📋

Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Score: -1 (2/0/3)

Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

Grand Jury Final Report 2016 - 2017 ContraCosta County Grand Jury Final Report

Published: May 01, 2017 2 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Conclusions 1

CL1

The homeless situation in Contra Costa County is large enough to justify the effort to find additional funds to provide more shelter beds for the homeless. By closely examining the current County budget, with an eye toward pooling together enough money to establish an East County shelter and CARE center, the County could realize a financial benefit of reduced Health Service costs for the homeless that would be sufficient to cover the cost of investment. It appears that the County has been slow to react and has not taken sufficient steps to deal with the homeless problem. The County does enough to maintain the programs funded by HUD, but needs to do more to ensure that there are adequate services, shelters, and beds for all. Providing 418 beds for 1,607 homeless people is inadequate. With an increase in the number of complaints and visibility of the homeless, which can occupy a great deal of a police officers’ time, some local police department chiefs are finding money in their budgets to create homeless outreach teams that help direct the homeless to the shelters and care centers.

Agency Responses 3

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

City of Pittsburg

September 10, 2018 • 2 pages • 4 responses • Score: +1 (+1, 0, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

4 responses to findings and recommendations

The Bay Area Earthquake Plan of July 6, 2016, establishes operational planning and preparation criteria for each Bay Area county.

Response: Agree Score: +1

Finding 1: a function that each member has the legal authority to provide. This shared approach results in cost savings and better efficiency on behalf of taxpayers. The City of Pittsburg agrees with the Finding. Response: <b>Grand Jury Recommendations</b> All cities with JPAs in the County should confirm their

Sheriff OES should consider creating a schedule for updating the Bay Area Earthquake Plan operational annexes

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

Recommendation 1: compliance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505 by submitting the required audit report to the County Auditor by Decembe

EHSD should consider access to view the NSS list

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

Recommendation 5: All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by Decembe

R10

The County Board of Supervisors and the Antioch City Council should consider negotiating an MOU whereby the Shelter agrees to accept all animals. Those that are identified as non-city of Antioch animals should be regularly picked up and transported to a County Shelter by County Animal Control Officers.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

r 10, 2018 Mario Gutierrez, Foreperson Contra Costa County Grand Jury 725 Court Street P.O. Box 431 Martinez, Ca 94553 Also via email to <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> RE: City of Pittsburg Response to Grand Jury Report No. 1808, "Joint Powers Authorities" Dear Foreperson Gutierrez, Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 et seq., this letter responds to the Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 1808, "Joint Powers Authorities: Transparency and Accountability." Below, please find the City of Pittsburg's responses to the report...

City of San Pablo (Response #1)

September 05, 2018 • 3 pages • 6 responses • Score: -2 (+1, 0, -3) View Details ▾

PDF

6 responses to findings and recommendations

The Bay Area Earthquake Plan of July 6, 2016, establishes operational planning and preparation criteria for each Bay Area county.

Response: Agree Score: +1

F1. “In the Direct JPA model, each member delegates to the JPA a function that each member has the legal authority to provide. This shared approach results in cost savings and better efficiency on behalf of taxpayers.” Response: The City of San Pablo agrees with this finding.

The Sheriff OES is charged with planning and coordinating the County’s response to a disaster.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

F2: “The Circular JPAs with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have the potential to avoid legal debt limits and provide limited disclosures to taxpayer.” Response: The City of San Pablo disagrees with this finding. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a separate legal public entity as defined by the Government Code. As such, JPAs have the ability to incur their own debt separate from the municipality. The “single controlling entity”, even if made up of the same members as a City Council, still serves in a separate legal role. All meetings of JPAs are publicly noticed and comply...

Sheriff OES Catastrophic Mass Care and Shelter Plan and other earthquake operational planning and preparation plans, dated 2010, do not meet the 2016 Bay Area Earthquake Plan requirements.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

F3: “In Contra Costa County, there are 12 Circular JPAs created by cities with RDAs that no longer exist. These JPAs may no longer be valid because each is a member of another Financial JPA which may take on new debt without the prohibition (Gov. Codes Sections 6505 3416/34170 et seq,) placed on Successor Agencies.” 13831 San Pablo Avenue, Building 1 ● San Pablo, CA 94806 Main: 510-215-3000 ● Fax: 510-215-3011 www.SanPabloCA.gov P age | 2 Response: The City of San Pablo disagrees with this finding. While the Dissolution Law voided most agreements between former redevelopment agencies and their...

EHSD is responsible for executing the Mass Care and Shelter Plan and coordinating with the American Red Cross to operate emergency shelters.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

F4: “Cities that have created the 12 Financial JPAs do not provide JPA-specific financial information in their budget document. As a result, the public may have difficulty evaluating JPA’s financial performance.” Response: The City of San Pablo disagrees with this finding. The City provides financial information on the San Pablo Joint Powers Financing Authority in its budget document which is presented in a public meeting and is available to the public in both written and online formats. Please see San Pablo Budget Documents at: http://www.sanpabloca.gov/407/City-Financial-Reports. The City do...

Sheriff OES should consider including shelter selection, inspection and preparation when it establishes the Emergency Operations Center for a simulated disaster as part of disaster exercises.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

R4: “The 11 cities that are members of a JPA associated with an RDA or their Successor Agencies should consider confirming their compliance with the provisions of Abx1.26 (Gov. Codes Sections 34177 et seq.) and report their findings and any corrective actions to the Auditor-Controller’s office by Decembe

EHSD should consider access to view the NSS list

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

r 5, 2018 A S Grand Jury Attn: Foreperson Mario Gutierrez F P.O. Box 431 O Martinez, CA 94553 (also by email to [email protected]) Y Re: Grand Jury Report No. 1808, “Joint Powers Authorities” by the 2017-2018 T Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury I Dear Mr. Gutierrez: C On behalf of the San Pablo City Council, this letter responds to Grand Jury Report No. 1808, “Joint Powers Authorities” by the 2017-2018 Contra Costa Grand Jury. With regard to FINDINGS, the City of San Pablo responds as follows:

City of San Pablo (Response #2)

October 16, 2018 • 2 pages • 3 responses View Details ▾

PDF

3 responses to findings and recommendations

Sheriff OES should consider creating a schedule for updating the Bay Area Earthquake Plan operational annexes

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

R1: “All cities with JPAs in the County should confirm their compliance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505 by submitting the required audit report to the County Auditor by Decembe

Sheriff OES should consider developing a written Mass Care and Shelter protocol by July 1, 2018, that covers selection, inspection, and opening a shelter, and identifying funds to do so.

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

r 3, 2018. With regard to RECOMMENDATIONS, the City of San Pablo’s revised responses are as follows:

EHSD should consider access to view the NSS list

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

R5: “All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by Decembe

No Responses Found 4

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Contra Costa County County

Contra Costa County Assessor Elected County Office

El Cerrito City

Richmond City