Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F1

Proposed renovation of the older Claybank facility is estimated to cost over $13 million dollars and does not meet the CFIP’s standard of “improving efficiency and operations improvement.” Such an unnecessary expenditure would negatively impact the County’s finances. As of April 4, 2026, the Claybank facility had an extremely low occupancy percentage of 15% with two other facilities available. Closing Claybank would increase the overall jail occupancy rating to 47% and still be well below 100%.

What should residents consider about Finding F1: Proposed renovation of the older Claybank facility is estimated to cost over $13 million dollars and does not meet the CFIP’s standard of “improving efficiency and operations improvement.” Such an unnecessary expenditure would negatively impact the County’s finances. As of April 4, 2026, the Claybank facility had an extremely low occupancy percentage of 15% with two other facilities available. Closing Claybank would increase the overall jail occupancy rating to 47% and still be well below 100%., and the County’s response?

Solano County Sheriff-CoronerResponse dated 2026-08-18Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussion

Audit context

What the response says and how it was assessed

Response says

Partially disagrees: separate capital projects, operational constraints and the June 10 housing move change the comparison.

Audit analysis

The reply identifies the disputed project characterization and explains why rated occupancy alone is insufficient. It reports a move associated with Justice Center operations; R1B describes the destination differently as Stanton. Neither proves full closure or savings.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The reply identifies the disputed project characterization and explains why rated occupancy alone is insufficient. It reports a move associated with Justice Center operations; R1B describes the destination differently as Stanton. Neither proves full closure or savings.

Scoring confidence: high

Public participation

Discuss the finding and response

Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.

Loading the Pol.is conversation...
Open on Pol.is