2025-2026: from findings to follow-through

YCSO will collaborate to develop and document standardized roles but cautions that prescriptive documentation cannot cover every scenario.

The district says written local roles are implemented in its attached spring 2026 manual and will participate in broader countywide standardization.

YCSO will collaborate with partners to develop written protocols where applicable, focusing on health and welfare.

The district reports existing protocols and expects its SRO and administrators to complete and present behavioral-health decision-making lines before December 31, 2026.

YCSO will coordinate with participating schools to consider measurable program metrics and points to existing annual employee evaluations.

The district says metrics are not yet implemented but will be implemented in the future, and will provide available attendance and discipline data to the coordinated effort.

YCSO wants a dedicated supervisor but says existing sergeant allocations make it infeasible without additional positions. It will evaluate policy standardization and performance monitoring with partners.

The district supports the evaluation, says it is outside district authority and will cooperate with the Sheriff as requested.

The Council says R1 will not be implemented as stated; it prefers locally determined planning documentation based on resources and priorities.

The Manager says R1 will not be implemented as stated and will continue developing the broader CIP, with scope and timing dependent on resources and Council direction.

The Council says R2 will not be implemented because a centralized maintenance-request system is already in place; its explanation continues on page 12.

The Manager says R2 will not be implemented because iWorQ already exists, and will evaluate awareness and accessibility of reporting tools.

The Council says R3 is partially implemented and ongoing and will evaluate useful public information while avoiding expectations for uncertain projects.

The Manager says R3 is partially implemented and ongoing, will evaluate website information improvements, and will generally label schedules preliminary until funding and contracts are secured.

The Council disagrees, cites prior local/grant investment and competing budget priorities, and will continue evaluating infrastructure needs and funding opportunities on page 13.

The Manager disagrees, describes ongoing project and grant work, and will continue evaluating conditions, pursuing outside funds and recommending investment to Council.

OPUD reports implementing a Customer Service Complaint Request Log Procedure and centralized log covering contacts through completion.

OPUD reports published website updates, service tabs, an Outside Agencies page with routing and after-hours help, and staff instruction to review the information.

YCSO says it agrees with MJUSD, whose core roles it describes as standardized; daily assignment differences are attributed to geography and mutual aid. A jointly agreed role matrix follows on page 2.

The Board agrees that countywide roles were not historically standardized; it says its spring 2026 manual substantially addresses the local gap.

MJUSD partially disagrees: physical assignments vary but core roles and oversight are said to be standardized. A jointly agreed written role matrix appears in the packet.

YCSO agrees with MJUSD’s position that school discipline remains separate from law enforcement; searches and crisis support have defined safety roles.

The Board agrees that the frameworks operate concurrently, cites its written decision and notification protocols, and says behavioral-health lines are being further documented.

MJUSD disagrees, distinguishes administrator discipline from safety-related searches and protective behavioral-health support, and supplies an enforcement boundary matrix.

YCSO aligns with MJUSD. The quoted district position acknowledges qualitative rather than centralized data-driven evaluation and proposes surveys, logs and diversion measures.

The Board agrees there is no countywide standardized evaluation framework to its knowledge and will supply site data to a Sheriff-led effort.

MJUSD partially disagrees but acknowledges historical reliance on qualitative rather than a formal centralized metric system. It will develop surveys, activity logs and diversion measures.

YCSO agrees with MJUSD’s response and says the program is not decentralized or lacking supervision, citing the district director and law-enforcement sergeants.

The Board agrees oversight is decentralized and additional Sheriff supervision was identified; it places supervisory decisions with the employing agency.

MJUSD disagrees, describes director/sergeant dual oversight and will formalize existing roles with law-enforcement partners within the next fiscal year.

The Council disagrees, argues a standalone plan is not required, and describes roadway, funding, safety and grant criteria in its budgeting process.

The Manager partially disagrees, acknowledges no standalone plan, describes existing condition-based project planning and says a broader CIP process is being developed.

The Council disagrees and says tracking procedures exist; it argues one unspecified missing complaint does not establish the absence of a central system.

The Manager disagrees, identifies iWorQ for receiving, assigning, tracking and closing requests, and says the unidentified complaint cannot be independently evaluated.

The Council partially disagrees, identifies public project discussions, accepts website accessibility opportunities and explains why preliminary schedules change.

The Manager partially disagrees and describes public input, project documents and targeted construction notices, while acknowledging website improvements.

The Council disagrees, distinguishes routine maintenance from rehabilitation and cites planning, budget limits and local/grant investment.

The Manager disagrees, says routine repairs are as-needed and unscheduled, and describes separately planned rehabilitation plus new repair equipment.

OPUD partially disagrees: it acknowledges no single central log before review but disputes unresolved requests, describes account notes and service procedures, and says a central log now exists.

OPUD partially disagrees, emphasizes existing communication and acknowledges some residents incorrectly attribute storm drainage or out-of-area street lighting to it.