Santa Clara County Grand Jury

2025-2026

6 reports

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1a: The District has not followed through on commitments to address deficiencies in governance, financial management, and transparency identified in prior audits.
F1b: Many District officials were not familiar with the content and recommendations of the FCMAT, California State Auditor, and Harvey Rose audits.
F2a: The District’s website content on school operations frequently has obsolete or missing data.
F2b: The Board’s meeting videos, materials, and minutes are often missing from the District website or are not published promptly.
F3: Board-initiated superintendent turnover has undermined the Board’s ability to set goals and execute a coherent strategy for the District.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a: The Board should hire an experienced superintendent to align the District around a shared strategic vision, strengthen administrative performance, and ensure the District has appropriate staff expertise. This should be implemented by September 30, 2026.
R3b: The Board should strengthen its governance practices by establishing clear roles, expectations, and communication protocols with the superintendent to support a stable, effective, and long-term working relationship. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F4a: The District and Board were negligent in failing to maintain a functioning CBOC from May 2021 through December 2025.
F4b: The District spent $52.8 million in bond funds during the 2021-22 through the 2024-25 school years without required citizen oversight.
F5a: The District has not developed a long-term integrated capital and financial plan extending five years or longer.
F5b: The District faces a serious risk of financial insolvency unless it develops and implements a realistic plan to eliminate its annual budget deficits.
Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: The BSVII project currently requires voter approval of additional sales tax measures to address gaps in construction and operations funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: VTA should adopt and publish a strategy for the completion and operation of the project that reduces dependency on new sales tax measures. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F2: VTA does not maintain a cash-flow model for the BSVII project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare a cash-flow model for the BSVII project and present it quarterly to the Oversight Committee and the Board. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F3: VTA has not developed an alternative funding strategy for the project in the event that planned funding sources are unavailable or insufficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare an alternative funding strategy to meet the project’s estimated total capital costs and VTA’s responsibility for operating and maintenance costs and present it to the Oversight Committee and Board for approval. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F4: Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: VTA should adopt a policy requiring staff to present an analysis of operating and maintenance costs when considering design and construction alternatives for BSVII. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F5: The VTA Board would benefit from longer terms of office to improve continuity and institutional knowledge.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: VTA should reconsider its prior rejections of audit recommendations calling for the establishment of four-year terms and direct its legislative advocates to seek a legislative author to amend VTA’s enabling statute to require four-year terms. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
F6: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F7: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F8: The role assigned to the auditor general is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among VTA staff and the Oversight Committee. Being involved in the management and policy-making process threatens the auditor general’s independence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: The Board should implement an alternative model for supporting the Oversight Committee that does not rely on the auditor general to provide services such as agenda preparation, monitoring of VTA staff assignments, or preparation of a synthesis of multiple independent inputs to the Committee’s deliberations. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
F9: The Board of Directors has not approved the bylaws, nor the charter of the Oversight Committee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee, setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues: • Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee; • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks, and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary; • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy; • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to hold subject matter experts accountable for timely analysis of costs, risk, and schedule; • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report to the Board on the implications of design and construction issues that impact future ongoing operations and maintenance costs to be borne by VTA. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F10: VTA’s vtabart.org website is poorly organized and not always intuitive to navigate, making it hard to find information about the status, cost, and schedule of the BSVII project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to implement and maintain a project dashboard on its vtabart.org website that includes status, cost, and schedule information. This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.
F2: Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a: All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
R2b: All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
F3: Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a: Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
R3b: Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
F4: When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The County acknowledges that the Program lacks transparency, an audit trail, and a consistent set of rules. The Civil Grand Jury agrees based on its investigation. However, the Board has not prioritized the changes needed to improve it and has yet to act on any of the recommendations in the Audit report.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: 4: Clerk of the Board Partially Agreed The Board should adopt a policy stating that organizations that significantly fail to comply with the terms of the grant agreement, such as failure to retain documentation showing how funds were used, will be deemed ineligible for the next three inventory item grants application cycles and may be prohibited from entering into any future partnerships with the County.
R1a: The Board should immediately meet and discuss how to implement the recommendations from the February 9, 2026, Audit. The Board should then implement those recommendations for FY2027- 28. This should be implemented by October 30, 2026.
R1b: The Clerk of the Board should continue to re-evaluate the Program annually to identify potential process improvements and take appropriate action. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F2: The findings and recommendations of the 2023-24 Civil Grand Jury report remain factually sound. The Audit confirmed its findings, identified additional weaknesses, recommended stronger oversight, and extended the analysis beyond the original report. Of the 11 Audit recommendations, the Clerk of the Board agreed with eight, partially agreed with one, tentatively agreed with one, and tentatively disagreed with one.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Recommendation 1.2: Rejected by County Clerk of the Board Tentatively Agreed The County should use a common online Note that grant recipients awarded above a application process for all applicants, certain dollar threshold would be Tier 1 and regardless of Supervisorial District. The would sign agreements designated with post- application should include, at a minimum, the award reporting obligations, while those following information: below the threshold would be designated Tier 2 and would be exempt from this requirement. applicant organization’s mission, size of the applicant organization, specific amount being The Board should require Tier 1 requested, applicant organization’s annual organizations to submit a detailed spending budget, proposed summary program budget, plan for the requested funds, as part of their including any direct and/or administrative grant application. Applications should not be fees, description of how funds will be used and accepted without this information. what County priorities they support, the amount of matching or other grant or contract funds available or already received by the organization, and anticipated measurable outcomes for the proposed program. Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Management Audit Division Recommendations
F28: This should be implemented by October 30, 2026.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28: This should be implemented by October 30, 2026. Recommendation 1b The Clerk of the Board should continue to re-evaluate the Program annually to identify potential process improvements and take appropriate action. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: Recommendation 1.1: Rejected by County Clerk of the Board Agreed The County should create a consistent set of The Board should discontinue the use of grant rules and guidelines for review and approval of versus sponsorship distinctions within the inventory item awards that meets their goal of inventory item program and adopt a two-tier supporting smaller organizations, considering agreement structure based on an award but not limited to the following: limit amount to be defined. Recipients awarded inventory item grants to organizations that do above the threshold (Tier 1) should sign not have an existing contract with the County, agreements with post-award reporting and set an annual $250,000 cap on total obligations, while those below (Tier 2) should inventory item grants that each Supervisorial be exempt. District can award. Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Management Audit Division Recommendations
R4: Recommendation 1.3: Rejected by County Clerk of the Board Tentatively Disagreed The County should require recipients to The Board should revise the Tier 1 grant provide annual progress reports and financial agreement language to define “proof of reports, and, if needed, the County should audit compliance,” requiring grantees to submit the organization’s expenditure records. itemized receipts and documentation of expenditures after the funds have been used. Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Management Audit Division Recommendations
R5: No Equivalent Rejected by County If the County does not agree with the previous four recommendations, then it should eliminate the current inventory item program entirely. No Equivalent Recommendation 2.2: Clerk of the Board Agreed The Clerk of the Board should hold an annual Inventory Items training for Board office staff before the Board offices’ application cycles. The training should explain how the disbursement process works, familiarize Board office staff with the grant management software, and clarify why certain documentation is required during the initial application stage. Sources: 2023-2024 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report, “No Strings Attached: County of Santa Clara Board Inventory Items,” June 11, 2024; County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors Management Audit Division, “Management Audit of Inventory Item Grants,” February 9, 2026. As part of the agenda for the February 10, 2026, Board meeting, the County Executive recommended that the Board approve the temporary suspension of the Program for FY2026-27. The Board disregarded the guidance and funded the Program at $5 million, to be allocated proportionally using an equity metric based on Medi-Cal enrollment. The equity metric description is documented in an “off-agenda” memorandum (County, 2026) (see Table 2). (Off-agenda reports provide background information that the Board requests on topics such as County programs, services, community conditions, and departmental updates. These documents are published for transparency and public access.) Table 2: Breakdown of Medi-Cal Enrollment by Supervisorial District and Allocation Amount for Inventory Items, FY2026-27. Share of Funds Based on District Medi-Cal Enrollees Equity Measure District 1 20.19% $1,009,542 District 2 36.76% $1,837,994 District 3 16.60% $829,946 District 4 17.56% $878,049 District 5 8.89% $444,469 Total 100% $5,000,000 Source: Data extracted from memo to the Honorable Board of Supervisors and James R. Williams, County Executive from Ezequiel Vega, County Budget Director, and Curtis Boone, Clerk of the Board, February 27, 2026. Other California Counties Have Similar Programs The Civil Grand Jury found that the County’s Program is not unique in California. At least six other counties have similar programs, but with more structured rules and rigorous controls. While other county programs operate under similar funding parameters, none directly mirrors the County’s Program. At the April 17, 2026, meeting of the Board’s Finance and Government Operations Committee, the Auditor presented the findings and recommendations of the Audit. The committee directed the Auditor to further analyze the Program’s equity metrics and sponsorships versus grants, and to present this analysis at the committee’s September 2026 meeting. The committee then voted to receive the report. The committee is targeting a Board discussion of its recommendations by mid- 2027. As of the date of this report, the full Board has yet to act on the Audit, electing instead to move forward with the Program for FY2026-27 (including the $5 million for the grants) without first considering the Audit’s findings and recommendations.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The ventilation system in the isolation areas was not functioning correctly, allowing potentially contaminated air to escape into clean, heavily trafficked areas of the facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City should inspect and adjust ventilation systems as needed to ensure they function properly in both isolation rooms and throughout the facility. This recommendation should be implemented by October 31, 2026, or sooner if possible.
F2: The number of animals taken by rescue partners has declined significantly since 2021.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The City needs to develop a plan and timeline to repair, maintain and expand relationships with rescue partners with the goal of increasing the number of animals placed for rescue. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F3: The current provision of public spay and neuter services is insufficient to meet the volume of animals in the communities SJACS serves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The City should expand public spay and neuter services, either at the shelter, in community spay clinics, or by partnering with more organizations to provide services. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F4: SJACS has changed some shelter data categories, methodologies, and historical data, and does not consistently note changes in the public data portal or explain resulting inconsistencies.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4a: The City must provide accurate, clear, and complete data so the public can assess performance. Formal protocols for data handling, security, and publication should be established to ensure data is accurate, standardized, and consistently reported. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
R4b: The City should report the shelter’s available capacity as suggested by the City Auditor on the SJACS public data portal and website to communicate to the public how often the shelter is operating at capacity, over capacity, or under capacity. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
R4c: The City should require that when SJACS makes changes to its posted data or to data categories, that SJACS should consistently provide the public with a rationale for the modification and note the change. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
R4d: The City should report the number of animals turned away due to capacity limitations on the SJACS public data portal, quarterly at the City Council’s Neighborhood Services & Education Committee meetings, and yearly in SJACS annual report. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
F5: There is a trust gap between SJACS and some animal advocates.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5a: To rebuild public trust, the City should issue a public follow-up report to the 2024 audit that clearly explains improvements made and how it will monitor consistent implementation of new processes and training and sustain ongoing improvements. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
R5b: The City should establish a community advisory group composed of residents from each City Council district and each contract city. This group should elevate neighborhood and resident concerns, improve communication about the shelter’s services and needs, and foster meaningful engagement between shelter staff and the communities they serve. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
R5c: The City should conduct a public needs assessment to determine how best to meet the needs of the communities SJACS serves. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The CFMP requires significant coordination across stakeholders, but the City has not designated a single agency or employee to own the implementation and coordination, which has resulted in confusion, inefficiency, and a lack of accountability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City should designate one department or official as accountable for implementing the recommendations in the CFMP. This should include setting priorities, coordinating efforts among stakeholders, and providing regular status reports. This recommendation should be implemented by September 1, 2026.
F2: The Community Forest Advisory Committee lacks direction and accountability, and has not been meeting regularly as required to set direction and priorities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The City should reactivate the Community Forest Advisory Committee and restore quarterly meetings led by the City department or official identified in Recommendation 1. This recommendation should be implemented by October 1, 2026.
F3: The City’s plan to reach 20% canopy coverage by 2051 is likely to fail if the City continues to plant only 2,000 trees per year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The City should develop and publish a comprehensive operational plan that outlines in detail how it plans to achieve its 20% canopy goal by 2051. This recommendation should be implemented by January 1, 2027.
F4: The CFMP lacks interim benchmarks, reassessment mechanisms, and contingency planning that would enable the City to address shortfalls or changing conditions decisively rather than reactively.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a: The City should establish clear interim targets and performance checkpoints toward its 2051 canopy goal, to include contingency strategies with defined triggers and actions to address potential underperformance. This recommendation should be implemented by January 1, 2027.
R4b: The City should develop a contingency plan with defined trigger points tied to annual tree-planting levels. When planting falls below those thresholds, the plan should activate clear, actionable, and realistic measures to halt declines and restore planting levels. This recommendation should be implemented by January 1, 2027.
F5: The City has explored options to reduce the burden on private-property owners for tree maintenance and sidewalk repair, including financial assistance and assuming greater responsibility for street trees, but has not completed a comprehensive evaluation to determine feasibility or inform a decision on whether to proceed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The City should evaluate the costs, benefits, and funding options for programs that shift greater responsibility for street trees to the City, to include assisting homeowners with tree maintenance and root-related sidewalk repairs. This recommendation should be implemented by June 1, 2027.
F6: While the City acknowledges its responsibility to provide education and outreach to private- property owners, there is limited evidence that San José is doing so in a proactive manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The City should comply with the CFMP directive to implement education and outreach programs that help residents understand the value of trees, their roles and responsibilities related to trees, and what support San José can provide for them. This recommendation should be implemented by January 1, 2027.

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.