Solano County Civil Grand Jury

The jury examines electronic-benefit theft, replacement processing, call-center service and outreach. It reports fewer skimming claims after chip cards were introduced, while warning that criminals may adapt and that claim counts do not capture every household, incident or dollar lost. Five findings and seven recommendations address monitoring, cybersecurity advocacy, improved reporting, hold times, reimbursements and client education. The Board’s August 4, 2026 response agrees with the findings and distinguishes existing practices from planned reporting changes and advocacy. Agency agreement and implementation claims are not independent verification of data quality or service outcomes.

Using occupancy, staffing and budget comparisons, the jury proposes closing Claybank, rejecting capital improvements, freezing hiring, leasing beds and adding outside financial review and citizen oversight. Its projected savings and spare-bed calculations are proposals, not realized savings or proof that rated beds can safely substitute across classifications. The Sheriff’s August 18, 2026 response disputes staffing and capacity assumptions, reports that housing has been emptied while the kitchen remains operational, and separates Board authority from Sheriff authority. The supplied Board response is explicitly a draft; it is supporting material, not a final Board position. A differently hashed Board-attached report copy is preserved without creating a second report.

The jury examines emergency response, staffing and the temporary Sheriff patrol agreement ending December 31, 2026. Three findings and three recommendations seek an October 1 contingency plan, competitive-compensation consideration and incident logs showing priority and response time. City and Sheriff replies are distinct: the City describes hiring and technology strategies and promises log changes, while the Sheriff rejects extending the agreement and declines positions on City-controlled compensation and logs. Hiring projections and technology examples do not establish future staffing, service levels or completion of a public contingency plan.

The jury reviews reclamation and levee district information, governance contacts and public access. Its single finding and recommendation ask LAFCO to contact listed districts and update directory information by November 1, 2026. LAFCO’s September 11, 2026 reply disputes both the asserted duty and the characterization of missing contact information, distinguishes district personnel from trustee-governance fields, and describes its directory research and ongoing voluntary updates. These competing legal and factual positions are reported as positions, not resolved by this audit.

The jury investigates construction-related wastewater odors and residents’ concerns about district outreach and governance. Four findings, including separate F1a and F1b, and three recommendations address specific alerts, disposal education and Board operational knowledge. The Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District’s July 22, 2026 response partially agrees with findings but disputes odor causation and explains its elected Board structure. Resident complaint maps and the jury’s observations are not a population health study. Existing outreach, possible governance legislation and any promised improvements are distinguished from completed implementation.

The jury compares continuation-school programs, student supports, reported graduation and staffing metrics, facilities and career preparation. Seven findings and eight recommendations concern Dixon, Fairfield-Suisun, Vallejo and Vacaville. Data drawn from SARCs, visits and later district replies use different periods and populations and should not be treated as a single matched cohort. Four supplied district responses have separate attribution and dates; Vallejo’s letter is undated and answers findings but does not itemize recommendation dispositions despite its introduction. Vacaville’s reply describes ongoing exploration, not an established standalone continuation school.