2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

1

2004– 2005

YOLO COUNTY

GRAND JURY

June 30, 2005

Woodland, California

A report for the citizens of Yolo County, California

FINAL REPORT

2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

2

GRAND JURY

County of Yolo

P. O. Box 2142

Woodland, CA 95776

June 30, 2005

Honorable Thomas E. Warriner

Advisory Judge to the Yolo County Grand Jury

Yolo County Superior Court

725 Court Street

Woodland, CA 95695

Dear Judge Warriner:

As foreman of the Yolo County Grand Jury, it is my mandated duty to present to you and the

citizens of Yolo County, the Final Report of the 2004- 2005 Yolo County Grand Jury.

Jury service is a privilege, challenge, and one of the manifestations of a free and democratic

society. The general public is unaware of the magnitude of the demands made upon a grand jury.

In addition, the rank- and- file practitioners of the law are vaguely aware of the mission of the

grand jury and the significance of the volunteer hours dedicated to realizing that mission.

The privilege of service was demonstrated by the jurors’ willingness to perform their duties

under the mandate of the law. The culmination of our work involved hundreds of hours of

interviews, reports, meetings, and research into each matter before our committees. We heard and

signed 6 criminal indictments, processed and issued 12 subpoenas, conducted tours of fire

departments, police departments and the Yolo County jail. The grand jury received 15 complaints,

however, all did not lead to a full investigation. The Grand Jury found that some issues were not

within our purview to act on, and recommended to the complainant an agency that could

appropriately address the matter.

The jury hereby thanks the multitude of county agencies which provided complete and

competent cooperation in providing resources, information and staff support, thus permitting the

jury to conduct its business with dignity and a high degree of professionalism. This is an invaluable

asset to the Grand Jury.

The jury also thanks its advisory judge for his priceless, unswerving, timely and practical

advice and counsel.

Sincerely,

Charlotte I. Beal

Foreperson

2004- 2005 Yolo County Grand Jury

2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

3

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4

Investigations ................................................................................................... 5– 11

Yolo County Department of Social Services, Interim Report

Response to Interim Report by Respondents

Grand Jury Response to Respondents

City of Woodland Unauthorized Gas Card Use

City of Woodland Sutter Street Yard Redevelopment Project

Davis Police Office Space, Oakshade Shopping Center

Yolo County Animal Services Barking Complaint

Reviews ........................................................................................................... 12– 20

Yolo County Office of Veterans Services

Yolo County Jail

Yolo County Police Departments

Yolo County Department of Social Services

Yolo Flood Control and Water Conservation District

New Yolo County Schools

Yolo County Sheriff’s Revolving/ Discretionary Fund

Yolo County Homeland Security

Appendix ........................................................................................................ 21–- 23

Responses to the 2003– 2004 Grand Jury Report

2004– 2005 Yolo County Grand Jury Final Report

Mary Margaret Baker, West

Sacramento

Charlotte Beal, Woodland,

Foreperson

R. A. Bo Bohannon, West

Sacramento

Pat Dearborn, Davis

Mary French, Davis

Beverly Graham, West Sacramento

Stuart Greenfeld, West Sacramento

Chris Griffith, Woodland

A Report for the Citizens of Yolo County

Grand Jury, P. O. Box 2142, Woodland, California 95776 • ( 530) 666- 8225

The 2004– 2005

Yolo County Grand Jury

Table of Contents

Roger Harper, Woodland

Mary M. Irwin, Davis

Marlyn Knudson, Woodland

Robert Kunst, Winters

Jimmie Manerchia, West

Sacramento

Charles Moore, Davis

Frank Redman, Woodland

Laura Rodman, Davis

Keith Williams, Dunnigan

Don Winters, Davis

Elizabeth Amaral, West Sacramento, was sworn- in as grand juror

but was unable to complete the term.

2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

4

The California Constitution requires each county to

appoint a Grand Jury to guard the public interest by moni-toring

local government. The Yolo County Superior Court

appoints 19 Grand Jurors each year from a pool of volunteers.

The Yolo County Grand Jury is an official, independent body

of the Court, not answerable to administrators or the Board

of Supervisors.

Unlike grand juries in other states, a California Grand

Jury’s primary responsibility is to promote honesty and

efficiency in government by reviewing the operations and

performance of county and city governments, school districts,

and special districts. Based on these reviews, the Grand Jury

issues a report that may state its findings and recommend

changes in the way government conducts its business. Copies

are distributed to public officials, county libraries, and the

news media. The governing body of any public agency must

respond to Grand Jury findings and recommendations within

90 days. An Elective Officer or Agency Head must respond

to Grand Jury findings and recommendations within 60 days.

( See appendix for responses to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury

report.)

The Grand Jury also investigates complaints from private

citizens, local government officials, or government employ-ees.

Complaints must be submitted in writing and should

include any supporting evidence available. You can request

a complaint form at your local library or from the Grand

Jury at P. O. Box 2142, Woodland, CA 95776. Grand Jurors

are sworn to secrecy and, except in rare circumstances,

records of their meetings may not be subpoenaed. The secrecy

ensures that neither the identity of the complainant nor the

testimony offered to the Grand Jury during its investigations

will be revealed. The Grand Jury exercises its own discretion

in deciding whether to conduct an investigation or to report

its findings on citizen’s complaints. Any juror who has a

personal interest in a particular investigation is recused from

discussion and voting regarding that matter.

The findings in this document report the conclusions

reached by the Grand Jury. Although all the findings are

based upon evidence, they are the product of the Grand Jury’s

independent judgment. Some findings are the opinion of the

Grand Jury rather than indisputable statements of fact. All

reports included in this document have been approved by at

least 12 jurors.

The Grand Jury’s final responsibility is to consider crimi-nal

indictments, usually based on evidence presented by the

District Attorney. On its own initiative, however, the Grand

Jury may investigate charges of malfeasance ( wrongdoing),

misfeasance ( a lawful act performed in an unlawful manner),

or nonfeasance ( failure to perform required duties) by public

officials.

To be eligible for the Grand Jury, a citizen must be at

least 18 years old, have resided in Yolo County for at least

one year, exhibit ordinary intelligence and good character,

and possess a working knowledge of English.

Following a screening process by the Court, Grand Jurors

are selected by lottery. If you are interested in becoming a

Grand Juror, submit your name to the Jury Commissioner,

725 Court Street, Room 303, Woodland, California 95695,

or telephone ( 530) 406- 6824 or 6825.

Introduction

2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

5

Investigations

( INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Department of Employment

and Social Services– continued on next page)

Yolo County Department of

Employment and Social

Services

REASON FOR REVIEW

The Yolo County Grand Jury received a request to investi-gate

the Department of Employment and Social Services

( DESS) for allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part

of upper- level managers, including:

• A documented history of harassment of subordinate staff;

• Allegations of mismanagement of DESS funds; and

• A documented failure to properly fund the investigation

of welfare fraud and to communicate appropriately with

welfare fraud investigators from the District Attorney’s

office.

BACKGROUND

The mission of the department is to work in partnership

to develop the workforce, promote safe and stable families

and individuals, and protect the vulnerable. The DESS

oversees an annual budget exceeding $ 64 million.

The 1997- 1998 Yolo County Grand Jury investigated and

found fundamental communication problems existed between

the welfare fraud investigations staff and the DESS, and

recommended that prompt corrective action be taken if such

difficulties persisted.

FACTS

Hostile Work Environment

Witnesses stated that Dana Johnson, currently the Assis-tant

Director, Employment and Transitional Services Division

at DESS, consistently intimidates and demeans staff by

yelling in individual and group settings, by pounding on the

table during meetings, and by referring to subordinate female

staff as the “ girl”.

Staff were asked if Mr. Johnson had “ made you cry yet?”

Exit interviews, although offered by departing staff, were

not conducted.

Allegations of Mismanagement of DESS Funds

Staff were asked to change delivery date logs on pur-chased

equipment to meet reimbursement mandates.

Staff were asked to change the results of time studies,

which would change the reimbursements from funding agen-cies,

and time studies inappropriately included the participa-tion

of new employees.

Staff were asked to create a “ cushion” of approximately

$ 500,000 for use by the DESS Director, Jerry Rose, which

would be hidden from the County Administrative Officer.

Witness testimony indicated that Mr. Rose was informed this

could not legally be arranged.

Interactions With/ Funding of Welfare Fraud

Investigations Unit

The annual budget for welfare fraud investigations, fund-ed

by DESS with State and Federal funds, has been consis-tently

reduced since investigator positions were moved to

the District Attorney’s office. Witnesses stated that Assistant

Director Renee Craig, who oversees the budget for welfare

fraud investigations, believes that “ too much is spent” on

investigations, and that DESS management did not want

“ hard investigations” of welfare fraud. The necessary opera-tional

funding for this fiscal year, now half over, has not

been provided.

Witnesses reported that DESS management instructed

staff to not speak directly with welfare fraud investigators.

Client files are not being made readily available to

investigators.

FINDINGS

Since the inception of this investigation, DESS staff have

consistently described a very hostile work environment. It is

clear from their statements that this environment has been

created and/ or condoned by Director Rose, Assistant Director

Johnson, and Assistant Director Renee Craig. The conditions

at DESS have made it very difficult— and sometimes impossi-ble—

for the staff to perform their duties. Efforts by DESS

staff to correct their hostile work environment have been

met with intimidation, retaliation, and a general worsening

of work conditions. The evidence provided by the witnesses

is incontrovertible that Mr. Rose, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. Craig

are directly responsible for this unacceptable work environ-ment.

Further, the Grand Jury is concerned that once this report

is published, witnesses who have provided the Grand Jury

with information may be subjected to retaliation by these

three named managers. It is critical that the County protect

these witnesses by ensuring that these three named managers

are not in a position to harass, intimidate, or discipline any

County employees who have participated in this investigation.

Allowing these managers to continue to exercise authority

2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

6

over these witnesses will undoubtedly result in the exacerba-tion

of the employees’ work environment and the dissuasion

of witnesses. It will also convey a clear message from the

County that employees who attempt to report workplace

misconduct do so at their own risk.

Serious allegations have been made regarding the poten-tial

mismanagement of DESS funds.

A philosophical difference, first detailed by the 1997- 98

Yolo County Grand Jury, continues to adversely impact

interactions between DESS social services staff and welfare

fraud investigators.

RECOMMENDATIONS

05- 01 Based on the above findings, the Yolo County Board

of Supervisors should suspend Mr. Rose from duty.

It is further recommended that the Board of Super-visors

initiate the personnel proceedings necessary

to terminate Mr. Rose’s employment.

05- 02 Based on the above findings, the Yolo County Board

of Supervisors should suspend Mr. Johnson from

duty. It is further recommended that the Board of

Supervisors initiate the personnel proceedings neces-sary

to terminate Mr. Johnson’s employment.

05- 03 Based on the above findings, the Yolo County Board

of Supervisors should suspend Ms. Craig from duty.

It is further recommended that the Board of Super-visors

initiate the personnel proceedings necessary

to terminate Ms. Craig’s employment.

05- 04 The Yolo County Board of Supervisors should im-mediately

ensure appropriate funding of the Welfare

Fraud Investigations Unit, with budgetary control

transferred from DESS to the District Attorney.

05- 05 The Yolo County Administrative Officer should

create an ombudsman position to actively intercede

in conflicts between DESS and the Welfare Fraud

Investigations Unit to ensure sensitivity, fairness, and

unbiased arbitration. A priority function of this

individual should be to coordinate joint interpersonal

skills training for DESS and Welfare Fraud Investi-gations

Unit staff.

05- 06 The Yolo County Auditor should arrange for fiscal

audits of DESS by State and Federal funding agen-cies.

05- 07 The 2005- 2006 Yolo County Grand Jury should

follow- up on this report.

RESPONDENTS

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations

05- 01, 05- 02, 05- 03, and 05- 04

The Yolo County Administrative Officer: Recommendation

05- 05

The County Auditor: Recommendation 05- 06

SOURCES

Current and former staff, Yolo County Department of

Employment and Social Services

Yolo County Auditor’s Office

Yolo County District Attorney’s Office

Response of Board

of Supervisors, the

Yolo County Administrative

Officer and the Yolo County

Auditor- Controller to the Yolo

County Department of Social

Services Investigation

The report of this investigation was issued January 27,

2005 as an interim report of the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury. The

Board of Supervisors, the County Administrative Officer, and

the County Auditor- Controller, in accordance with their

mandated requirement as respondent, responded to the report

February 15, 2005.

         	 
        	  
  	   	   	    	  	   

 
    	 
  	      nterim report of the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury. The


Board of Supervisors, the County Administrative Officer, and


the County Auditor- Controller, in accordance with their


mandated requirement as respondent, responded to the report


February 15, 2005.


         	 

        	  
  	   	   	    	  	   


 
    	 
  	         
   	       


Due to the fact that the Board is not aware of nor is able


to review the evidence upon which Grand Jury has based its


findings, the Board disagrees with the report’s Findings,


pending further investigation. The Board has retained the


investigative services of the Honorable Richard L. Gilbert


( Ret.) to conduct a thorough, impartial, independent and fair


investigation into the accusations.


         	    
         
   	        	       


      	    	      ! 	    	  
    	 
  	         
  


      


Further analysis may be required. Accordingly, the Board


will await the results of the independent investigation.


As to the ongoing issue of the administrative structure


and financing of the welfare fraud investigators, during last


summer’s budget process the Board approved and County


Administrative Office hired an outside consulting firm to


analyze this issue and make recommendation. Accordingly,


the Board of Supervisors will await results of this report.


         	    
         
  	       	   


" 
    # 	 $              	 %       	       


Further analysis is required.


The County Administrative Office hired an outside con-sulting


firm to analyze this issue and make a recommenda-tion.


The Board of Supervisors will await the results of this


report.


( INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Department of Employment


and Social Services– continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


7


         	    
         
  	      & 	    	 ' 
 ( 



" 
    # 	 $     
    " 
    
 ( (   	       


Since the State Department of Social Services has over-sight


on the County Department of Employment and Social


Services, we will transmit to them the complete Grand Jury


findings and recommendations for their action. However, it


has been our experience that the State and Federal agencies


do not have resources to deviate from their normal audit


cycle and focus on a single issue, especially when there is


no clear evidence of material non- compliance with laws or


regulations affecting their programs or material losses of


funds.


Therefore, the office of Auditor- Controller will conduct


a fiscal review of DESS that will determine the validity of


the three allegations of mismanagement of funds cited in


the report, and that will include an overall review of internal


control throughout the department.


Response of the Grand Jury


to the Yolo County Board of


Supervisors


On January 27, 2005, the 2004- 2005 Yolo County Grand


Jury released an Interim Report detailing three major areas


of concern regarding allegedly inappropriate managerial


behavior at the Yolo County Department of Employment and


Social Services ( DESS), including:


• A hostile work environment;


• Mismanagement of DESS funds; and


• A failure to communicate appropriately with, and to fund,


the Welfare Fraud Investigations Unit.


The Grand Jury was provided a copy of the above-published


response, submitted by Yolo County Administrative


Officer Vic Singh on behalf of the Yolo County Board of


Supervisors. Members of the Grand Jury have several con-cerns


about the response. The actual author of the Board’s


response, Jesse Salinas, is a management analyst in the office


of Mr. Singh. In the background portion of that response,


Mr. Salinas advises the Board that his paper “ reflects the


Grand Jury’s findings, recommendations and the Board of


Supervisors’ responses.” Since Mr. Singh is directly responsi-ble


for the performance of both the DESS and the individuals


cited in the Grand Jury’s Interim Report, the panel wonders


how it is possible for a member of his staff to: a) know the


Board’s wishes, and b) write objective responses to the


findings on their behalf. In addition, Mr. Salinas indicates


the Board should approve his document prior to its distri-bution


to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and


members of the Grand Jury, yet his document contains no


indication whether or not such Board action was taken.


Rather, since it carries only the initials of Mr. Singh and the


name of a reviewer, Don Hoff, it appears the response was


passed on, intact, as it was received.


In their general response to the Interim Report, the Board


of Supervisors cites Penal Code Section ( PC) 933.05 require-ments


that they must agree with the Grand Jury’s findings,


or disagree wholly or partially with the findings. The Board


states that, “ Because it is legally limited in its responses to


the Grand Jury findings, the Board must disagree with the


above findings for the reasons set forth herein.” The primary


reason proffered by the Board is that “ The Grand Jury’s


findings are inconsistent with the Board’s past experience


with these employees.”


In effect, the Board concedes that it has insufficient


information to respond, yet the Board does respond by


disagreeing with the Grand Jury. The author of the response


blames the statute, but it is disingenuous to suggest that a


law can require the Board to come to such an illogical


conclusion. The proper response should have been to agree


with the Grand Jury that an inquiry was warranted. By


disagreeing, the Board took a position that the Grand Jury


was wrong; at the same time the Board acknowledged it


lacked evidence to know if the findings were true.


This lack of candor was further exacerbated when the


Board claimed, both in its response to the Grand Jury and


in the Chairwoman’s comments to the local newspaper ( on


January 28, 2005) that the three employees had excellent


histories. The panel members are also dismayed that the


Board ignored its suggestion that, for the safety and welfare


of other employees, the three DESS administrators be sus-pended


pending the final outcome of the investigation. By


its response, the Board has told the public that it is predis-posed


to find no wrongdoing, even though it has not seen


the facts. That expressed bias reduces the public’s confidence


that a fair review with be conducted.


The Board’s general response to Findings 05- 01 through


05- 05 addresses the need for an independent investigation


of the allegations. The Grand Jury fully agrees with the Board


that a “ thorough, impartial, independent, and fair investigation”


of the panel’s findings is warranted. However, given that


County funds are so limited that County employees were


required to participate in work furloughs, the Grand Jury is


concerned that the Board chose to utilize the services of an


outside contractor, at a cost of $ 150,000.


The Grand Jury must also note that PC 933.05 stipulates


the Board must provide the parameters and a timeframe for


any relevant investigations. The Board’s response indicates


the deadline by which the investigator will provide his


conclusions to the Board, but does not include a deadline by


which the Board plans to respond to the Grand Jury.


The Grand Jury is disappointed with the response from


( INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Department of Employment


and Social Services– continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


8


the Board, and feels that the Board abrogated its responsibility


by allowing a staff member in the office of the County’s


Administrative Officer to prepare an obviously self- serving


response that was apparently rubber- stamped by the Board.


One receives the impression that there is a “ good old


boy’s” network in Yolo County, within which each level of


government covers- up or excuses the inappropriate behavior


of the next. The Grand Jury hopes this is not true. We further


hope that the findings of the unnecessarily expensive, impar-tial


investigator will motivate the Board to take appropriate


responsibility and action.


City of Woodland


Unauthorized Gas Card Use


REASON FOR REVIEW


The Yolo County Grand Jury received a citizen’s com-plaint


of unauthorized use of a City of Woodland gas charge


card by an unknown person or persons.


The Yolo County Grand Jury, in its investigation of this


matter, interviewed four individuals: the complainant, person-nel


from the Woodland Finance Department, the Woodland


Fire Department, and the person to whom the card was


issued. The Yolo County Grand Jury reviewed gas records


as well as other documents.


BACKGROUND


Some time in the first quarter of 2004, a gas card from


the Woodland Fire Department was lost or stolen. The PIN


was written on the envelope containing the card. The repre-sentative


of the Antique Fire Truck Auxiliary who was issued


the card said he reported the stolen card to the Woodland


Fire Department in the first quarter of 2004. The Woodland


Fire Department said they never received a report of a lost


gas card. The Woodland Finance Department, who monitors


and pays the gas bills, cancelled the card in July of 2004,


after more than $ 7000 in gas charges were made. There was


no way for the Finance Department to determine who mis-used


the gas card.


FINDINGS


Before the conclusion of this investigation by the Yolo


County Grand Jury, the City of Woodland implemented a


new gas card system. This new system requires the represen-tative


or employee of the City of Woodland to have more


accountability for the charges they incur on the gas card.


RECOMMENDATIONS


Due to the implementation of a new gas card system, no


further action is warranted.


SOURCES


Woodland Fire Department


Woodland Finance Department


Complainant


Finance and Supporting Documents


City of Woodland Sutter


Street Yard Redevelopment


Project


REASON FOR REVIEW


In response to a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury


investigated the City of Woodland’s redevelopment of the


Sutter Street Yard Project. The complainant alleged faulty


public notification, inadequate traffic studies, problems with


the entrance and egress of emergency vehicles, hazardous


wastes in the soil and additional housing will exacerbate the


existing drainage problems for the neighboring community.


BACKGROUND


In the early 1990’ s the City of Woodland determined that


they no longer needed their corporation yard located north


of Beamer Street and bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad


to the east and Woodland Avenue and Sutter Street to the


north and west. A number of ideas were discussed and


abandoned, and the City Council decided to pursue the idea


of infill housing. Community meetings were held; the nearby


neighbors were concerned about traffic and a single entrance/


exit. The City Council decided that there must be an exit on


Beamer Street, meaning any developer would additionally


have to buy the property of the former B. C. Stocking plant


which borders the southern extent of the corporation yard,


and adjoins with Beamer St. The final project size became


6.6 acres. In 1998 a Request for Proposal ( RFP) was issued


by the City Council. Only one proposal was submitted, that


by the Sacramento Valley Organizing Community commonly


referred to as the SVOC.


FINDINGS


1. Notification to the public about this project has been


ongoing over the 10+ years since this project was initially


conceived. In February of 2005 the disposition and


agreement went before the City Council. There were


many, many comments and because of these comments,


an additional community workshop was held in March.


A letter was sent to all those that had made earlier comments


( INVESTIGATIONS: City of Woodland Sutter Street Yard


Redevelopment Project– continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


9


in February. This allowed City staff to answer all of the


questions without the three- minute limitations of a City


Council meeting.


2. Traffic studies were done originally in 1998. PW En-gineering


has since reviewed the 1998 traffic study and


gathered current information. PW Engineering’s findings


are that the additional traffic impact will not result in a


short or long- term unacceptable level of service per City


of Woodland General Plan criteria.


3. In 2002 the zoning was changed through a zoning admin-istrative


permit, and the police and fire departments


reviewed these zoning changes and made their comments.


The project was approved based on the conditions from


these departments of public safety.


4. Hazardous wastes were studied extensively in 1992 by


Wallace Kuhl & Associates. Specific high- risk areas were


targeted. The hydraulic lifts area had no detectable


concentrations of contaminates. The other areas checked,


the vehicle wash rack, the former paint shop, the equip-ment


wash areas, the fire training burn depression, the


pesticide storage area, etc. were all found to have no


significant levels of toxins and were considered an


insignificant threat to the ground water. Several buildings


were still in place at the time of this report ( 1992). It


was recommended that when these buildings are re-moved,


that the soil under their concrete slab foundations


be excavated and properly treated or disposed.


5. Drainage concerns have been addressed by the City of


Woodland Engineer. While the corporation yard does


drain into a common storm drain with the Beamer Park


area, the new housing development should permit more


ground infiltration of the storm waters and the city plans


to upgrade the existing storm drainage systems in the


Woodland Avenue area. While there is, as yet, no specific


storm drain plan for the new housing, the condition of


development says that the developer’s plan cannot impact


the surrounding community.


6. The City’s contract with SVOC has been in place, in


one form or another since 1998. Since then negative


declarations have been declared, the California Environ-mental


Quality Act has been followed, and the City is


monitoring the progress of the SVOC. SVOC has had


their own internal problems with consultants. In the fall


of 2003 the City Council became impatient with the


progress of the SVOC and terminated the Council’s


relationship with the SVOC. The Redevelopment Agency


felt the project still had merit and was then put in charge


of the housing project.


7. In March 2005 SVOC withdrew their project. They


determined that they were not able to show that the


project could be developed based on the existing finan-cing


in place. Redevelopment staff will provide an update


to Council/ RDA to review termination of the Redevelop-ment


Agency’s disposition and development agreement


with SVOC.


8. Woodland City Council and the Redevelopment Agency


have spent years shepherding the redevelopment of the


City’s corporation yard. The Grand Jury believes the City


of Woodland used proper procedure in attempting to


transfer this parcel to its highest and best use. Unfor-tunately


the SVOC was unable to fulfill its promises of


construction.


RECOMMENDATIONS


None


SOURCES


Complainant


Economic Development Manager, City of Woodland


Redevelopment Manager, City of Woodland


Text, Public Meeting, Nueva Vista Questions and Comments,


Feb, 2004


Traffic Impact Analysis Report


Soil Evaluation Report of Findings


Council/ Redevelopment Agency/ SVOC Agreement


Engineer, City of Woodland


Police Office Space in


Oakshade Shopping Center,


Davis


REASON FOR REVIEW


The Grand Jury investigated a citizen’s complaint stating


the developer of the Oakshade Shopping Center in Davis


did not provide adequate space within the complex for police


use.


BACKGROUND


During interviews with the City of Davis’ Director of the


Planning and Building Department and the Administrator of


Planning and Redevelopment, the Grand Jury learned there


was never a specific requirement for Police Office Space in


the approval documents for the shopping center dating back


to 1996. There was, however, an informal agreement between


the developer, interested citizens and city officials to make


space available for police use. This agreement was discussed


during public meetings, but was never made a condition of


approval or site specific zoning.


( INVESTIGATIONS: Police Office Space in Oakshade Shopping


Center, Davis– continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


10


The developer did make a small interior office space


available for police department use within the building. The


space lacked exterior windows and was less than optimal


for police use. The Police did move a desk into the space


but it was only marginally utilized for a short period of time


in the late 90’ s. Police staff interviewed made it clear that


this space was never intended to be used as a substation and


that its existence or lack thereof had no impact on the


frequency of patrols in South Davis. Reasons cited for the


decision to discontinue use of the space included lack of


visibility, poor access, and difficulties in getting adequate


connection to the computer network.


The developer continued to make the space available to


the public for meeting space. Later, similar space was re-served


across the street in the new Oakshade apartment


complex. That space is also available for public use. The


zoning for the apartment complex and Oakshade Shopping


Center allows for such use but does not require it.


FINDINGS


1. The developer was not legally required to make space


available for police use but attempted to fulfill the


concerns of the citizens.


2. There appears to be no current need for a police depart-ment


office space in South Davis.


RECOMMENDATIONS


None


SOURCES


Director, Planning & Building Department, City of Davis


Administrator, Planning & Redevelopment, City of Davis


Yolo County Animal Services


Barking Complaint


REASON FOR REVIEW


In response to a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury


investigated the Animal Services policy for their resolution


of barking complaints. The complainant alleged that three


barking complaints filed with Animal Services had not


stopped the problem.


BACKGROUND


The Grand Jury met with the Chief Animal Services


Officer on three occasions and reviewed documents provided


relating to the above complaint. Animal Services officers


have the power to cite violators of the state and county


animals codes and issue citations.


The complainant filed three separate complaints relating


to the same animal owner over a one and one- half year


period. On each occasion, Animal Services verified the


complaint, responded in the form of warning letter, and at-tempted


to make contact. Subsequently a Notice to Appear


on County Code violations was issued to the accused.


All County Code Violations are sent to Traffic Court for


processing. Traffic Court receives the Notice to Appear for


an animal violation from the Sheriff’s Department Records


Section. Traffic Court sends a Courtesy Notice providing


the animal owner with the fine amount, noting that they have


30 to 40 days to pay the fine or they can request a court date


to have the case heard before the Traffic Commissioner. If


the animal owner does not pay or contact for a hearing, the


assessment clerk will attach a civil assessment fine to the


fine for the violation and another notice providing 15 days


to pay or request a hearing. If there is still no contact the


Notice to Appear will remain on file. The County Codes


neither allow the courts to consider the party guilty by a


failure to pay or appear nor can they place a hold on the


driver’s license as they would a traffic violation. County Code


violations are often ignored and their fines remain un-collected.


At the time of the Grand Jury interviews with the Chief


Animal Services Officer, the violator had Failed to Appear


and had a civil assessment added to the Notice to Appear.


Animal Services has developed a training program of


standard operating procedures for all field officers with


specific instruction on standard reaction to a complaint


resulting from county animal code violation.


FINDINGS


1. Communication of the facts from Animal Services to


the complainant may have been done in a timely manner.


However, facts were confusing because the information


shared between Animal Services and the courts was either


incomplete or not available to convey to the complain-ant,


leaving the complainant without closure.


2. The inability of the traffic court system to track and


enforce citations and collect fines and penalties has


reduced the effectiveness of those citations, as well as


allowed large amounts of revenue to go uncollected.


3. There is no court date schedule in Traffic Court for the


county codes used in the enforcement of animal control.


4. At the first interview with the Chief of Animal Services


the Grand Jury learned there were no documented stan-dards


as to how a complaint was to be handled or to


what court it was to be referred. However, Animal Services


has recently created comprehensive training materials and


( INVESTIGATIONS: Yolo County Animal Services


Barking Complaint– continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


11


is instructing all field officers on standard operating


procedures.


RECOMMENDATIONS


05- 08 Animal Services, the courts, and the District Attor-ney’s


Office should create a process that closes the


holes in the collection and enforcement process. A


new policy should be generated that reflects follow-up


of the court decisions, enforcement of penalties,


and collection of fines.


05- 09 Animal Services staff should review mid- year, recently


created training materials, to determine effective-ness


as well as thoroughness and completeness of


the program, and re- write it as necessary.


RESPONDENTS


Chief, Yolo County Animal Services: Findings 1, 2, 3, 4;


Recommendations 05- 08, 05- 09


Yolo County District Attorney: Recommendation No. 05- 08


Yolo County Traffic Commissioner: Recommendation No.


05- 08


SOURCES


Chief, Animal Services Officer, Yolo County


Lead Animal Services Officer, Yolo County


Supervisor, Yolo County Traffic Court


Animal Services Training Materials


Complaints and Citations


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


12


Reviews


Yolo County Veterans


Services


As a part of the Grand Jury’s responsibility to perform


periodic reviews of county agencies, the Grand Jury met


with the Supervisor of the Yolo County Veterans Services in


October of 2004. The Supervisor is the liaison between the


Veteran and the Veterans Administration. He has a staff of


two.


BACKGROUND


The Veterans Services is an extension of the Yolo County


Department of Employment and Social Services located at


120 West Main St., Suite B, in Woodland. Two thirds of the


funding for this service comes from the General Fund and


one- third from California Veterans Affairs. Its basic service


is to provide Yolo County veterans with free medical, pension


and burial services and compensation for their military


service. It is also the contact for service connected disability


information.


There are approximately 11,000 veterans in Yolo County.


Fifteen percent of the homeless in the County are veterans


aged 30 to 35 years. The average age of a Yolo County


veteran is 45.


Yolo County Veterans Services has two vans, driven by


volunteers, that are used to transport veterans to medical


appointments and other services. These vans are purchased


and supported by California Veterans Affairs and replaced


at 70,000 miles.


The Supervisor aggressively represents Yolo County


veterans by speaking at community service clubs and organi-zations.


He also uses local county newspapers and other


media to distribute his message. He encourages veterans to


seek his service in obtaining their rightful legal compensa-tion


for service to their country.


Money used by veteran benefits stays in Yolo County


and adds up to 5 million dollars a year spent in Yolo County.


RECOMMENDATIONS


None


SOURCES


Supervisor, Yolo County Veterans Services


Yolo County Jails


REASON FOR REVIEW


California Penal Code 919( b) mandates that each year


the Grand Jury will investigate the conditions and manage-ment


of public detention facilities and report on its findings.


This annual review was conducted to comply with this man-date.


BACKGROUND


The Grand Jury visited the county jail in November 2004,


and was given a tour of the facility by the Captain and two


Lieutenants.


Since its construction in 1991, the jail has been utilized


to detain persons pending their arraignment, during trial, and


post sentencing. Upon arrival, all inmates undergo physical


and mental health screenings. They are then clothed, housed,


fed, and any required medical treatment is provided. Inmates


have access to telephones for collect calls only.


The jail has experienced inmate overcrowding since 2002.


Inmates are relocated to facilities in Glenn County on a


regular basis. Additionally, the facility is understaffed due to


budget cuts and recruitment difficulties.


The Grand Jury would like to express its appreciation to


the jail staff for their ongoing professionalism and dedication


to duty, especially during these extended periods of over-crowding


coupled with budget constraints.


FINDINGS


1. Each housing pod holds 76 inmates. The jury noted the


physical plant design of the pods include walls that block


the cells from view. This design requires correctional


staff to monitor inmate activity only by entering the cell


area itself. This could present a hazardous situation; walls


block correctional staff from viewing activity from a


distance during normal operations, and staff responding


to emergencies can only assess a situation once inside


the walled cell area.


2. As in past years, inmate overcrowding continues to


require the placement of “ overflow” caseloads in facilities


in Glenn County. Transportation to/ from Glenn County


increases additional staffing costs while coverage is main-tained


for posted positions.


3. The jail does not staff a specially trained emergency


response team to quickly contain serious disturbances.


( REVIEWS: Yolo County Jails– continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


13


( REVIEWS: Yolo County Police Departments– continued on next page)


RECOMMENDATIONS


05- 10 New construction plans should consider “ opening”


the physical plant design to include better monitoring


capabilities. Correctional staff should be able to ob-serve


inmate activity from a distance, rather than


only upon entering the pod.


05- 11 The Sheriff/ Coroner and his management team should


develop plans, policies, and procedures to establish


a Special Emergency Response Team ( SERT) to


serve as the first- responder in the event of an emer-gency


( i. e. inmate riot or hostage situation).


RESPONDENTS


Yolo County Sheriff/ Coroner: Recommendations 05- 10,


05- 11


SOURCES


Yolo County Correctional Captain


Yolo County Correctional Lieutenant


Yolo County Police


Departments


REASON FOR REVIEW


To comply with California Penal Code 919( b), the Grand


Jury inquired into the condition and management of Police


Departments in the cities of Winters and Davis.


BACKGROUND


City of Davis Police Department:


The Grand Jury visited the Davis Police Department and


conducted an interview with the Captain of the Department


on February 26, 2005. The Captain explained to us the


functions of the Davis Citizens Police Academy and the Davis


Police Youth Academy.


The Citizens Police Academy offers participants a 10-


week training program designed to provide an inside look


into all aspects of law enforcement in Davis. Graduates are


used in a variety of non- peace officer assignments on a volun-teer


basis. This course also serves as a prerequisite for anyone


wishing to become a Volunteer in Police Service with the


Davis Police Department. The Volunteers are very important


to the community as well as the police department.


The Davis Police Youth Academy is a 2- week summer


program designed to instill in the youth an appreciation and


respect for law enforcers and their role in society. In addition


to an emphasis on physical fitness the participants learn about


crime scene investigation, SWAT team, narcotics and gang


intervention.


The Captain gave the Grand Jury a tour of the facilities,


which include a weight room, where staff and officers can


maintain their physical conditioning. Conditioning is essential


to the officer’s ability to perform his job effectively and


reduces on the job injuries. The holding cells appeared se-cure


and well maintained. Most detainees under arrest are


held less than 6 hours before they are released or transported


to the Monroe Detention Center in Woodland for booking.


The building is well designed to accommodate future growth


and contains state of the art equipment for effective law


enforcement communications.


City of Winters Police Department:


On February 11, 2005 the Grand Jury interviewed the


Chief of Police and was given a guided tour of the Winters


Police Department, located at 318- A First Street, Winters.


The department consists of ten employees. In addition to


the Chief, there are two sergeants, six patrolmen, one secre-tary


and one non- salaried reserve officer. The Chief of the


Winters Police Department was sworn into office in mid-


November 2004.


The Chief informed us that there are some areas within


the city that have poor radio reception. The department has


only one radio channel, which is used by both police and


fire personnel. A single marine battery provides energy for


the transmitter in case of power outage.


The Department is located in an old fire station that was


inadequately renovated for police work. The facility lacks a


secure holding area. Because there is no door on the holding


area, all prisoners must be immediately transported to the


Monroe Detention Center in Woodland.


Operationally, the department is well organized and


operates effectively given the cramped and limited space


available. A cooperative and collegial relationship exists


between the Department and the Sheriff’s Department, as


well as with the Davis and Woodland Police Departments.


FINDINGS


1. Serious officer safety issues could occur because of the


poor quality of radio communication between the Winters


Police Department and the dispatch center, located in


Woodland.


2. The availability of only one radio channel for use by


both police and fire personnel can impair the safety of


both first responders and citizens of the community.


3. Batteries have limited lives and do not last long under


prolonged use, which could become necessary in the case


of a major emergency or act of terrorism. The marine


battery currently used for power backup was designed


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


14


( REVIEWS: Department of Employment and Social


Services– continued on next page)


for use in a small craft. It is imperative that a stronger,


more reliable alternative be found.


4. The holding area in the Winters Police Station should


have a locking door for the safety of police personnel


and citizens who might be present. It would also provide


a more secure environment for the prisoner.


5. The current practice of immediately transporting a pris-oner


to the Monroe Detention Center in Woodland, due


to the absence of a secure holding facility in the station,


has the potential for the city to be without an on- duty


night shift officer during such transfer. This would place


a burden on busy County Sheriff deputies who cover the


extensive unincorporated part of Yolo County.


RECOMMENDATIONS


05- 12 The Yolo County Communications Emergency Ser-vice


Agency should look into the troubling issue of


radio communications in Winters to rectify the


reception difficulty as soon as possible. This com-munication


problem could seriously impact public


safety until the situation is corrected.


05- 13 The Yolo County Communications Emergency Ser-vice


Agency, working with the Winters City Manager


and the Winters Police Chief, should find a way to


add a second channel to the present single- channel


radio system so that more than one emergency entity


can use the system concurrently.


05- 14 We encourage the Police Chief to explore the possi-bility


of using Emergency Preparedness funds to


purchase a generator to replace the battery currently


used when power outages occur.


05- 15 The Winters City Manager must find a way of


providing a locked holding cell in the police station.


05- 16 The Winters City Manager should explore all possi-ble


avenues for improving or replacing the depart-ment’s


current physical facility.


RESPONDENTS


Coordinator, Yolo County Emergency Services: Recom-mendations


05- 12 and 05- 13


Chief of Police, Winters, California: Recommendation


05- 14


City Manager, City of Winters: Recommendations 05- 15


and 05- 16


SOURCES


Chief of Police, Winters Police Department


Captain, Davis Police Department


Department of Employment


and Social Services


REASON FOR REVIEW


As a part of the Grand Jury’s responsibility to perform


periodic reviews of county agencies, the Grand Jury inter-viewed


department managers and toured the facilities at the


Department of Employment and Social Services in October


of 2004. The departments reviewed included Financial Man-agement,


Employment and Transitional Services and Youth


and Children’s Services.


BACKGROUND


The Department of Social Services ( DESS) provides


assistance to County residents in the areas of Child Welfare,


Licensing of Foster Families, Adult Protective Services,


Transitional and Employment/ Training Services. It conducts


eligibility determination for Medi- cal, Food Stamps, General


Assistance, Cal Works, Workforce Investment Act and Aid


Payments to eligible persons.


The Youth and Children’s Services department has intensi-fied


its efforts to increase the number of licensed foster


families in the county and provide an adoptive family for


children who are in permanent placement. There are more


than 400 children in foster care in the County. At age 19 the


foster child becomes emancipated. To prepare for this emanci-pation,


the department provides an Independent Living Skills


program, designed to assist young people with future plans,


teach life skills, and provide the resources and training to


reach these goals. Any youth between 16 and 21 is eligible


for the service.


The Employment and Transitional Services Department


offers many services designed to assist job seekers in job


search techniques. Resources available include workshops


and seminars on job application tips, computer skills, cus-tomer


services skills, and interviewing skills, in addition to


job leads and on- site recruitment. The department offers


counseling regarding the training, education and skills needed


to achieve individual goals. Staff also offers instruction on


enrollment in the CalWorks Program, which provides cash


payments, and employment services to families with insuffi-cient


income to meet their most basic needs. CalWorks is


designed with a “ work first” idea that helps welfare recipients


move from welfare to work and toward self- sufficiency.


The Financial Management Department manager ex-plained


the Community Services Block Grants selection


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


15


( REVIEWS: New Yolo County Schools– continued on next page)


process. This process consists of a Request for Proposal


solicitation and a non- competitive/ discretionary funds allo-cation.


A Community Service Action Board of 15 members,


including 5 Board of Supervisor appointees, identifies prior-ities.


The Block Grants received funds of $ 268,000 from the


State, which was distributed to respondents and “ winners”


of the application process. This year’s priorities are: food,


shelter and youth programs. The process for distribution of


funds is an open invoice/ voucher system with county vendors.


The Grand Jury thanks the Department of Social Services


Managers for conducting the tour of their facilities and their


assistance in explaining the functions of the departments


examined.


RECOMMENDATIONS


None


SOURCES


ESS Division Manager, Department of Social Services


Children’s Services Division Manager, Department of


Social Services


Summary of Block Grant Funding


Children’s Services Handouts


Employment and Transitional Services Handouts


Yolo County Flood Control


and Water Conservation


District


REASON FOR REVIEW


In an effort to determine if the ground water in Yolo


County is at risk of overdraft, the Yolo County Grand Jury


met with the General Manager of the Yolo County Flood


Control and Water Conservation District on December 8,


2004.


BACKGROUND


The Grand Jury was shown an excellent slide show giving


an overview of the District’s physical water storage facilities,


which include a dam and diversion works at both Clear Lake


and Indian Valley. These works control the flow of water


down Cache Creek, where it is diverted to lands within the


District. This water is supplemented by water pumped from


privately- owned farm wells and from the wells operated by


the Cities of Woodland, Winters, and Davis. A third, smaller


reservoir is located near Winters and is used as a balancing


reservoir for both flood control and irrigation. Stream flows


in Cache Creek included in the District’s water right are


diverted into lateral canals, which carry water to farms away


from the main stream. District employees, called “ Ditch


Tenders”, control the flow of water in this secondary network


of channels, opening and closing gates to fulfill “ orders” for


water placed by individual District members.


The District maintains well hydrographs at various loca-tions


to monitor the depth to ground water in the District.


The hydrographs examined by the Grand Jury indicate no


significant ground water overdraft and it could be concluded


that the system was in a steady state. Therefore, this valuable


asset is not at risk. It should be noted, however, that the City


of Davis has drilled some of its wells to tap into aquifers far


deeper than the one utilized by the agricultural members of


the District.


FINDINGS


The Grand Jury was positively impressed with the manage-ment


of Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation


District and its Board of Directors and we commend their


efforts.


RECOMMENDATIONS


None


SOURCES


General Manager, Yolo County Flood Control and


Water Conservation District


Hydrographs


Slide Presentation


New Yolo County


Schools


REASON FOR REVIEW


In an effort to assess the new educational institutions


within Yolo County, members of the Grand Jury interviewed


faculty and administrators, and toured the facilities of Harper


Junior High School and Leonardo Da Vinci High School in


Davis, as well as Pioneer High School in Woodland.


BACKGROUND


Harper Junior High School:


The 2004- 2005 school year is the first year of operation


for Harper Junior High School, which serves approximately


550 students in grades 7- 9. This new school is located on


the far eastern edge of Davis.


Some of the issues discussed by our panel with the


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


16


for Pioneer High School, located in the southeastern area of


Woodland. During that academic year, enrollment started at


875 in grades 9 and 10, dropping to 845 by the end of the


school year. In September 2004, the enrollment was 1225;


currently there are approximately 1132 students attending


grades 9 through 11. Next year, when a new freshman class


is added, the school will have its first senior class.


Some of the issues discussed with teachers and adminis-trators


at Pioneer High School included:


1. The culture and school climate,


2. The potential for “ cross- town rivalries” between the two


high schools in the community,


3. The difficulty of opening a school with the realities of


the current school funding situation in California,


4. Issues connected to student leadership, given the lack of


a current senior class,


5. Challenges of creating a quality academic program for


a high percentages of English Language Learner students,


and


6. Growth pressures upon the school due to the rapid


population increases in the southeast portion of Wood-land.


In each of the above listed issue discussions, we found


the faculty and administrators at Pioneer well informed,


capable of identifying potential problems and willing to apply


their best professional practices to solving any difficulties


which might arise.


Opening a new high school is always a challenging


prospect for any school district, and Woodland is not unique


in this regard. The School Board is to be commended for


responding to initial start- up problems. Administrators and


faculty are to be congratulated for their efforts to create a


successful social and academic environment at Pioneer High


School.


Following the discussion with school officials, the Grand


Jury was escorted on a thorough tour of the educational


facilities. We were impressed with the feeling of openness


in the central area of the school, the organization of the


classrooms structures, and the ease of the flow of the student


body between classes and at the end of the school day.


The Grand Jury would like to express its appreciation


and commendation to the Woodland Joint Unified School


District and the Davis Joint Unified School District for the


dedication and hard work essential to create an exciting edu-cational


opportunity for all their students.


RECOMMENDATIONS


None


teachers and administrators at this junior high school included:


1. The financing of the new school which was accomplished


in part by a successful school bond election,


2. The ability of the administration to staff faculty at the


school completely by voluntary transfer of teachers,


3. The use of “ advisory sessions”, in which all faculty and


staff are actively engaged with student discussion groups,


4. The high level and appropriate use of technology to


improve instruction in all core areas, and


5. The coordination of library lending services among this


school and the two previously existing junior high schools


in Davis.


The Grand Jury recognizes how difficult opening a new


comprehensive junior high school is, particularly given


limited financial resources. The community is to be com-mended


for its vision and dedication to providing a high


quality educational program for its young people.


Our panel was impressed with the quality of the facility,


the dedication of the faculty, administrators and staff, as well


as by the organizational structures of this new junior high


school.


Leonardo Da Vinci High School:


Da Vinci High School is in its first year of operation on


the campus of Davis High School. It is a “ small independent


learning community”, based on the model of the “ new


technology high schools”, funded in part by the Bill and


Melinda Gates Foundation in concert with additional grants


awarded to the Davis Joint Unified School District.


The current student population of Da Vinci is approxi-mately


150 students in a sophomore and junior class. In 2005-


06 a new sophomore class will be added, and the present


student body will have a senior class. The short- range plan


is to operate Da Vinci as a separate campus from the Davis


High comprehensive school, while housing it physically on


the campus of the high school. In approximately four years,


the plan is to move Da Vinci High School to a site on the


campus of the University of California, Davis.


The “ new technology high school” students are actively


engaged in the use of state- of- the- art computer technology


to study all their core subjects, using problem- solving model


teaching techniques. Students are assigned their own per-sonal


laptop computers, which they use throughout their


school day, and take home in the evening to continue their


studies. In all the classrooms we visited, students were engaged


in group discussion, individual processing and problem solv-ing,


using their computers and the effective involvement of


their teachers.


The Grand Jury was impressed by the small independent


learning community at Da Vinci High School.


Pioneer High School:


The 2003- 04 school year was the first year of operation ( REVIEWS: New Yolo County Schools– continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


17


( REVIEWS: Yolo County Homeland Security Preparedness–


continued on next page)


SOURCES


Principal, Harper Jr. High School


Principal, Da Vinci High School


Davis Superintendent of Schools


Principal, Pioneer High School


Vice- Principal, Pioneer High School


Yolo County Sheriff’s


Revolving/ Discretionary


Fund


REASON FOR REVIEW


The 2002- 2003 Yolo County Grand Jury found “ merit


and validity” to a complaint regarding the “ improper” use


of the Sheriff’s Revolving/ Discretionary Fund. They further


determined that continuing audits be conducted by the Yolo


County Auditor’s Office. The 2004- 2005 Yolo County Grand


Jury conducted an investigation during this term to determine


if the recommended audits are being conducted and if dis-bursements


from this Fund are appropriate.


BACKGROUND


The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury contacted the Yolo County


Auditor to request disbursement and audit documentation.


The Auditor readily provided disbursement documentation


and met with the Grand Jury to provide an assessment of


the disbursements from this Fund.


FINDINGS


An assessment of this fund by the Yolo County Auditor’s


office indicates that 1) the expenditures appear appropriate,


and 2) since the original review, the total number of expendi-tures


charged to the fund has dropped significantly.


RECOMMENDATIONS


None


SOURCES


Yolo County Auditor


Yolo County Homeland


Security Preparedness


REASON FOR REVIEW


Since 9/ 11, various agencies and city departments within


Yolo County have been engaged in Homeland Security


defense development. This work included the planning for


and receiving of Homeland Security Grant Funds. The 2004-


2005 Yolo County Grand Jury initiated an inquiry into the


current level of Homeland Security preparedness, with a


specific emphasis on law enforcement.


The Grand Jury considered the following areas of pre-paredness:


a) training, ( b) communication, ( c) intelligence


capabilities, ( d) planning, ( e) coordination between city, state,


and federal agencies, ( f) Homeland Security Grants dis-tribution,


( g) dissemination of equipment purchased via FY04


Homeland Security Grant and, ( h) vulnerabilities.


BACKGROUND


The 2004 Annual Mayors’ Conference Report cites that


a majority of cities are having difficulty in receiving anti-terrorism


funding, and were mired in red tape, making it


difficult to receive funding.


According to a report from the State Legislative Analyst’s


Office, the proposed 2002- 2003 State budget bill for en-hanced


security antiterrorism program expenditures allocated


a total of $ 96.2 million for specific enhanced security pro-grams.


Ninety- three percent of the total dollars are assigned


to the California Highway Patrol.


The California Governor’s current budget summary indi-cates


that the administration has about $ 186 million allocated


to security programs, but the specific expenditures are not


yet identified.


The Yolo County Office of Emergency Services:


The Yolo County Office of Emergency Services applied


for grant funds to improve Homeland Security effectiveness


at the local level. The FY04 grant funds consisted of federal


monies that were administered through the State Office of


Homeland Security. These grant funds must meet a mandated


approval by an Approval Authority with required members:


County Public Health Officer, a County Fire Chief, a Munici-pal


Fire Chief, the Yolo County Sheriff, and a Municipal


Police Chief.


Yolo County Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention


Program received $ 155,516 in grant funds. Law Enforcement


representatives, from various agencies within Yolo County,


reviewed and prioritized their needs for funds from the Law


Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. Those needs


were then submitted to the Approval Authority. On April


7,2004 the Approval Authority approved the grant expendi-ture


plan, for law enforcement as well as other Yolo County


designated agencies. The expenditure plan was predominately


made up of equipment purchases.


Office of the Auditor Controller:


The Yolo County Auditor- Controllers Office provided the


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


18


Grand Jury with a listing of federal programs administered


by the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, the


Office provided ten pages of spreadsheets detailing equip-ment


items to be purchased by various Yolo County agencies


financed from the 2004 State Homeland Security Grant


Program. The information provided listed the purchasing and


receiving jurisdictions, and identified equipment and equip-ment


costs. The grants are awarded to the OES, rather than


to individual county departments or cities.


The focus of the Grand Jury’s review was the purchase


of equipment specifically slated for the various county law


enforcement agencies, as well as OES. This report will


exclude the Yolo County Coroner’s office, Fire Departments,


and Emergency Medical Services due to restraints of time.


Individual unit prices for equipment received, or to be


received, by designated law enforcement agencies and OES,


as listed in the Homeland Security Grant program worksheet,


will not be used. However, the grand totals for overall


equipment purchases are provided. The exact quantity of each


piece of equipment and technical description will also be


omitted.


The Yolo County Sheriff’s Department:


Equipment purchase totaled $ 63, 264.17. The equipment


included a van, plus equipment installed, new radios, bat-teries,


adapter plates and charging units, ( bio- type) personal


protection equipment, night vision equipment, and sheriff


communications upgrade.


The Davis Police Department:


Equipment purchase totaled $ 54,206.00. The equipment


included night vision goggles and scopes, and personal


protection suits and related accessories.


Woodland Police Department:


Equipment purchase totaled $ 50,206.00. The equipment


included night vision goggles, night vision scopes, and


personal protection equipment.


West Sacramento Police Department:


Equipment purchase totaled $ 62, 530.00. The equipment


included personal protection equipment and accessories,


ballistic body armor, and helmets, as well as night vision


goggles.


Winters Police Department:


The Homeland Security Grant Program budget work


sheet, as provided by the Yolo County Office of the Auditor


Controller, revealed that the Winters Police Department had


not received any equipment or made purchases.


Yolo County Office of Emergency Services:


Equipment purchase totaled $ 14,758.96. The equipment


included radiophones, monitors and a LCD projector.


Training:


The law enforcement agency representatives interviewed,


from the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department, the Davis Police


Department, and the Woodland Police Department, noted that


since September 11, 2001 there have been two Homeland


Security related exercises conducted. Both of those exercises


have been table top exercises which were sponsored by the


OES. There have been no live multi- agency exercises con-ducted


to date, which could measure performance capabilities


and preparedness in real time.


However, these Departments do have existing Emergency


Preparedness Plans that are inclusive of Homeland Security.


As an example, the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department pro-vided


a plan that included specific measures they have taken


to improve their effectiveness. These measures include, but


are not limited to, the following: participation in Sacramento


County emergency evacuation planning sessions, attendance


at numerous bio- terrorism seminars and briefings, formation


of a countywide intelligence group, that can relay information


to federal authorities and distribute information at the local


level, and expansion of SWAT. The Sheriff’s Department


has also improved radio communications, created a mobile


command center, developed a school emergency plan pro-gram,


that includes schematics of all schools and, updated


county mutual aid lists and agreements.


Representatives from the Davis Police Department stated


that their SWAT team went to a two- day class for counter-terrorism


measures last summer. Since that time they have


participated in two training exercises, using their newly-acquired


night vision equipment; one in a building environ-ment,


and one in an open field environment. In addition, they


have quarterly training with this same equipment.


Representatives from both the Davis Police Department


and Woodland Police Department stated that they have had


training in the area of bio- terrorism, which has included


familiarization with their personal protection suits. Davis


Police representatives stated one of the problems with the


suits is that they are fragile. This prevented them from


maintaining an ongoing training regimen, which is important,


since there are certain procedures to follow in donning and


docking the suits, when entering and exiting hazardous en-vironments.


Woodland Police Department representatives stated that


there was no known shelf life for the personal protection


suits. They also had concerns regarding logistical problems


that might occur in a bio- terrorism related scenario. These


problems are the replacement of contaminated equipment


( vehicles, weapons, radios, and other related gear), as well


as the replacement of officers, who would be undergoing a


decontamination process, or possibly out of action due to


exposure.


( REVIEWS: Yolo County Homeland Security Preparedness–


continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


19


Representatives from all three departments stated that they


are hopeful they will engage in a live action multi- agency


exercise in the future. Representatives from the Davis Police


Department state the main problem is the coordination,


planning, manpower, and scenario development of such a


large event. Since it would include law enforcement, fire,


and environmental health departments it is very difficult to


get all the agencies together at one time. Other departments


echoed the same concern, and also added, they were worried


about the budget. For instance, one representative stated that


their department is looking at about $ 1.7 million to be cut


in the next two years.


Medical Tabletop Exercise:


On November 18, 2004 the OES sponsored an exercise


that was held in Woodland. The purpose of the training was


to improve the coordination and effective response of public


and private members of the medical community, in the event


of a biological terrorism event. Participating agencies in-cluded


representative from: Woodland and Sutter Davis


hospitals, County officials from the Health Department,


Social Services, Mental Health, and Department of Social


Services, and OES. It also included members of Skilled


Nursing Facilities, Community Clinics, the American Red


Cross, American Medical Response, and Public Information


Officers. Observing Agencies were: State OES, Sierra Sacra-mento


Valley- Emergency Medical Services, and Volunteer


Fire Districts. Law enforcement representatives were slated


for this exercise, but none were present.


The event scenario consisted of local health departments


putting out an alert, over a 24- hour emergency contacting


system, that an outbreak of botulism was suspected. Many


complexities were found to exist in the exercise, such as:


communication between organizations, coordination of move-ment


of mass casualties, and lack of equipment such as beds


and ventilators. Also noted were possible peripheral issues,


such as dealing with public panic, bottlenecking of main


roadways, controlling points of admission to hospitals, and


isolation of the infected. Members of the Grand Jury attended


the exercise as observers, and noted that the coordination,


procedural standards, communication and planning between


the aforementioned participants were still in their infancy


stages.


Areas of Vulnerability:


The Davis Police Department recently took part in a


security- related walk through the University of California,


Davis ( UCD) campus with the Joint Terrorism Task Force.


The walk through consisted of security analysis of high risk


facilities on the campus. They found that the current security


systems in place at these high risk facilities were inadequate.


A representative from the Davis Police Department concluded


that the security systems should go beyond pass codes, and


primarily focus on security changes, with an emphasis on


cultural changes in work habits, and with possible bio-mechanical


security measures adopted, such as palm or retinal


scans. Also, the addition of a permanent Davis Police Depart-ment


liaison officer to work in conjunction with UCD Police


would foster better intelligence gathering, and awareness.


FINDINGS


1. The Yolo County Office of Emergency Services has done


a excellent job in the coordination of the Homeland


Security Grant Program. Grants were secured, and accurate


accounting has facilitated reimbursement to designated


agencies.


2. The Office of Emergency Services had organized table


top exercises to ensure ongoing Homeland Security


related training with county law enforcement agencies,


as well public and private members of the medical


community. No Law Enforcement representatives were


present.


3. The Yolo County Sheriff’s Department, Woodland Police


Department, Davis Police Department, and OES appear


to have ( or will soon have) the necessary equipment to


handle a terrorist threat. These departments also have


emergency preparedness plans in place. The aforemen-tioned


departments have taken active measures to augment


their capabilities and analyze possible problems and


deficiencies.


4. However, none of the agencies queried have had a live


action multi- agency exercise to test and validate their


capabilities to respond to and manage a terrorist threat.


At this point it seems to be theoretical.


5. The Davis Police Department does not have a permanent


liaison position established with the UCD Police Depart-ment


to address security risks.


RECOMMENDATIONS


05- 17 The Yolo County Grand Jury recommends a live


action training session be developed within the com-ing


year. The scenario should include law enforcement,


fire, and environmental health and other agencies


that OES would consider pertinent to the training.


05- 18 Law enforcement representatives should attend a


medical table top exercise to understand the nature


of complexities these organizations are experiencing,


and how far along they are in their development


stage.


05- 19 We encourage the Davis Police Department to devel-op


a permanent liaison position with the UCD Police


( REVIEWS: Yolo County Homeland Security Preparedness–


continued on next page)


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


20


Department to better develop intelligence, promote


awareness, and enhance security measures of high-risk


facilities on campus.


05- 20 The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury should continue to re-view,


and investigate further, Homeland Security in


Yolo County.


RESPONDENTS


Yolo County Sheriff/ Coroner: Finding 2; Recommenda-tion


05- 18


Chief of Police, Woodland: Finding 2; Recommendation


05- 18


Chief of Police, Davis: Findings 2, 5; Recommendations


05- 18, 05- 19


Coordinator, Yolo County Office of Emergency Services:


Recommendation 05- 17


SOURCES


Representatives from:


Yolo County Sheriff’s Department


Davis Police Department


Woodland Police Department


Yolo County Office of Emergency Services


Yolo County Office of the Auditor- Controller


Sources reviewed include:


Yolo County FY04 Homeland Security Grant


Program


State of California Emergency Medical


Services Authority Statewide Medical &


Health Disaster Exercise


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


21


Appendix


( APPENDIX: Responses to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury


Report– continued on next page)


Responses to the 2004– 2005 Grand Jury Report


n accordance with 933[ c] of the California Penal Code, the governing body of a public agency or its designated administrator


must respond to the Grand Jury Recommendations within 90 days. Other named respondents must comment within 60 days.


Each recommendation below is followed by an extract of the official response. The complete report is available at public


libraries in Yolo County. The complete set of responses is available for public view at the office of the Clerk of the Yolo


County Board of Supervisors.


Yolo County Assessor’s Office


Recommendation No. 04- 01: The Yolo County Assessor should


develop a time sheet that reflects the appraiser’s hours.


Response of the Assessor: This recommendation will not be imple-mented.


The appraisers currently sign a bi- weekly time report that details


their hours and have a computer tracking system which tracks the


work to be done and the work completed and we believe this system


is adequate. Supervisors review all work completed by the appraisal


staff and counter sign appraiser’s bi- weekly time reports.


The staff is already dealing with extremely high workloads and


adding additional requirement of detail time reporting would have a


negative impact on morale and would be counter to the spirit of


professionalism among the appraisal staff.


Yolo County Flood Control and


Water Conservation District


Recommendation No. 04- 02: Set a schedule for regular, on- going


safety training.


Response of the YCFC& WCD: This recommendation has been imple-mented.


The District implemented a schedule of monthly safety train-ing


meetings and additional safety meetings will be held as necessary.


Yolo County Housing Authority


Recommendation 04- 03: The Board of Supervisors, the Yolo


County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Executive


Director of the Yolo County Housing Authority should review their


initial authorizing statutes and subsequent amendments to properly


delineate their level of authority, scope of responsibility and oversight


functions.


Response of BOS: The Board of Supervisors authorized creation of


the Housing Authority, and appoints members of its Board of Com-missioners.


However, the Yolo County Housing Authority is a


separate, corporate and public body. State law gives control, operation


and oversight of the Housing Authority to the Authority’s Board of


Commissioners, not the Board of Supervisors. State Law also pre-scribes


the qualifications and appointment of the Housing Commis-sioners.


Response of Board of Commissioners: This recommendation will


be fully implemented. The target date for completion of such review


is November, 2004.


Response of Executive Director: This recommendation will be


implemented in coordination with the YCHA Board of Commissioners


and with the assistance of YCHA’s legal counsel.


Recommendation 04- 04: The Board of Supervisors, the Yolo


County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Executive


Director of Yolo County Housing Authority should decisively address


all unresolved issues.


Response of BOS: The Board of Supervisors concurs with this


recommendation. As noted above the Board of Supervisors cannot


be directly involved in the operation of the Housing Authority.


Response of Board of Commissioners: All issues raised by the Grand


Jury have been addressed and for the most part resolved; those few


remaining are now being addressed with positive outcomes occurring


weekly and monthly.


The Housing Authority and Board of Commissioners are ad-dressing


all unresolved issues through open communication with those


concerned and careful investigation of complaints. Where complaints


have been instigated and found substantiated, remedial action has


been taken. Where complaints have been found to be unsubstantiated,


the Board of Commissioners has encouraged the Housing Authority’s


staff to review the underlying circumstances, determine whether ( and


if so, how) staff’s actions or inactions could have been misunderstood


and productive of increased tension and conflict with residents and/


or employees, and if such actions or inactions are found, to plan to


avoid similar conduct in the future.


Response of Executive Director: Concurs with YCHA Board of


Commissioners response to the recommendation and will continue


to bring about resolution of all issues that remain to be addressed.


Recommendation 04- 05: The Board of Supervisors should schedule


progress reports as a quarterly “ agenda item” of the Board of Super-visors


meetings.


BOS Response: The Yolo County Board of Supervisors concurs with


this recommendation.


Recommendation 04- 06: Failing timely and significant resolution


of these issues, the Board of Supervisors should consider contracting


for an independent consultant’s “ performance audit” and/ or contacting


Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) to provide training, model


operating plans and program reviews for the Housing Authority.


BOS Response: The Yolo County Board of Supervisors encourages


the Yolo County Housing Authority to consider all options and utilize


resources available to improve the operating of their organization.


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


22


( APPENDIX: Responses to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury


Report– continued on next page)


Yolo County Office of Education


It is important to note that on April 15, 2004, based on the


approval of the Yolo County Board of Education and in collaboration


with special pension legal counsel, Yolo County Office of Education


terminated its Operating Agreement with California Administration


Services Authority ( CASA).


The Yolo County Office of Education and the Yolo County Board


of Education disagree in whole or in part to many of the Grand


Jury’s Findings from which the following Recommendations were


made.


Recommendation 04- 07: The Yolo County Board of Supervisors


should immediately authorize resources and personnel to the Yolo


County Auditor- Controller to perform a review of financial and


administrative controls and practices at the YCOE. This review should


be coordinated with other agencies which may institute similar audits


so as not to be duplicative. Once completed the Board of Super-visors


should consider recommendations, take appropriate action,


monitor implementation of recommended action and make this


information public.


Response of YCOE: YCOE concurs with the spirit of this recom-mendation,


but the Yolo County Office of Education is a fiscally


independent entity and does not report to the Yolo County Board of


Supervisors. The YCBOS has no legal jurisdiction or oversight


responsibility of YCOE.


Recommendation 04- 08: The YCOE Superintendent should submit


a written status report by September 30,2004 to the YCOE Board of


Education detailing all inquiries or communications with CalPers,


the SSA, and/ or any other government authorities, including the State


Superintendent of Public Instruction, regarding YCOE’s involvement


in CASA. Subsequently, a status report should be made no less


frequently than every calendar quarter, advising of all developments,


changes in personnel or operations, and/ or remedies taken related to


this matter. The YCOE Superintendent should also include in this


quarterly status report all costs, charges, penalties, or claims incurred


or settlements reached relating to this matter.


Response of YCOE: The Superintendent is in continuing communi-cation


with the Yolo County Board of Education regarding the CASA


JPA. The CASA JPA is currently the subject of litigation, therefore


most information presented to the Yolo County Bard of Education


about CASA is subject to attorney- client privilege.


Recommendation 04- 09: The YCOE Superintendent should also


assess and report to the Board of Education how these additional


costs, if any, may impact the YCOE’s budget, identifying programs


and/ or staffing positions affected thereby and include this information


in the quarterly reports recommended in above item 04- 08. These


reports should be made available to the public by the YCOE Board


of Education and a copy mailed to the Yolo County Grand Jury.


Response of YCOE: The entire matter of dissolution of CASA and


any resulting liability or costs of member agencies has not yet been


determined. When a final legal determination is made, any impact to


program or budget will be reported with a copy to the Grand Jury.


Recommendation 04- 10: The YCOE Board should develop, and


make public, policies to monitor on- going contractural obligations


to assure compliance with objectives established at the time the


contract is entered. The YCOE Board should review all YCOE cur-rent


contracts wherein the Board’s concurrence or approval was


required to assess whether the contract objectives are being met.


Response of YCOE: A written documentation of desk procedures


has been completed and is currently being used by YCOE staff.


Additionally, the Yolo County Board of Education is provided with


the Yolo County Office of Education annual audit and a presentation


is made by the independent CPA firm.


Recommendation 04- 11: The YCOE should, without delay, seek


appropriate legal advice relative to their CASA obligations, options


and liability.


Response of YCOE: The Yolo County Office of Education retained


the specialized services of the law firm Brown, Winfield and Can-zoneri,


Inc. in March, 2004.


Recommendation 04- 12: The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury should monitor


this matter to its conclusion and investigate further as it deems


advisable.


Grand Jury Response: The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury will not implement


this recommendation.


Yolo County Coroner’s Office


Recommendation 04- 13: The Coroner’s Office displays consum-mate


professionalism and should be commended for its efforts.


Response of BOS: The Board of Supervisors concurs with the


recommendation that the Coroner’s office displays consummate


professionalism. The Board recognizes the outstanding professional-ism


of the Supervising Deputy Coroner and her staff. The Board


also thanks the Sheriff and his management team for their support


of this critical public service.


Yolo County Fire Services


Recommendation 04- 14: The Yolo County Board of Supervisors


should support the use of Development Impact Fees to maintain fire


services.


BOS Response: The Board of Supervisors has been working with all


fire districts to study use of development impact fees to finance fire


service equipment and facilities. The Board recently approved fire


development fees for the following districts: Clarksburg, Dunnigan,


Knights Landing and Yolo.


Recommendation 04- 15: The Yolo County Board of Supervisors


should provide additional resources as needed to all fire districts for


grant writing assistance.


BOS Response: The Board of Supervisors is supportive of assisting


fire districts with grant applications. However, as is the case with


the fire districts, the county does not have a full- time grant writer.


Yolo County Jails


Recommendation 04- 16: Currently, an assessment is being conducted


to determine the feasibility of conducting a full- scale study about


relocating or expanding the current jail. The assessment should be


completed as quickly as possible.


Response of Yolo County Administrative Officer: The County


Administrative Office has issued a contract to study the relocation/


expansion of the current jail. The assessment is scheduled for


completion by the end of this calendar year.


2004– 2005 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT


23


Yolo County Juvenile Hall


Recommendation 04- 17: The supervisors and staff should be com-mended


for maintaining a high degree of professionalism and per-ceived


efficiency despite the antiquated and overcrowded conditions.


BOS Response: The Board of Supervisors commends juvenile hall


staff for the professionalism and the efficiency they exhibit, especially


with the high facility population.


Response of Juvenile Hall Superintendent: Agrees that staff should


be commended for a job well done while maintaining professionalism


when conducting their duties in conjunction with overseeing minors.


Response of Chief Probation Officer: Concurs with response of


Juvenile Hall Superintendent.


Recommendation 04- 18: All agencies, departments, and involved


personnel should exert every effort to assure that the anticipated


Juvenile Hall completion and occupancy date is realized, that appro-priate


facility- specific policies and procedures are developed prior to


occupancy, and that a smooth transition is made.


BOS Response: The Board of Supervisors reviews quarterly reports


on all the county’s capital projects, including the new juvenile hall.


Response of County Administative Officer: The County has proper


standards in place to assure that the new juvenile hall is completed


on time and within budget.


Response of Manager, County Administrative Office: The project


is on schedule and on budget.


Response of Juvenile Hall Superintendent: All agencies, departments


and involved personnel have maintained commitment to the juvenile


hall’s completion date. Additionally, a transition team has been


developed and meet Titles 15 and 24 of the California Code of


regulations, and that there is a smooth transition between the old


juvenile hall facility and the new juvenile hall facility.


Response of Chief Probation Officer: Reviewed and concur with


the response of Juvenile Hall Superintendent.


Recommendation 04- 19: Juvenile Hall administrators and staff


should pay particular attention to maintaining a high degree of facility


and equipment maintenance during the final months of occupancy of


the present Juvenile Hall.


BOS Response: The Board of Supervisors concurs.


Response of County Administrative Officer: The Administrative


Office staff meets regularly with both Probation and Central Service


Division staff to confirm that resources are available to assure that


equipment and facility needs are met.


Response of Manager, County Administration Office: All Central


Services Project managers are actively involved in maintaining the


approved schedule and budget.


Response of Juvenile Hall Superintendent: Improvements continue


to be made in the operation of the existing juvenile hall. All equipment


is being maintained to ensure fully functional capacity.


Response of Chief Probation Officer: Reviewed and concur with


the response of Juvenile Hall Superintendent.


Yolo County Police Departments


Recommendation 04- 20: A formal and written study about a shuttle


service to transport suspects to the Yolo County Jail should be un-dertaken


by the Sheriff’s office and County Administration Office


and submitted to the Board of Supervisors.


Response of the BOS: The Board of Supervisors will require that a


formal and written study be prepared and submitted to the Board for


review.


Response of the Yolo County Administrative Officer: The County


Administrative Office concurs that a formal and written study should


be undertaken, with the results submitted to the Board of Supervisors.


Response of the Yolo County Sheriff: The Sheriff’s Department will


work with the County Administration office in conducting a formal


and written study about the shuttle service to transport suspects. The


report of this study will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors.


Recommendation 04- 21: The study recommended above should


result in a report available to the public by the end of the fiscal year


2004- 2005.


Response of the Yolo County Administrative Officer: The County


Administrative office agrees.


Response of the Yolo County Sheriff: The study will be completed


and documented by the end of the fiscal year 2004- 2005. The report


will be made available to the public.


Recommendation 04- 22: Invite all Yolo County law enforcement


departments to participate in the study.


Response of the BOS: The Board of Supervisors concurs.


Response of the Yolo County Administrative Officer: All Yolo County


law enforcement departments will be invited to participate in the


study.


Response of the Yolo County Sheriff: The Sheriff’s Department will


invite all Yolo County law enforcement departments to participate in


the study.


Follow- up Response of the Yolo County Administrative Officer to


Recommendations 04- 20, 04- 21 and 04- 22.


Recommendation 04- 21 requires publication of the results of a


study regarding the feasibility of a countywide program to assist


entities in transporting arrestees to the Yolo County jail.


In April 2005, representatives of the University of California, Davis


and the cities of Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland


met with the representatives from the Sheriff’s Department and the


County Administrator’s Office to discuss analysis prepared by staff.


The analysis concluded that a transportation service could be provided


which would pick up prisoners and transport them to the County jail


for booking. Cost to provide a 24- hour service, seven days a week,


was estimated to be approximately $ 800,000 annually. The County


could provide the service if the costs were reimbursed by the partici-pating


entities. Following the meeting, all the entities informed the


County that they would not participate in the joint effort as it is


more economical to provide the service with their own staff.