Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

City and Sheriff responses on Vallejo 911

The City describes recruitment and technology plans, declines the compensation recommendation as framed, and promises public-log changes. The Sheriff rejects an extension and takes no position on City-controlled compensation or incident logs.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by City of Vallejo; Solano County Sheriff-Coroner

6

Addressed

4

Partially addressed

2

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

0

Implemented

1

Will be implemented

0

Requires further analysis

2

Will not be implemented

3

Unclear

How to read this audit

Each audit identifies its respondent, date and PDF. Taking no position is not agreement or a statutory disagreement; future hiring and service projections are not completed outcomes.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

2

Extracted commitments

2

Definite or bounded timing

0

Conditional timing

0

No timeframe

CITY-R1 · Bounded timeframe

Continue recruitment, training and deployment plans to replace temporary patrol capacity.

Targets deployment by the end of 2026, subject to training completion and attrition; this is not a service guarantee.

CITY-R3 · Bounded timeframe

Add priority levels and response-time information to public daily incident logs.

Before October 1, 2026, as stated in the response; no completed deployment is established.

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 12 of 12 items

finding · CITY-F1

The City of Vallejo’s failure to develop a plan after the Sheriff contract’s expiration of December 31, 2026, can jeopardize the citizens of Vallejo by extending response times. Even with the 7 potential new officers in various phases of training, it can take up to two years for those officers to be ready to fully do the job, with only 3 of those currently in field training.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Wholly disagrees that it lacks a plan, citing recruitment, a staffing pipeline and multiple operational strategies.

Audit analysis

The reply clearly disputes the absence of planning and gives specific measures. Projected solo deployment and technology examples do not independently establish service levels after the contract ends.

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 clearly disputes the absence of planning and gives specific measures. Projected solo deployment and technology examples do not independently establish service levels after the contract ends.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 1
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · CITY-R1

The City of Vallejo develop a contingency plan no later than October 1, 2026, prior to the expiration of the Sheriff’s Department contract and make it available to the public. After the contract expires, there should be no lesser level of service that the citizens of Vallejo currently receive. The City of Vallejo consider extending the contract with the Sheriff’s department for an additional year.

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Labels implementation partial, describes staffing and technology plans, and rejects an extension as statutorily infeasible.

Audit analysis

The City explains the extension refusal, but does not clearly commit to publishing the requested contingency plan by October 1 or guaranteeing unchanged service. General strategy is not proof of that deliverable.

Extracted commitments

Continue recruitment, training and deployment plans to replace temporary patrol capacity.

Responsible party
City of Vallejo
Timing
Targets deployment by the end of 2026, subject to training completion and attrition; this is not a service guarantee. · Bounded timeframe
Report page 8Response page 2

finding · CITY-F2

Non-competitive compensation and severe understaffing negatively impact recruitment and retention of police officers in Vallejo.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees: acknowledges vacancies and recruitment challenges but disputes compensation as the explanation.

Audit analysis

The accepted staffing problem is distinguished from the compensation premise, with explanations about the recruiting market and collective bargaining. No independent pay-market comparison is performed.

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 accepted staffing problem is distinguished from the compensation premise, with explanations about the recruiting market and collective bargaining. No independent pay-market comparison is performed.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 6
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · CITY-R2

The City of Vallejo consider a competitive compensation plan to recruit and retain adequate police staff as part of the next contract negotiations.

County: Will not be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Will not implement the recommendation as stated, citing labor bargaining and existing compensation work.

Audit analysis

A reasoned refusal is different from a promise to adopt a particular future pay package.

Report page 8Response page 7

finding · CITY-F3

The current VPD daily public log of incidents on their website lacks response times and priority levels, which decreases transparency, leading to lack of community confidence.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees public incident logs lack the requested information.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement and an identified IT modernization project address the finding; the project is not evidence of an already changed log.

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

Explicit agreement and an identified IT modernization project address the finding; the project is not evidence of an already changed log.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · CITY-R3

The City of Vallejo direct the VPD to add priority levels and response times to their daily incident logs no later than October 1, 2026.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Promises priority and response-time fields before October 1, 2026.

Audit analysis

The City identifies the requested public-log change and timing. Completion must not be inferred from the stated plan.

Extracted commitments

Add priority levels and response-time information to public daily incident logs.

Responsible party
City of Vallejo
Timing
Before October 1, 2026, as stated in the response; no completed deployment is established. · Bounded timeframe
Report page 9Response page 7

finding · SHERIFF-F1

The City of Vallejo’s failure to develop a plan after the Sheriff contract’s expiration of December 31, 2026, can jeopardize the citizens of Vallejo by extending response times. Even with the 7 potential new officers in various phases of training, it can take up to two years for those officers to be ready to fully do the job, with only 3 of those currently in field training.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees, assigning planning to the City and saying staffing cannot support extension after SB 1379 sunsets.

Audit analysis

The response explains authority and extension constraints but does not identify which part of the actual finding about City planning and service risk it accepts or disputes.

Finding-response score

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

8/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The response explains authority and extension constraints but does not identify which part of the actual finding about City planning and service risk it accepts or disputes.

Scoring confidence: medium

Report page 8Response page 1
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · SHERIFF-R1

The City of Vallejo develop a contingency plan no later than October 1, 2026, prior to the expiration of the Sheriff’s Department contract and make it available to the public. After the contract expires, there should be no lesser level of service that the citizens of Vallejo currently receive. The City of Vallejo consider extending the contract with the Sheriff’s department for an additional year.

County: Will not be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Will not extend the agreement because the statutory sunset and staffing limits prevent it.

Audit analysis

The Sheriff clearly refuses the extension within its authority; it does not adopt or reject a City contingency plan on the City’s behalf.

Report page 8Response page 1

finding · SHERIFF-F2

Non-competitive compensation and severe understaffing negatively impact recruitment and retention of police officers in Vallejo.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

Takes no position; says City compensation and labor matters are outside Sheriff authority.

Audit analysis

The statement identifies authority limits but provides neither agreement nor an explained whole or partial disagreement with the finding.

Finding-response score

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

3/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

3/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

The statement identifies authority limits but provides neither agreement nor an explained whole or partial disagreement with the finding.

Scoring confidence: medium

Report page 8Response page 2
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · SHERIFF-R2

The City of Vallejo consider a competitive compensation plan to recruit and retain adequate police staff as part of the next contract negotiations.

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Takes no position on City compensation negotiations.

Audit analysis

The authority explanation is useful, but is not an implementation disposition or a City response.

Report page 8Response page 2

finding · SHERIFF-F3

The current VPD daily public log of incidents on their website lacks response times and priority levels, which decreases transparency, leading to lack of community confidence.

Audit: Not addressed

Response says

Takes no position on City incident logs.

Audit analysis

No agreement or disagreement is given. The City-control explanation does not answer the finding’s substance.

Finding-response score

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

3/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

3/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

No agreement or disagreement is given. The City-control explanation does not answer the finding’s substance.

Scoring confidence: medium

Report page 8Response page 2
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · SHERIFF-R3

The City of Vallejo direct the VPD to add priority levels and response times to their daily incident logs no later than October 1, 2026.

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Takes no position on publication of VPD logs.

Audit analysis

The Sheriff explains its lack of control but does not supply a disposition for VPD’s requested action.

Report page 9Response page 2