Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2025-2026
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
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.