Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury

Reviews prior-cycle agency responses and follow-through across seven investigations. Historical findings, recommendations and response tables are quoted context, not new current-cycle formal items or independently verified implementation. The report’s summary and appendix disagree on one set of implementation counts; no silent reconciliation is made.

Examines internal-audit independence, ACFR participation, committee oversight, risk-based planning, quality review and public reporting. The jury issues 28 findings and 22 recommendations. Board and Auditor-Controller responses differ on standards applicability, committee structure and timing. Audit conformity and legal interpretations are attributed to their sources, not independently determined.

Examines OIG charter delays, access to records/personnel, employee cooperation, union representation and assessment of management follow-through. The jury issues 21 findings and eight recommendations. BART describes existing authority and conditional policy work. Its response and the report conflict on SB827’s history; the supplied record does not resolve that conflict.

Examines structural budget balance, reserves, pensions, retiree health costs, infrastructure and long-term financial planning through 26 findings and six recommendations. Pinole cites updated Yellow Brick Road projections and planned work. Formal source wording governs despite narrative year differences; response F1 and F20 paraphrases materially differ from the actual findings and are unscorable. Cover report date is May 8, 2026 despite download filename.

Examines EHD appeal policy, notice to counsel, denial data, cost disaggregation and language access through 14 findings and seven recommendations. Sheriff promises policy/notices, aggregate demographic reporting and multilingual forms while declining several data/notice changes. These are agency claims and commitments, not verified implementation. Response policy and statutory citations differ in places from the report.

Examines full detention costs, Sheriff-only reporting, Marsh Creek utilization and separate CAF program accounting through six findings and six recommendations. Costs and utilization are jury calculations/findings, not independently verified figures. Sheriff rejects closure and separate CAF accounting. Its response labelled R4 answers an unrelated denial-reasons prompt. Court-posted Board document is visibly DRAFT and is linked only as supplemental, not audited as a final response.

Examines offload standards, emergency/psychiatric capacity, low-acuity alternatives, funding and Board reporting through 31 findings and 11 recommendations. Board and Fire District responses describe limited/conditional actions and qualifications. They do not establish a simple causal link between diversion and shorter delays or an uncommitted fine reserve.

Examines fare dependence, service/ridership measures, structural deficits, labor/overtime and internal-audit governance through 44 findings and 20 recommendations. BART corrects or qualifies numerous figures and disputes several governance interpretations. Formal source wording is retained; differing years, units and forecasts are attributed rather than harmonized. Benchmark rank and revenue-mile/hour inconsistencies are not treated as verified comparisons.

Examines marina deterioration, dredging, shoreline protection, operating subsidies and development financing through 18 findings and one recommendation. City describes privately financed redevelopment and contingency options, disputes a fixed dredging interval and necessarily taller seawall, and promises planning without a confirmed February 1 completion date. Letter is dated September 2, 2026; signature audit trail completed September 8.