 11.3 and 15.1 and the report distribution requirements of GAGAS Chapter 9.
F27:
The IAD does not post its completed audit reports or annual audit plan on its public webpage, inconsistent with GAGAS Chapter 9, which requires public availability of completed audit reports, and the recommendations of the Association of Local Government Auditors and the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to post the audit charter, annual audit plan, and all completed audit reports to the County's public website, consistent with GAGAS Chapter 9, which requires that audit organizations make completed audit reports publicly available, and the transparency recommendations of the Association of Local Government Auditors and the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers.
F28:
The deficiencies documented in Findings F3 through F8, F16 through F21, F24, F25, F26, and F27 collectively establish that the IAD does not operate in conformance with the IIA and GAGAS standards required by California Government Code Section 1236 and directed by its own Policies and Procedures Manual.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to comply with the IIA and GAGAS auditing standards as adopted in IAD’s Policies and Procedures Manual and as required by California Government Code Section 1236.
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
The current County triennial review process for County BCCs Agree provides an effective way to measure and thereby manage their operation and oversight because it establishes a predictable, thorough examination.
F2:
As of January 19, 2025, eight percent (nine of 111) of County Disagree BCCs have no website or other online presence making it difficult for the public to obtain information about the existence, purpose, membership and progress of these B CCs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider requiring each Implemented County board, commission, and committee to create a basic internet presence by June 1, 2026, that includes, at minimum, links to their charter (if available), by-laws (if available), membership information, agendas, and minutes.
F3:
The 111 existing BCC websites are spread across multiple Partially department web pages on the County's main website, making Disagree online BCC information difficult to find.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider requiring each Implemented County board, commission, and committee to create a basic internet presence by June 1, 2026, that includes, at minimum, links to their charter (if available), by-laws (if available), membership information, agendas, and minutes.
F4:
There is no master list of all County BCCs contained on the Partially County main website. Disagree
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider requiring each Implemented County board, commission, and committee to create a basic internet presence by June 1, 2026, that includes, at minimum, links to their charter (if available), by-laws (if available), membership information, agendas, and minutes.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Will Be appropriate staff to create, by January 1, 2026, an online master list Implemented of all County BCCs where each listing contains a link to the associated BCC website and a link to the master list is made available on the home page of the main County website and on the home page of Legistar. Will Be
F5:
As of January 19, 2025, 42 percent (47 of 111) of County BCCs Disagree do not have agendas posted in Legistar, the County's BCC data repository, which results in a lack of transparency to the public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider requiring each Implemented County board, commission, and committee to create a basic internet presence by June 1, 2026, that includes, at minimum, links to their charter (if available), by-laws (if available), membership information, agendas, and minutes.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should consider directing each Implemented County BCC to post all meeting agendas and minutes in the appropriate section of Legistar on the central County website by January 1, 2026. Page A3 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 3 Report 2503 Staffing Challenges Facing the Richmond Police Department: Diminishing Funds and Fewer Officers
F6:
As of January 19, 2025, 56 percent (62 of 111) of County BCCs Agree do not have their meeting minutes posted in Legistar on the central County website, resulting in a lack of transparency to the public.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider requiring each Implemented County board, commission, and committee to create a basic internet presence by June 1, 2026, that includes, at minimum, links to their charter (if available), by-laws (if available), membership information, agendas, and minutes.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should consider directing each Implemented County BCC to post all meeting agendas and minutes in the appropriate section of Legistar on the central County website by January 1, 2026. Page A3 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 3 Report 2503 Staffing Challenges Facing the Richmond Police Department: Diminishing Funds and Fewer Officers
F7:
As of January 19, 2025, of the 49 County BCCs that post their Agree minutes in Legistar, 27 (55 percent) incorporate them into the agenda packets rather than in the Minutes column of Legistar, making it difficult to locate meeting minutes. Page A1 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should consider directing each Implemented County BCC to post all meeting agendas and minutes in the appropriate section of Legistar on the central County website by January 1, 2026. Page A3 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 3 Report 2503 Staffing Challenges Facing the Richmond Police Department: Diminishing Funds and Fewer Officers
F8:
Historic County agenda and minutes data are stored and accessed Disagree in two different applications, Legistar and AgendaCenter, which can make the information difficult to find.
F9:
Even though it is preferred to use only one system, Legistar, to Agree access meeting agendas and minutes, those presently contained in AgendaCenter cannot easily be moved or copied to Legistar due to technological constraints too costl y to overcome. Page A2 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 2 Report 2502 County Boards, Commissions, Councils, and Committees
F10:
Subsequent to the reallocation of RPD funds in 2021 the City Agree Council approved the formation of the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP). Partially
F11:
The CCRP was formed to respond to calls involving mental Disagree health and quality of life incidents not requiring the RPD.
F12:
As of April 2025, the CCRP is staffed with three people, a Partially program manager and two staffers. Disagree
F13:
As of April 2025, the CCRP is not receiving calls for service Agree via police dispatch. Partially
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider directing Will Be the City Manager to work with the RPD to establish a training Implemented program for dispatchers to enable dispatchers to properly send appropriate personnel to incidents for CCRP and RPD.
F14:
The need for agreement between the City and RPOA on duties Disagree to be performed and union representation of the CCRP is
F15:
As a result of a legal settlement between the City and Partially Chevron Corporation, $550 million will be coming to the City of Disagree Richmond over the next 10 years, starting in June 2025, resulting in increased revenue for the City.
F16:
As of April 2025, The City Council has not determined how Agree any of the Chevron settlement funds will be used. Page A5 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 4 Report 2503 Staffing Challenges Facing the Richmond Police Department: Diminishing Funds and Fewer Officers
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider directing Will Be the City Manager to work with the RPD to develop a plan to Implemented increase the number of Field Training Officers.
R6:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider directing Implemented the City Manager to work with the RPD to establish a plan to reduce officer mandatory overtime.
R7:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider whether Not to allocate some of the Chevron Corporation settlement funds to Implemented the RPD to hire and retain more officers. Page A6 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 5 Report 2504 Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control “The Good Guys on Your Side”
F17:
Children and Family Services does not have a hiring or retention Agree bonus program for social workers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Implemented Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to provide additional motivational, recognition, and wellness programs for social workers as an incentive in recruitment and retention, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding. Page A17 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 11 Report 2507 Measure J Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee Mt. Diablo Unified School District A Case of Impeded Oversight
F18:
Children and Family Services has university and employee Agree internship programs. Since 2019, CFS hired eight of 28 university interns and promoted five of 23 employee interns into permanent social worker positions.
F19:
Several of the challenges identified by the Grand Jury in 2019 Partially (including a number of vacancies among social workers, a lengthy Disagree hiring process, heavy workloads, and a stressful work environment) still exist today. Page A15 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 10 Report 2506 Children and Family Services: Challenges in Recruiting and Retaining Social Workers
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Implemented Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to provide additional motivational, recognition, and wellness programs for social workers as an incentive in recruitment and retention, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding. Page A17 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 11 Report 2507 Measure J Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee Mt. Diablo Unified School District A Case of Impeded Oversight
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider following Implemented Resolution 76- s requirements for qualifications of members to serve on the Citizens Financial Sustainability Committee. Page A13 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 9 Report 2506 Children and Family Services: Challenges in Recruiting and Retaining Social Workers
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Martinez has 67.3 acres of waterfront property along the Carquinez Strait, including parcels deeded in 2014 by the State Lands Trust.
F2:
The Martinez City Council seeks to develop what it describes as a “vibrant and sustainable Waterfront and Marina” per its four-year Strategic Plan.
F3:
Martinez’s Strategic Plan includes waterfront and marina public spaces including recreational, boating, and wetlands components.
F4:
A January 2023 engineering study by Anchor QEA commissioned by Martinez revealed that the marina seawall, docks, and pilings have deteriorated and require repair, rehabilitation, and/or replacement.
F5:
Martinez currently lacks funds from ongoing City revenues for repair, rehabilitation, and/or replacement of the waterfront, seawall, marina docks, and pilings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2027, the Martinez City Council should consider developing an alternative funding plan that ensures the repair, redevelopment, and/or rehabilitation of the marina and waterfront without interfering with the current ENA or potential development agreement.
F6:
The marina was partially dredged last in 2022.
F7:
Dredging of the marina every 3 to 5 years is required to provide enough waterway depth for boats to access docks.
F8:
Martinez currently lacks funds for dredging silt deposited along its waterfront and the marina.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2027, the Martinez City Council should consider developing an alternative funding plan that ensures the repair, redevelopment, and/or rehabilitation of the marina and waterfront without interfering with the current ENA or potential development agreement.
F9:
Martinez’s shoreline is subject to a projected sea level rise of 6 to 10 inches by 2050, as determined by a 2022 Federal Sea Level Rise Technical report.
F10:
The projected rise in sea level will require the building of a higher seawall to prevent flooding of the marina parking lot and surrounding low-lying areas
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2027, the Martinez City Council should consider developing an alternative funding plan that ensures the repair, redevelopment, and/or rehabilitation of the marina and waterfront without interfering with the current ENA or potential development agreement.
F11:
Martinez currently lacks funds for construction of a higher seawall.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2027, the Martinez City Council should consider developing an alternative funding plan that ensures the repair, redevelopment, and/or rehabilitation of the marina and waterfront without interfering with the current ENA or potential development agreement.
F12:
Martinez cannot continue subsidizing the marina at the current scale without compromising the City’s core services.
F13:
Martinez projects the difference between revenues and expenditures will require the City to continue to loan the marina $650,000 annually for its maintenance and operation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2027, the Martinez City Council should consider developing an alternative funding plan that ensures the repair, redevelopment, and/or rehabilitation of the marina and waterfront without interfering with the current ENA or potential development agreement.
F14:
Martinez has determined that a public-private partnership is the solution to create a vibrant and sustainable waterfront and marina.
F15:
Martinez has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Tucker Sadler, a firm that has experience in developing waterfronts and marinas.
F16:
The purpose of the ENA is to create a framework for the City and the developer to negotiate only with each other for the development of the proposed project.
F17:
Martinez City Council and staff acknowledge the risks involved in a public-private partnership.
F18:
If Martinez is unable to negotiate and execute a development agreement with Tucker Sadler, there is no identified mechanism to fund the repair, rehabilitation, or continued operation of the marina and waterfront.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2027, the Martinez City Council should consider developing an alternative funding plan that ensures the repair, redevelopment, and/or rehabilitation of the marina and waterfront without interfering with the current ENA or potential development agreement.