Supervisor-elect Jim Provenza Hires Staff

Special to the Vanguard

Jim Provenza, Yolo County Supervisor - Elect for the 4th District announced today that he is appointing Gina Daleiden to serve as Deputy County Supervisor. Sandra Rodriguez will continue as Assistant Deputy.

Daleiden is currently employed as the Assistant Deputy to Supervisor Helen Thomson and is President of the Davis School Board. Daleiden is a Davis native and a 4th District resident in South Davis. Provenza and Daleiden previously served together on the Davis School Board.

Provenza stated, “I am pleased to be working with Gina again. She is a brilliant public servant who will work tirelessly on behalf of residents of the 4th District and Yolo County. She will represent my office on committee assignments, work closely with county departments, and serve as a vital link between 4th District Residents and County government.

“I’m excited to work in my home District for Supervisor Provenza,” said Daleiden, “We worked well together on the School Board, and I welcome the new challenges and opportunities ahead.”

Elected to the 4th Supervisorial District in June of this year, Provenza will be sworn into office on Monday, January 5 at noon in a public ceremony in the atrium of the Yolo County Administration Building in Woodland. Formerly the Davis School Board President, Provenza will replace former 4th District Supervisor and newly elected Assemblywoman, Mariko Yamada.

According to Supervisor Helen Thomson, “Gina will have new opportunities and challenges in the lead Deputy position, and I support and encourage her move to this new position. She is well prepared to serve Supervisor-elect Provenza in his first term.

Daleiden adds that, “Supervisor Thomson is a mentor and a friend, and I am happy that I will continue to work with her and her office. I’m thankful to both Supervisor Thomson and her deputy, Laura Bibelheimer, for all they have taught me about county government.”

Sandra Rodriguez, current District 4 Assistant Deputy, will continue in her position. During her tenure as Assistant Deputy to Mariko Yamada, Rodriguez gained a reputation as a hardworking advocate for the citizens of the 4th District and has been of particular assistance to Spanish speaking residents. Ms. Rodriguez stated, “I am happy to be able to help with the transition, and I look forward to working for our constituents and continuing to help the office run smoothly.”

Across the State Uncertainty Clouds Future for Re-entry Facilities

Budget Lacks Money and State Lacks Credibility in Their Promises

While the people of Madison mount a fight against locating the re-entry facility in their community, it seems more and more that they are not alone in that fight. Across the state, counties and communities are realizing that they have given up more than they bargained for.

Thanks to an anonymous tip, the Vanguard has discovered that the funding for the re-entry facility that was approved this week, may not exist. There are also additional problems that appear to exist with the system.

According to the Stockton Record on September 18, 2008, the state's budget if it passes (and it now appears it will) does not have money to fund AB 900.

"Missing from the budget compromise reached this week in Sacramento was legislation needed to fund landmark prison reform designed to relieve overcrowding in state prisons and local lockups, state prison and local law enforcement officials said."

This has left San Joaquin County in a bigger lurch than it possibly will Yolo County.

"The reform legislation includes $1.2 billion for local jail expansion, and San Joaquin County is slated to receive $80 million of that money to expand its overstuffed County Jail."

"Language to "clean up" AB900 is necessary to pay for jail expansions and re-entry facilities, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. State officials said the cleanup language is needed before California can issue bonds funding AB900.

And if the fix doesn't pass with the budget, it could be at least three months before lawmakers can pass a law to make the necessary changes, law enforcement officials said.

That's three more months that could see construction costs rise and three more months San Joaquin County will have to deal with increased crime rates caused by a jail so full that criminals who should be locked up are on the streets, San Joaquin County Sheriff-Coroner Steve Moore said.

"It's disappointing that this wasn't taken care of in the first round," Moore said.

In a Wednesday conference call, representatives from the governor's office assured law enforcement officials from across the state that fixing the law was a top priority.

"It's very difficult for me to share the same confidence," Calaveras County Sheriff Dennis Downum said. Calaveras County was picked to receive $10 million for its own overcrowding issues.

Concern about not having a funding mechanism in place has other county sheriffs unsure about their own projects, said Jim Denney, executive director of the California State Sheriffs' Association. "It's making it very rough for the local jurisdictions to proceed."

San Joaquin County is not the only county alarmed.

The Monterey Herald reports a similar problem in Monterey County:

"After months of working to find potential sites for a state prison inmate re-entry facility in exchange for $80 million in funding for an expansion of the county jail, county officials found out the money may not be available after all.

In a bombshell announcement to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Sheriff Mike Kanalakis said sources in Sacramento told him the Legislature's newly approved state budget would likely mean the demise of AB 900 funding that would have helped pay for the jail upgrade. The quest for the jail expansion money was the primary reason county leaders promised state prison officials a re-entry facility site in Monterey County.

Under the terms of the state budget compromise that was passed early Tuesday, AB 900 is "for all intents and purposes dead," Kanalakis said. "We're not sure where this leaves us."

Supervisors decided to go ahead with their original plan to ask state prison officials for a six-month extension to identify a site for the re-entry facility in rural Monterey County in case the state budget doesn't pass and the funding remains available. "

Here's perhaps a key point:

"Kanalakis' announcement left supervisors expressing relief they hadn't committed to a site in Monterey County for the re-entry facility, noting unsuccessful efforts to secure promises from the state linked to the site.

Last week, supervisors backed out of a plan to offer the state a specific site, voting to remove all proposed sites in Salinas from consideration and declaring their intention to find a site in the unincorporated part of the county.

They agreed to require the state to provide a series of promises before the county would commit to any site, including that the jail expansion money would be available, that the facility would never be converted to another use, and that the state would provide re-entry program funding.

Supervisor Lou Calcagno said he was always concerned that the state couldn't live up to its end of the bargain. "

Seems we haven't done any of that in Yolo County. Also, why are we only getting $30 million when Monterrey County is getting $80?

So what happened in Monterey County?

"The state has dropped plans to build a prison re-entry facility in Monterey County after local officials failed to meet Thursday's deadline to designate a specific site for the 500-bed lockup.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's decision could cost Monterey County $80 million in state funds that were earmarked to expand the overcrowded county jail.

"They took us off the list," county Supervisor Fernando Armenta said, minutes after a meeting with the CDCR board of directors. "It is very disappointing and frustrating."

Armenta, Sheriff Mike Kanalakis and several other officials traveled to Berkeley for Thursday's meeting of the prison board, where they requested the six month extension.

The county decided it needed more time after the Board of Supervisors last week ruled out building the facility anywhere within the city of Salinas.

Since only Salinas locations had been considered for several months, the county wanted more time to choose an appropriate location in its unincorporated areas. "

A similar problem occurred in Orange County this week, this time their Sheriff's Department dropped the bid.

"The Orange County Sheriff's Department dropped its bid Thursday to receive $100 million in state funds for expanding the James A. Musick jail because of a dispute over ownership of the facility at which a state inmate re-entry program would be housed.

In a letter to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the state agency overseeing the bid and award process, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens cited a requirement that the state own and operate the facility "something that will not work in our community."

This is the crux of the issue:

"That facility would potentially be a state prison and I do not support a state prison in the heart of Orange County," Campbell said. "The sheriff negotiated on a bunch of alternative ways to make sure it could never change, but they wouldn't agree to that."

Ryan Burris, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Department, said the loss of the bid means the county must find other ways to relieve the overcrowding in the county's jails. According to the sheriff's department, there are 1,256 beds at Musick, located on the outskirts of Lake Forest and Irvine. The city of Orange has an agreement with the county that Lacy hold no more than 2,986 inmates.

"We still know that we need to expand the jail facilities to meet demand," Burris said. "They're going to have to look at all of that to figure out the best way to do so."

The original proposal for the inmate re-entry program called for it to be located at Theo Lacy in Orange. In May the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation rejected that plan after city officials protested the move because the re-entry program entailed paroling 292 state inmates into the streets of the city.

Orange Mayor Carolyn Cavecche said she also protested the move because it would have violated an existing agreement with the county not to change the conditions of the jail without city approval.

The more one reads into this issue, the more it seems like the county has made a deal with, shall we say the devil? Other counties are foregoing far larger grants for their jails than Yolo County is. Perhaps the county can look at other ways to finance their jail expansion. I think a lot of people would be amenable to that in lieu of building the re-entry facility. The more I read on this issue, the less it seems to be a good idea.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Threats Punctuate Re-Entry Prison

On Tuesday, I detected a clear lack of interest in the topic of the re-entry facility on this board. The threat gone from Davis, the number of comments dwindled. Supervisor Matt Rexroad noticed it too. He called it proof of NIMBYism. I think a certain degree of that is understandable. I may dislike toxic waste sites, but I'm probably going to act more strongly and more passionately if it is a few miles from my home than if it's across the country. You can call that NIMBYism or you can call that acting locally.

Bottom line here is that I can sympathize with the plight of those from Madison. They felt disenfranchised by the process not only because they lacked the veto power that an incorporated city would have but because their own board member was partially conflicted out of the discussion. Despite what some have claimed, the fact that Duane Chamberlain farms land adjacent to the airport is a direct conflict of interest when weighing in on whether a prison should have been built there.

Supervisor Chamberlain was back on Tuesday to cast the lone 'no' vote. Supervisor Mariko Yamada abstained. The location was approved by a 3-1-1 vote.

The Woodland Daily Democrat described her decision to abstain:

"Yamada said she supported the idea of a re-entry facility for the county, but had heard nothing throughout the discussion to assure her of the "fairness" of placing the facility in Madison. In addition, she noted, she will not be present to see the facility plan implemented, as she is the heavy favorite in the race for the 8th Assembly District in November.

"I'm not doing this because I'm afraid to make either side mad," she told a packed crowd in the supervisors' chambers Tuesday. "By doing this, I'll likely make both sides mad."

The Davis Enterprise added:

"Yamada said while she supports the concept of a re-entry program, 'siting it in a rural area fails two tests - one of these is certainty, and the other is fairness.'"

I must admit, I do not exactly understand her rationale. Why not just vote no if she is uncomfortable with the location?

The Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians and their tribal leader Marshall McKay wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging them to reconsider the Madison site.

"We have serious concerns that the placement of a prison in Madison could thwart what the tribe and county are working to build here, which is a thriving community supported by needed infrastructure, planned growth and economic development."

This process is really somewhat backwards. The next step is a planning process whereby the state will analyze the cite and undergo CEQA process. Should the site not be feasible, the county would likely be granted additional time to find an alternative site.

Now the threats. The neighbors are threatening both a recall and lawsuit. I will deal with the recall first because that has to be dead on arrival. Who are they going to recall? The residents who are actually angry about this live in Chamberlain's district. They are going to recall him. So they are going to try to recall someone else's supervisor? That is not going to work to well. I do not get the sense that there is enough interest in the rest of the county to get enough signatures for recall let alone to enable them to remove and replace someone. Just is not a realistic possibility.

As far as a lawsuit goes it more likely will prolong the process.

I sympathize with the residents of Madison, they do not want this. There is not much solace I can give them, however, there is little evidence to support the notion that a prison would lower property values.

Additionally people fear that the prison could morph into something else. However, the board believes that the site lease agreement of 25 years will preclude that at least in the near future.

At some point, this process needs to move forward. It is unfortunate however that rural residents have found themselves so powerless in the face of such a proposal. That I think is the real tragedy of all this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Fight Against Re-Entry Facility Continues For Madison

For Davis and much of the county, last week was the pinnacle of the fight against the re-entry facility. For those who want to once again go to the NIMBY-issue, here is your fodder. I still believe there are logical and rational reasons for opposing projects of this sort, even when they are near your backyard.

What I do not think is logical and reasonable are all the charges and conspiracy theories that are floating around.

One of the arguments I hear time and time again is that people are afraid to have the re-entry facility in their community because they fear the inmates will be released there.

Now again, if we are talking about legitimate fears, there are some. This will be a low security facility, I hope the county will work with the state to improve upon the security of the facility because that is a legitimate issue. However, what is not a legitimate issue is that prisoners will be released at the location of the facility. That is neither the intent of the law, AB 900, nor is it the intention of the county.

Indeed, the MOU between the county and state takes care of this issue--if there are any questions. In fact, the CDCR is responsible for ensuring that "all inmates released to parole from the Yolo SCRF will have coordinated transportation from the Yolo SCRF to their approved placement in the community based on the inmate’s reentry plan."

As Supervisor Rexroad put it:

"My main concerns about release points is taken care of. Unless someone lives in Madison everyone will be transported to where they live. That was key to me. "

However, as I mentioned the security arrangement could use improvement:

"On a case by case basis, CDCR is willing to provide a boundary fence, as defined in CDCR’s design guidelines at the request of the County. Such fence shall be constructed so as not to unnecessarily restrict visitors, service providers and other non-CDCR personnel from entering the premises to conduct necessary business in connection with the operation of the SCRF. The design of the Secure Reentry Facility Prototype utilizes a secure building envelope that creates a secure perimeter. As a result, no additional security fencing is required or incorporated into the base prototype design."

Finally, the MOU does not address another key fear by local communities on this issue and that is that the building not be transferred to other usages should the program no longer exist.

The termination clause reads as follows:

"This MOU shall automatically terminate without notice after seven years from this MOU’s effective date if the Yolo SCRF is not sited and operating."

But it contains no provision for the building. So it is indeed conceivable from this MOU, that the building could move into new usage. The county should insist on a clauses that transfers the building back to their control if this program and current usage ever ceases.

There is a provision in the siting agreement that would enable the County to terminate it "if the County does not receive a conditional award of state bond funds for construction of a jail facility... and has exhausted or has waived, all administrative appeal procedures..."

In other words, the county will not get stuck with this facility unless they are ensured of getting their $30 million for the prison.

For me those two concerns are legitimate concerns with the MOU and the project.

Many have suggested that this building has to be in an urban area. I am far from convinced on that point. The location of Woodland would actually be a bit better in terms of transportation. But Madison is not a horrendous location. It would be problematic for those coming from West Sacramento, but workable from Woodland and convenient from Solano County which will apparently have a good chunk of the inmates.

The release issue, as mentioned above, is a non-issue. The final point is one of services and infrastructure. Apparently that is going to have to occur anyway. The county clearly intends to expand the size of Madison to begin with. The state is responsible for the provision of services and infrastructure. They will be the ones who do the analysis and it will be interesting to see what would occur if they deemed it too costly.

I am generally one that is sympathetic for neighbor-issues with building projects of all sorts. I believe that people have invested huge percentages of their earnings and life-savings into their property. I think people have legitimate concerns about property values and quality of life. I do not begrudge people who do not want a facility of this sort by them as long as they do not in turn want a facility of this sort by someone else.

The notion of NIMBY means "Not in my backyard" but it implies inherently that they are willing to tolerate it elsewhere. By definition, you are not a NIMBY if you oppose it for all. That does not mean you necessarily oppose it for all with equal force. I may not want a biolab anywhere in the country because I fear any number of hazards may occur, but I will also spend far more time opposing it in Davis than I will even think about it in Virginia. That's just a fact of life.

Where I do have a problem is the breakdown of civil discourse, the irresponsible charges, and conspiracies theories that have emerged.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad reports a lot of angry letters and people that have called him up, yelling at him. Sadly some of those folks are from Davis. I understand people's frustrations, but they have to act like adults. It is counterproductive to yell.

As Mr. Rexroad put it on his blog:

"Over the past couple weeks I have noticed that when people start yelling at me about facts I can't control --- I just mentally turn them off. At that point they just need to yell so I let them go. Reason and rational thought just aren't going to do anything for them."

Then there are threats. For example:

"When you make your decision regarding the re-entry today, do so knowing that God has special places for those who make the wrong choices in life. Knowing all you know about this so called "re-entry", how you can knowingly let down the very people that elected you for the almighty dollar is truely beyond me."

Race Card and Brown Act Accusations

An attorney has written a letter to the Board of Supervisors on residents' behalf. Some citizens are considering filing a lawsuit to stop the facility. Unfortunately the letter from the attorney seems counterproductive at best.

The race card has been played. The letter charged that the "proposed site is discriminatory to the poor and Hispanic community."

"The county recognizes Madison as an economically disadvantaged area. It is home to a large migrant labor camp of almost exclusive Hispanic residents. Is Madison being selected as the proposed site because it lacks a significant affluent white population? Additionally, one author has noted that racism among white staff in rural prisons is pervasive."

I see. Of course Woodland and West Sacramento have sizable Hispanic populations as well. That would leave only Davis as a possible site. Of course, then Davis could claim it is being discriminated against because it is the only predominantly white community. I am being facetious here, but this argument does not hold much water.

Then there are charges of Brown Act violations.

As Matt Rexroad put it:

"The point about the Brown Act does not even contain any evidence -- it just states that the Board of Supervisors broke the law."

Not only do these charges not contain evidence, they do not even contain a description of how the law was violated.

The letter simply states:

"The Conduct of the Hearing on the Potential Sites for this Prison Reentry Facility at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on September 9, 2008 Violated the Brown Act."

Okay, can you now please explain what they did in violation of the Brown Act. You can state it all you want, but if you are going to file a legitimate complaint with either the District Attorney's Office or the Attorney General's Office, you need to have a description of what was in violation of the Brown Act.

These types of tactics are actually counterproductive--they tend to make public officials dig their heels in rather than listen to legitimate concerns--and I think there are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. They need to be addressed through reasoned discourse not threats and unfounded charges.

If you do not believe that the site will work--make an argument as to why that is the case, not a threat. I have seen no evidence that the Board violated the Brown Act on this. I do see some issues that need to be resolved. I hope the Board works to revise and strengthen the MOU if they decide to go ahead with the project. And I hope the Madison community at the very least works with them to improve the arrangement.

I understand that the people of Madison do not want this facility and "do not want to be known as a prison town." That I can sympathize with, but they need more than just threats and charges to make that case to the Board.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Yolo County Releases Draft of Updated General Plan

Draft General Plan Document Released

[FROM COUNTY PRESS RELEASE] (Woodland, CA) – Today, the Yolo County Draft General Plan was released to the public. On September 16, a joint meeting of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will be held to receive a presentation on the Draft General Plan. The General Plan is the basic document used by local government in land use planning. It provides the comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the county, and is often referred to as “the constitution” of the county. All cities and counties are required, under state law, to have one.

The last update was in 1983, based on the county’s original General Plan from 1958. In May 2003, the Board of Supervisors gave direction to begin the current General Plan update process. This is only the third time in the county’s history that the General Plan has been comprehensively updated. While the fundamental land use goals of promoting agriculture and directing urban growth to the cities have not changed, circumstances facing the county have changed. Agriculture requires flexibility to allow it to branch out into processing and tourism related businesses. Similarly, several of the county’s small towns require new infrastructure, investment, and services that can accompany well-designed growth. There is also a greater need for economic development to provide growth and stability to the county revenues that pay for local services. This General Plan update allows the county to examine these issues and chart a course for the future that meets these challenges.



Yolo County is 653,549 acres in size, of which 32,325 acres (just under 5%) lies within the four incorporated cities. Currently, approximately 23,265 residents live in 7,263 homes within the remaining 95% of the county, along side 430 acres of job-producing commercial and industrial land. Under the existing 1983 General Plan, another 11,240 residents, 4,014 homes, and 1,440 acres of commercial and industrial land could be added. The Preferred Land Use Alternative, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 18, 2007, is the basis for creating the General Plan update. In addition to the 1983 General Plan, it would allow for another 26,600 residents, 9,500 homes, and 901 acres of economic development through the year 2030.

The four primary proposed land use changes that account for these increases include:

• Dunnigan community expansion (21,000 residents, 7,500 units, and 430 job-producing acres)
• Madison community expansion (3,655 residents, 1,305 units, and 116 job-producing acres)
• New commercial and industrial development in Elkhorn (320 job-producing acres)
• Conversion to industrial at Spreckels site (69 job-producing acres)

The growth in Dunnigan and Madison is reflective of a desire by the Board of Supervisors to ensure the future sustainability of these communities, including a minimum population to support basic community services as well as carefully structured land uses to ensure that the number and price of homes roughly match the number and wages of local jobs. The growth in Elkhorn and Spreckels is supportive of the Board of Supervisors’ economic development priorities and both highlight site-specific resource opportunities of the county. It should be noted that development in Knights Landing and Esparto is already planned under the 1983 General Plan.

New policy directions in the proposed Draft General Plan focus on the following primary themes:

• The continuing primacy of agriculture and related endeavors throughout the county, by allowing for more economic innovation and aggressively protecting the water and soil resources upon which farming depends.
• Modest managed growth within existing towns, accompanied by improvements to infrastructure and services to ensure community sustainability.
• Expanded protection of a network of connected open space and recreational areas, integrated with the Yolo Natural Heritage Program.
• Opportunities for revenue-producing and job-producing agricultural, industrial, and commercial growth in designated locations and along key transportation corridors.
• Manage the existing road network to make the most of existing capacity, while accommodating a diversity of users and alternative modes of transportation.
• Service levels that allow for the effective and efficient provision of services, consistent with rural values and expectations.
• A comprehensive approach to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and plan for the potential impacts of global climate change.
• New emphasis on community and neighborhood requirements that reflect “smart growth” and “healthy design” principles, which complement the unique character of existing developed areas.

All Yolo County residents are urged to follow this important process which will shape the future of Yolo County. Comments on the document will be accepted by the Planning and Public Works Department through November 20, 2008. To view the Draft General Plan, the schedule of upcoming public meetings, or to find additional general information on the General Plan update, visit: www.yolocountygeneralplan.org.

Hard copies of the Draft General Plan are available for viewing and check-out at all Yolo County library branches (visit: www.yolocountylibrary.org for branch locations) and the Yolo County Planning & Public Works (PPW) Department (292 West Beamer Street in Woodland). Hard copies of the Draft General Plan are available for purchase at PPW for $50.00 or on CD for $4.50.

Commentary

Last summer the city of Davis and Yolo County over the extent to which the city of Davis could control growth on its borders. The city at that point argued that the pass-through agreement gave the city primary land use authority in areas covered by the agreement and any attempt by the county to study the issue would be put the agreement in jeopardy and cause the city to withhold its roughly $2 million per year that it sends from its redevelopment agency to the county in exchange for the county ceding land use authority.

Under strong pressure from residents of Davis including a united from of the Davis City Council, the county almost at the last second reversed course and tabled further talk about creating special study areas on the border of Davis. What is interesting is that after that time, there was insistence by some that this issue was not over. That any tabling of discussion was merely temporary and that the county could reopen the issue at any point in time.

At least in the Davis form of the General Plan that is not the case. Residential growth for the most part appears to be limited to two primary locations--Dunnigan and Madison--ironically enough two areas that had re-entry facilities proposed. As I understand it, Dunnigan for instance has actually lobbied the board for more growth rather than less. I do not know if it is the same in Madison.

There is an interesting article in this morning's Sacramento Bee that Madison now seeks to fight against the re-entry facility. I mention this because while they are not talking about creating a new city in Madison as they are in Dunnigan, adding 3600 residents to the existing population will likely strongly change the current character of Madison. Arguments that there lacks sufficient instruction in Madison miss the point that the infrastructure is going to have to come anyway in order for it to add 3600 residents in the next general plan period.

That is really an aside in the issue of the re-entry facility, but it is interesting to note. As the release says, comments are due by November 20, 2008, so we will see between now and then if this plan stirs up much dissent in Madison and Dunnigan. In the meantime, it does appear that Davis has prevailed in its efforts to determine its own growth. I am certain some will have disparaging remarks to make about that. From my perspective all communities should determine how much they grow and how their character will change. People like to use the term NIMBY but then they forget that people sink their life savings into their homes and property, I guess it's easy to disparage someone else's efforts.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Re-Entry Facility Will Be Heard Today by County and Davis City Council

This morning, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors will take up the controversial issue of the re-entry facility.

While the staff recommendation for the county is to approve the three sites which would fulfill the requirements by the county to identify three sites before a deadline, there is some suggestion that the county may seek to try to rank-order the sites as well. This move may alleviate anxiety for some county residents who are overwhelmingly opposed to the placement of such a facility near their communities.

We have covered a number of different aspects of this in the last few days. Today we will tie up a few loose ends.

Tonight, the Davis City Council will get briefed on the issue. By then the Board of Supervisors may have already made some sort of decision at least in terms of a preference order. It seems unlikely that the issue will be resolved by tonight.

In Sunday's Vanguard, Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek expressed concerns both about the project and the process.

"The proposed project is located in the Davis planning area, it would have a Davis address. And the occupants of the facility would be released into our community. So yes, I have very strong concerns."

One of his big concerns was the lack of communication between the county and the city of Davis.

"I had actually heard from neighbors of the area, outside the city limits, before I had heard anything from city staff or the county. That leads me to believe that our city staff was not kept abreast of the plan to propose this site and it leads me to believe that our inclusion in the process was not considered from the beginning."

While Councilmember Heystek expressed concern about the possibility of city services being required for the county airport location, Supervisor Matt Rexroad downplayed that possibility.

In an email from Thursday night, Supervisor Rexroad acknowledged that the road situation might be a problem, but believed that other potential shortcomings could be resolved.

"I think the road issues is the biggest one in this area. The flooding issue, power issue, and a couple others that were mentioned tonight can be solved and improved for others with this project."

One of the big questions is who would be required to solve those problems. The city of Camarillo is going through a similar experience with a federally imposed prison hospital that might be built near their city. The city there has argued that they probably do not have the power to the prevent the federal or state government from placing the facility in Ventura County, but they are under no obligation to supply it with water.

The issue of fire staffing and emergency services seems to be more tricky. Currently the Plainfield area is served by a volunteer fire department with two volunteer firefighters. In an emergency at the prison, that would quickly overwhelm them. Who would be required to back them up?

All of these questions could have been resolved had the county been more forthcoming and communicated with the cities.

Councilmember Heystek:

"We want to maintain a positive relationship with our counterparts in the county. We have already learned from the lessons of the northwest quadrant that the city of Davis has a very strong interest in protecting interests not only within our boundaries but also within areas of our county where we have a clear say on, per agreement and per conventional planning principals.

It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way."

Meanwhile there was word yesterday that another group has an interest in the proceedings with the county today--the Sacramento Central Labor Council and the building trades. They will be looking to ensure that any contract has provisions to use union workers to design the facility. There is indication that these groups will show up in mass today to urge the county to place provisions within any authorization for the re-entry facility that it must have union labor.

However, much has to occur before that can even happen. The board of supervisors meeting will likely be packed today with residents urging that they not build in their backyard.

Stay tuned to Vanguard for the latest news and updates on this situation throughout the day.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Issue of Poor Communications Arises Again in Debate Over Re-Entry Facility Location

Councilmember Heystek: "It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way"

Some have suggested that land use issues are simply means to express fear of prisons in a more acceptable manner. They have dismissed complaints about procedural problems in the county's proposal for a location of the re-entry facility. However, from my perspective, those dismissals fail to understand the magnitude of the impact of this facility on a place like the city of Davis. There has been little to no discussion to this point as to who is expected to provide the vital services for a location such as the county airport.

These are not merely academic exercises, the county for example lacks its own fire department. There are questions about roadways, water, sewer, power, and the like that could have impacts on adjacent jurisdictions such as the city of Davis. These potential impacts should necessitate cooperation and at the very least the common courtesy of advanced notice. Yet, it is clear that this did not occur.

County Supervisor Matt Rexroad has suggested that while "the County certainly could have done a better job in communicating with the people of Yolo County regarding this issue" however, he does not believe he is personally taking a hit for poor communications.

I would tend to agree with Mr. Rexroad here, he personally is not the problem with regards to communications.

"When this issue came up I personally spoke to three members of the Woodland City Council within a few hours on learning more. Later I spoke to a fourth. I personally called the Police Chief and City Manager. Long discussions were involved with all of these people.

I communicated with the city leaders in Woodland and continue to do that on a regular basis. Lately I have not talked much with Martie Dote but I need to do that more. I talked Flory more when he was on the Council. In fact, several times I talked to Art and Dave more when they were both on the City Council in one day than my predecessor talked to me in the entire four years he was in office.

I am hesitant to communicate with the people outside of Woodland on county policy issues. On this blog I lay out my positions on issues and lots of people read them.

You can rip me for a whole host of things..... but lack of communications in not one of them."

However, as Mr. Rexroad points out, it is not his responsibility to communicate to the residents of other districts within the county--and whether it is Duane Chamberlain who represents the rural areas where the proposed facility would be placed, or the city of Davis' representatives Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada, there has been a fundamental lack of communication between the county and the city, and this is not the first time this has arisen.

I do disagree with Supervisor Rexroad on one point, during a phone conversation he suggested that this location was not within an area that Davis should have any say over. I firmly disagree on that point, I think that the impacts on Davis are rather direct and there needed to be earlier discussions on the possibility of locating the facility on this site.

During a phone conversation with Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek, the councilmember expressed strong concern over the proposed project location.

"The proposed project is located in the Davis planning area, it would have a Davis address. And the occupants of the facility would be released into our community. So yes, I have very strong concerns."

At the same time, the councilmember told me that he and the city received "little" or no communication from the county on this issue.

"I had actually heard from neighbors of the area, outside the city limits, before I had heard anything from city staff or the county. That leads me to believe that our city staff was not kept abreast of the plan to propose this site and it leads me to believe that our inclusion in the process was not considered from the beginning."

He continued:

"We want to maintain a positive relationship with our counterparts in the county. We have already learned from the lessons of the northwest quadrant that the city of Davis has a very strong interest in protecting interests not only within our boundaries but also within areas of our county where we have a clear say on, per agreement and per conventional planning principals.

It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way."

Furthermore, he made the case that the interests of the city extend beyond the geographical boundaries that separate city jurisdictions from the county. These interlocking and overlapping interests have necessitated the creation of bodies such as the city-county two-by-two, but also regional bodies like SACOG and LAFCO to bring together jurisdictions in an effort to forge cooperative relations.

"Much is made about the fact that the city of Davis has a sphere of influence and there's land within our planning area, we as decisionmakers who represent the people of this city have a very solemn responsibility not only to represent the interests of the people who lie within our city limits but also a responsibility to represent the interests of those people even as they lay outside of the city limits. That means that extrinsically our residents have interests that do not lie solely within the city's boundaries. Those interests also exceed those boundaries. So it's our interest and responsibility as councilmembers and as city officials to look very closely at this proposal to ask for and to frankly demand attention and involvement in any process that the county may be undertaking."

Along with the lack of communication, are a variety of reasons why the county needed to involve the city in discussions from the start. It is unclear whether the facility will require access to the Davis system of sewer or water. Supervisor Matt Rexroad believes that wells can provide the cite with water, but what about sewer?

From the city's perspective, any need from the county would tax a system that is already in the process of requiring major capital improvements.

Councilmember Heystek said:

"Our infrastructure has already been so taxed that we barely can afford to serve our existing residents and our existing ratepayers. So adding new service to our water and sewer systems is very questionable. I'm not sure if this facility proposes to tap into the city's water and sewer systems. But, if that's the case, it would be unconscionable for any plan to move very much forward without any meaningful city involvement."

In addition to the issue of water and sewer, fire service is a concern. The airport has a volunteer fire department that houses two volunteer fire fighters. Such a facility could quickly move beyond the capabilities of that small department to provide emergency services. The county does not have its own fire department. So who would have responsibility to serve the new facility in the case of an emergency?

That answer is unclear to Councilmember Heystek:

"I would like to know whether we are indeed obligated to engage in a contract for services if it's not feasible or otherwise in the city's best interest to do so."

What is clear is that such a facility could tax the city already strapped for resources.

"We have talked about five minutes response time issues that the department has brought up and the city has studied. The issue of simultaneous calls has been studied by the department and the council as a whole. Adding more territory to serve clearly doesn't make sense at this time when we are considering how we serve our existing service areas."

The traffic issue was a big concern to local residents on Thursday night. Some have speculated that this is a huge potential problem, others have kind of discounted that problem. Councilmember Heystek pointed out that there has not been any kind of traffic study to date, so it would be difficult to assess potential problems.

"None of us can answer that question specifically since we don't have a traffic study before us. But an EIR for this project, I assume one will be carried out, an EIR with a traffic study would reveal an answer for that."

However, the potential problem of the taxing of existing infrastructure is a big concern to Mr. Heystek.

"You raise a very good point, to what extent will incorporated cities infrastructure be taxed in that respect. You already asked about water and sewer, you've asked about the fire department, and you've asked about the roads, clearly these accumulated infrastructure service impacts drastically effects the way we serve our residents. And so hopefully dialogue between the county and city will be meaningful, productive, full, and comprehensive. I hope that any discussion recognizes and honors the fact that the city has a legal right to participate in the discussion and the process as a whole."

For the Councilmember the problem comes back to communication and shared interests.

"We have two representatives on the city-county two-by-two--actually we have four Davis representatives. I hope that the four Davisites will not only insure that county interests are served but also city interests. And while those interests often overlap, they are not mutually inclusive, that is they don't always overlap perfectly. So it will be interesting to see how the dynamic at that level plays out. I assume that there will be other ways for the city council or board of supervisors to be involved. I will exercise my right to voice an opinion to cast as necessary."

The problem that I have is that this discussion is coming up again. Just last year, the city expressed concerns about lack of discussion prior to the general plan process by the county. The city was caught off-guard at that time about proposed developments on the periphery of Davis. Everyone had suggested that we would learn from those acrimonious discussions that exploded into full-blown controversy, but it seems like we have not.

On Tuesday, the county will formally take up the proposal and will recommend study at the three sites that have been proposed. This fulfills their obligation to recommend three sites for possible locations for the re-entry facility. It appears that the state would then study the sites and that sometime down the line, a decision would be made by the county as to where to place the facility.

The staff recommendation is as follows:

"RECOMMENDED ACTION:

A. Reaffirm the county’s support for the siting of a reentry facility in Yolo County;

B. Approve the list of potential sites for a state reentry facility in Yolo County;

a) County Road 90 and State Route 16 (east of Madison)

b) County Road 86a and State Route 16 (southeast of Esparto)

c) Yolo County Airport

C. Authorize the signing of the Reentry Program Facility Siting Agreement between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the county for potential reentry facility sites and to comply with Assembly Bill (AB 900);

D. Authorize the signing of Options to Purchase real estate agreements for County Road 90 at State Route 16 (KATHYANNA RANCH, LLC) and County Road 86a at State Route 16 (JOHN DETERDING CO.) for potential sites for a reentry facility."

So no final determination appears in the works for Tuesday. However, we are still left with burning questions about the process. For example, when should the county notify cities about plans that will impact the city and possibly involve city infrastructure or at the very least are adjacent to the cities? Moreover, we know that Brown Act requirements for public notification are extremely low, even placement in the newspaper is somewhat problematic. The city of Davis has community meetings well in advance of new housing projects--why not a similar approach from the county?

People have suggested that these changes would not change people's minds on the subject of prison construction. They are probably correct. But process is an end in and of itself, it is not merely a means to achieve consensus or agreement, although those are worthwhile goals. Proper procedures in this case would not diminish outcry. However, what they might do is allow other jurisdictions to address some of the concerns of residents in advance. They also might have allowed the county to determine early on potential problems at the proposed sites that would have eliminated them well before they panicked the public. All of these things need to change. We live in an information age, and Davis' two supervisors have not sufficiently communicated with their constituents on this issue.

All of these things are correctable in the future if there is an effort to proactively involve citizens in the process.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Meeting Tonight in Rural West Davis on Re-Entry Facility

Yesterday I received an email message from a resident from rural west Davis asking me to inform Vanguard readers of a meeting tonight, September 4, out at the county airport approximately five miles from town.

Here is the email that was sent:

While we do not live in Davis proper, the residents of rural west Davis are a part of Davis 'life'.

We just discovered that the County wants to build a prison on top of us!

Our community is having a town hall meeting on the 4th at 7 pm at Lillard Hall [Yolo County Airport].

Since so many Davisites share our community with bicycling and outdoor activities, we believe that having 800 prisoners and 300 support staff roaming in our rural area would negatively affect them.

Could/would you all be so kind as to "get the word out" (mass email) about our meeting? Perhaps some Davis folks would want to weigh in.

We also have a website at: westplainfield.ning.com that we just started.

Keep up the good work with your community site and thanks in advance.

The individual also told me that while they support the program, they are concerned about traffic issues with 300 employees. 800 prisoners would completely impact the main agricultural use.

"The county for years has had a policy of growth in cities to keep the rural area open. This proposal is quite out of step with that. There would be greener locations for this facility that would not need its own sewage plant or transportation system. Out here would be isolation for inmates, isolated from the very society that they are to be re-entered into? It's ironic."

I will try to attend the meeting tonight. I will be curious to see if it follows the same format from Tuesday up in Esparto, where two of the proposals now are located. The county has decided that Dunnigan and Zamora are not the best locations. I am very curious as to why they believe that is the case, but think Esparto or Plainfield will work.

At the meeting in Esparto, Yolo County Supervisors Matt Rexroad and Helen Thomson were on a panel along with Sheriff Ed Prieto and three members of the CDCR. Also while not on the panel, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was in attendance.

Yolo Cowboy, who runs a pretty good blog called the Roughstock Journal covered this yesterday. He did not mince words about his dislike for the proposal.

According to the Yolo Cowboy, there were about 200 residents who went the Esparto high school auditorium.

From his perspective:

"The residents of this community were upset and it showed as comments and questions were shouted from those inside the auditorium. For those on the panel, they must have been waiting for the people to break out the torches and pitchforks.

I would like to apologize for the lack of decorum at the meeting, but I will not.

To understand the frustration felt by the citizens of the Capay Valley, you must understand what we have experienced in our dealings with Yolo County. It seems whenever someone comes to the County and says they have a huge amount of money to give them, if they give a green light to a certain project in a rural area, the green light is given. When the citizens of the affected area object, the County tells them, ‘we need the money, shut up and take it’. The first expansion of the Cache Creek casino? We need the money, shut up and take it. The second huge expansion of the casino? We need the money, shut up and take it. Now the proposed re entry prison, you guessed it, shut up and take it.

The County Board of Supervisors has a job to do, provide services to the citizens of our county with a 326 million dollar budget. I also understand the fact that free money is a rare and welcome luxury. However, this ‘free’ money does have a cost attached to it. A cost that is not easily seen from the cities of Woodland, Davis, West Sacramento. As rural residents of the county, we are told to shut up and take it as our small-town quality of life deteriorates for the common good of the urban citizenry of the county."

I still think this is a pretty good proposal and a worthwhile endeavor. But the county has a clear problem at this point. The cities have veto power and the rural areas both do not want it and in most cases do not have the infrastructure or services to support it well.

Like many others, the Yolo Cowboy thinks we need the facility, but not at that location:

"Yes, Yolo County needs this type of facility; anything that could lead to a decrease in the recidivism rates of parolees is a benefit for us all. However, putting this facility out in a rural area, far away from urban centers with few employers, few volunteer organizations and where a tiny percentage of the prisoners families live, is setting up the program for failure before it starts."

Okay than where? The cities do not want it either and they have actual veto power by the statute. Someone needs to compromise here or someone is going to get angry when the Board of Supervisors finally says, we have the authority to do whatever we want and you do not have enough people to stop us. And then what?

Stay tuned. This issue is just getting started, the board meets next Tuesday to discuss it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Proposes Site Locations for Reentry Facility

In a release yesterday afternoon, Yolo County announced that at a September 9 meeting, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors will consider three potential ites for a secure community reentry facility.

The potential sites include an industrial/commercial park east of the community of Madison (County Road 90 and State Route 16), a proposed industrial/commercial park southeast of the Esparto community (County Road 86a and State Route 16) and a site at the Yolo County Airport in the West Plainfield area (County Road 95).

According to the release:

"On March 18, Yolo County submitted a proposal to the state for funding for expansion of the county’s existing jail which included agreeing to assist the state in siting a reentry facility. Included in the proposal was the offer of a site located next to the jail facility, however this location was rejected as it was deemed by the state to be too small. The county was notified by the Corrections Standards Authority on May 15 that it had received a conditional award of $30 million for jail expansion pending the siting of a reentry facility in Yolo County. Since then, the county has been working with the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation to identify additional potential sites by the state’s deadline of August 15 (which has now been extended to September 16). Using criteria set forth by the state, county staff identified more than 100 parcels throughout the county that could meet the criteria for the reentry facility.

Initially, a number of locations were identified in the northern portion of the county, primarily along County Roads 14 and 85, south of the Dunnigan community. After additional on-site reviews, the state reconsidered the feasibility of these locations and indicated their preference for other sites better suited for the state’s needs. The sites being considered on September 9 appear to meet the state’s criteria and have already been identified for industrial/commercial development. These sites require considerable additional analysis and review before the state makes its final preferred selection.

Inmates in state prison are sent back into the community in which they lived prior to incarceration with $200 and a bus ticket. They are released with little to no job training, substance abuse treatment or any other skills or tools that might prevent new crimes and a quick return to prison. Reentry facilities can provide the critical tools to stop that revolving door. These tools include: job training, life and job-seeking skills, and medical, mental health and addiction treatment prior to release. Secure reentry facilities are key to breaking the cycle of crime and repeating criminal activity in California. Once fully integrated into the corrections system, these programs are expected to increase success on parole, increase public safety by reducing the incidence of new crimes by these individuals, and reduce overcrowding in state prisons. Reentry facilities throughout the state will be built and operated by the state."

While the issue has barely been a blip on the radar for people in Davis, it has created a firestorm up in the Dunnigan and Zamora area where the county has focused its energy.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad at one point recommended to the city of Woodland that they take on the project, however, they did not follow through on his recommendations.

Under the provisions of AB 900, cities like Woodland, Davis, Winters, or West Sacramento have veto power over proposed locations for reentry facilities. That has made rural and unincorporated locations like Dunnigan and Zamora, on the crossroad of I-5 and I-580 inviting and vulnerable targets.

Last week, Supervisor Rexroad suggested that the residents of Davis should step up on some of these projects.

"Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.

Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?"

He continued:

"I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided -- just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.

The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?

The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.

My question for you is -- what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?

...

It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for -- the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message."

However, the issue has also been one of controversy in his own family. Supervisor Rexroad's father, himself a resident of the Dunnigan and Zamora area, has been outspoken in his opposition to the project.

On August 19, 2008 Jack Rexroad, the father of the Supervisor, wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise.

In it, he argues that the reentry facility should be placed in an urban area

"because this is where the infrastructure is and where the parolees originated from and where they presumably will have families, lodging and other connections and gravitate to on release. In Yolo County they come primarily from Woodland, Davis and West Sacramento."

He continues:

"If none of these sites of origin will accept responsibility for their citizens, the whole concept of "re-entry" should be dropped. Transferring this unwanted "child" to a rural setting is tantamount to shirking responsibility and abandoning a pet animal in the country. We in the rural areas do not want what you produced and now don't want to deal with."

He concludes suggesting:

"Make no mistake; siting this prison in a rural area will not insulate Woodland, Davis or West Sacramento from the undesirable effects of a future penal colony. After all, where will the prisoner's families and friends live — in a tent city around the prison? My guess is in the cities where almost everyone else lives.

Do you think it's worth the risk? Tell your county supervisors."

From my perspective however, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the unincorporated areas simply do not have the municipal protections that are afforded cities. However, from the standpoint of fiscal need and receiving $30 million of $42 million it will require to expand the Yolo County Jail--an expansion that will occur regardless. And from the standpoint of the project being a worthwhile endeavor even without the fiscal strings attached, this is a project that we must undertake as a county.

Where that project goes, I think is a secondary point. On that point, I can sympathize with the rural citizens who will have very little say over where such a project goes. On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, there is very little evidence that such a project would harm housing values. In fact, it might even augment them by putting good paying jobs in the area. Moreover, there hardly seems to be a safety issue either.

So while I can sympathize with the rural residents, I hardly think the issue is worth the alarm it is causing. From details of the project, it seems that the plan is for the design to be consistent with an urban industrial land use setting.

Here is the thing that gets me about Zamora and Dunnigan, they have pushed the Board of Supervisors to allow for the expansion of their "city" to within 20 years becoming around a city of a population of 25,000. They have no problem with such expansion of housing. But they do not want to bring in 300 jobs? They do not want to bring in something that would be an anchor for their community as it grows?

To me, these objections, the empowerment issue notwithstanding, really amount to NIMBYISM. They have no problem with development, with growth, with wholesale changes to their community, but they do not want a prison reentry facility in their backyard.

This does not dismiss legitimate issues that may arise here, but at the end of the day, it looks like they are probably going to be stuck with it. Hopefully at some point Jack Rexroad will forgive his son and the people of Dunnigan realize that the real impact will be the construction of 12,000 new housing units.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

100K Club of Yolo County

Two weeks ago, we had our listing of the 100K Club of Davis. In it were the 61 employees of the city of Davis who earned $100,000 or more in 2007. Of those 61, 48 were in public safety and 38 of those were firefighters. Now we have compiled through another public records act request the 100K Club of Yolo County. There were 64 Yolo County employees who earned $100,000 or more in 2007.

• CLICK HERE For the full list of 64 Yolo County Employees

The top employee of Yolo County in terms of salary not surprisingly is Sharon Jensen, who is the County Administrator (CAO), a position comparable to a city manager. She is followed by Sheriff Prieto. County Council Robyn Drivon is fourth. District Attorney Jeff Reisig is perhaps somewhat surprisingly only 9th. There are also three members of the Psychiatrist-Board in the top 10.

We have also broken down the elected officials who made the 100K list.



For the sake of comparison, we threw Public Defender Barry Melton on this list even though he is appointed rather than elected. Notably not on the list is the County Superintendent of Schools. Also as people are aware, Yolo County Supervisors make considerably less than $100,000. Also, the Public Guardian does not make the list either.

Breakdown by Department: District Attorney's Office Dominates



There is no department in the county, that is comparable to the firefighters in the city of Davis which had 38 of the top 61 salaries for 2007. However, the District Attorney's office did have 15 of the top 64 salaries, three times that of the next highest departments--County Administrator and Planning and Public Works. Child Support Services, Mental Health, the Public Defender's Office, and the Sheriff's Office all had four employees each in the 100K club of Yolo County.

City of Davis Compared to County and Woodland

One of our Woodland Counterparts, the Woodland Journal just ran their 100K Club of Woodland this past Sunday. They found 18 employees who will make $100,000 or more this year and just 10 employees last year.

To put these numbers into perspective, the city of Davis had 61 employees reach the 100K Club in 2007 out of a total of 422 total employees. That's roughly 14.4% of the employees in Davis. Yolo County by contrast has between 1300 and 1500 total employees of which 64 make 100K or more. That translates at the high end to just under 5% of the employees of Yolo County making 100K or more. We do not have the exact numbers in Woodland, but we imagine the total number of employees is comparable to Davis. That would put them in the range of Yolo County for percentages this year even lower than that last year.

Why is the salary structure in Davis so different from that of Woodland and Yolo County? One really has to look no further than the influence of the public employees unions in local politics and really we are talking about one public employees union--the firefighters. As we noted, 38 of the top 61 salaries in Davis are firefighters.

The Woodland Journal notes:

"Common to both cities is the relative earnings by those who accrue overtime. An examination of the public records provided by the city reveal that 30 Woodland employees made over $10,000 in overtime pay during 07-08. Of those 30, only one employee did not work in the police or fire departments.

...

86 employees made over $5,000 in overtime. Three of those did not work in the police or fire departments."

This shows that the same phenomena is at work in Woodland, but not nearly as severe as it is in the city of Davis. The County of course does not have a Fire Department. It has a large contingent of workers who provide crucial county services to residents, but most of them are not making the huge salaries with the huge overtimes that the city public safety workers earn.

Tomorrow we will attempt to complete the circle by presenting data on campaign contributions by public safety employees in the city of Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Special to Vanguard: Supervisor Rexroad Responds to Comments on Re-Entry Facility

On Friday, the Vanguard covered a proposed Re-entry facility that was approved by the County Board of Supervisors and funded by state money from Assembly Bill 900. Part of the discussion that emerged on Friday had to do with the location. Some of the comments suggested that Woodland would be a good location for the facility and suggested that if people such as Supervisor Matt Rexroad support such a facility, they ought to put it in Woodland. Supervisor Rexroad actually went to the Woodland City Council to ask them to put the facility in Woodland, but there was no interest in doing so. Then again, Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada also support the bill, but to the best of anyone's understand have not requested that the city of Davis house the facility.

Here is Supervisor Rexroad's response where he calls out Davis residents for supporting social programs but not being willing to house them in Davis.

I just took some time to read over these comments [on the re-entry facility] and am struck by one thing.

Most of you folks that read this are from Davis. Some of you are questioning why this project should not be located in Woodland. That is a fair question.

Another fair question is when the people of Davis are going to step up to the plate to provide land use that facilitates social services?

Woodland actually has a mission that provides food and housing for hundreds. Does Davis have a similar permanent facility? No. It moves around from place to place so as not to upset any one neighborhood.

Woodland is the location of a large facility for the Yolo County Housing Authority. Davis has a few locations that are a fraction of the size of the one in Woodland or West Sacramento.

The Housing Authority just purchased a home in Woodland and will likely purchase one in West Sacramento next. This was Prop 63 money for the mentally ill. Davis?

I don't want to hear about a bunsh of new senior housing either. Woodland has plenty of that and places it almost without objection from the community.

I hear many of you claiming that you desire social services to be provided -- just not in Davis. That part is left out. Somewhere else in Yolo County would be fine.

The largest piece of industrial zoned property in the unincorporated part of Yolo County is Covell Village. How about that location?

The re-entry facility is something that we are going to work through over the coming weeks and even years.

My question for you is -- what land is Davis going to set aside for some of these things?

When some of you question my desire to do these things I simply point to the leadership Woodland took to place the Wayfarer Center over the objections of a few neighbors. My vote was the deciding one and my involvement was great. Woodland did that. Davis?

It seems funny to me that for all the social programs that the people that read this blog are likely to advocate for -- the use of land in your precious city never seems to be part of the message.

Matt Rexroad

Re-entry facility: What is it and Why the Controversy

Those who read the Davis Enterprise might have noticed a joint letter to the editor by Davis' County Supervisors Helen Thomson (District 2-Davis) and Mariko Yamada (District 4-Davis). They were writing in support of the re-entry facility.

The re-entry facility is something that has been in the works for a few months now, but I have not until written about it. I figured after reading the letter that I should do so. But I first, I had questions so I went to fellow County Supervisor Matt Rexroad. Some people wonder why I have an affinity for Mr. Rexroad, but I will tell you why--I spent one hour yesterday on the phone with him, grilling him over the issue. I disagree with Mr. Rexroad far more often than I agree with him. But it was he and not Thomson or Yamada that convinced me that the re-entry facility is the right thing to do.

It is actually a very interesting issue because it cuts across a number of other issues including law enforcement, rehabilitation, and yes even land use. The latter is probably the most controversial part.

I first heard about this issue in early March. At that time, I was told that Yolo County had absolutely zero chance of getting a re-entry facility. However, the Board of Supervisors were also told by checking the box, they were eligible for $30 million to help fund an expansion of the county jail. The expansion of the county jail was going to happen anyway at the cost of $42 million, by getting state funding, Yolo County has received nearly 60 percent of that funding.

As Thomson and Yamada wrote:

"The county jail has been at capacity for seven years with 3,200 inmates annually released early due to lack of space."

So there is a clear need for the upgrade, but with the state and county hurting for money, getting state funding makes this project possible.

Again, at the time, there was zero chance that Yolo County would get a re-entry facility, so it was basically free money.

However things changed rather quickly and in May not only did Yolo County receive the $30 million, but they received notice that the state would be building a re-entry facility--built and operated by the state and funded by the state. Again--no cost to Yolo County.

What is a re-entry facility?

As it was described to me, instead of inmates being released back into the population immediately, the re-entry facility spends a year preparing them in their home county for re-entry into the public. They are given training and rehabilitation programs that enable them to transition back into their community.

As Thomson and Yamada write:

"Intensive treatment and rehabilitation programs in re-entry facilities are designed to allow a transition period to connect inmates to community services and support systems, provide evidence-based treatment, treatment of substance abuse and mental illness, and to develop a plan for a crime-free life upon release."

This is not a half-way house.

The inmates are not released at night to go back into the community. They are housed on the location for the entire period. However, unlike the prisons, they are back close to their family. So the family can visit them more frequently and start getting back into their lives. All of this is aimed at trying to help them reestablish their social networks and prevent recidivism.

Remember these are people who were going to be released back into the population anyway. Would you prefer them go through programs such as these that might give them a chance at a normal life or would you prefer them to go back to the population.

As Thomson and Yamada write:

"Currently, inmates in state prison are required by law to be released back into the community in which they lived prior to their incarceration. They are given $200 cash, a bus ticket and a 'good luck,' with little prospect of success. Today they are being released without treatment or survival skills, and 70 percent of them ultimately return to state prison. Yolo County parolees return to Yolo County.

Research shows that offenders are more likely to be successful on parole, and less likely to return to prison, when they receive intensive programming focused on their needs. Re-entry facilities are a new paradigm in California corrections, with a strong program focus on rehabilitation."

From my standpoint these are solid goals. The people who will be housed at this facility will be either from Yolo County or Solano County. It seems likely there will be some kind of partnership between the two counties.

So why the controversy?

It basically comes down to fears by communities that building such a facility would reduce property values and then land use issues.

The facility will be consistent with commercial zoned property. Now Rexroad believes that it would be best to be placed in an existing city, that means Davis, West Sacramento, or Woodland. However, Woodland has already said basically "hell no." You can imagine the response in Davis. One suggestion was the Covell Village site--I can only imagine the response to that one. And they do not think West Sacramento is the best location. Regardless of what the Board of Supervisors think, under AB 900, which is the authorizing and funding law, cities have veto power. So do not worry, Davis will not have a re-entry facility. Even the council majority is not foolish enough to try to push that one through.

Right now then, the county is looking perhaps at Dunnigan and Zamora which is unincorporated and thus under county control. The residents there are up in arms.

In July, there was a meeting in Zamora on the Re-entry facility. The Zamora Community Hall was packed with over 200 people. Complaints range from water and transportation issues--valid issues that the county will have to address. On the other hand, there were accusations of secret meetings and Brown Act violations that are not accurate.

As Rexroad pointed out at the time, the same people making accusations that this is a done deal, completed in secret, are outraged because the Board of Supervisors did not have answers to all their questions about details that will have to be addressed and worked out later.

What is ironic is that they have no problem with proposals to turn the area into a 25,000 person city, but when the re-entry facility with 300 good and well-paying jobs is proposed, people fear their property values when there is little evidence that it will have any impact on them. In fact, it might help their property values because it brings jobs to the area. These are good paying correctional jobs.

The advantage of Zamora and Dunnigan is that it is accessible to both Yolo County and Solano County. It is right on the junction of I-505 and I-5. That makes it an easy drive from Vacaville and Fairfield and not bad for Woodland, West Sacramento or Davis.

Despite protests to the contrary, the County has not made the final decision on where to locate the facility just yet. If the meetings in Zamora were any indication, it is going to be difficult to please any community. That issue aside this seems like a solid and well-intentioned initiative.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Needle-Exchange Program--Needed to Be Mended But Not Ended

This past week, the County Board of Supervisors on a somewhat rare party-line vote, decided to continue the needle exchange program that will cost the Yolo County taxpayers $100,000 per year.

This despite tangible evidence of problems with the program.

One of the biggest problems with the program at this point has to do with the number of unaccounted for needles.

There were 61,752 needles that were passed out but only 50,499 needles that were turned back in. That leaves 11,253 unaccounted for needles. Needles that are reportedly showing up in parks and other areas where children frequent.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad, a strong opponent of the program found it unacceptable that that many needles are unaccounted for.

"That seems like a ridiculously high number."

Supervisor Rexroad also said as he has previously that he thinks the money could better be spent elsewhere.

Back on July 2, 2008 the Vanguard interviewed Matt Rexroad but also program administrator Rachel Anderson from SANE (Safer Alternatives Through Networking and Education).

• Click here to listen to that show

Rachel Anderson did a good job of laying out why it needle exchange is a very important and helpful program. One thing that it does is help people who would otherwise have little contact with social services get into contact with people who can help them in a setting where they can get help rather than face punishment for their drug problem. Studies have shown that not only do needle exchange programs help to reduce the spread of blood-borne diseases like HIV and hepatitis, but it also helps to reduce the drug use.

There is always a fear that somehow a needle exchange program might encourage people to use drugs, but that seems rather farfetched. People are not likely to suddenly start using IV drugs because clean needles are available.

Given the cost of health care and the cost to the county services to care for people with these kinds of chronic diseases, if the $100,000 program even reduces the number of infections by one, it almost pays for itself.

So while I am sympathetic to Matt Rexroad's argument that he poses on the radio show that it could be better used for children's health care, I think this is still a worthwhile program to explore.

My concern however is that it is obviously listening to the testimony and reading articles that the program has administration problems. The number of unaccounted for needles is in my opinion completely unacceptable.

So what does the 3-2 majority do to tighten up the administration of this program? Not a darn thing! It does nothing.

I am a liberal who supports these kinds of programs but they darn well better work. And if they are not working right, make them work. To often the problem with government is that those who support these programs are afraid to admit when there are problems and those who understand that there are problems with the program just want to kill the program. There is thus no one invested in making the program work.

Part of the problem that some have told with this program is that everyone knew it would be a hot buttoned issue and so there was a protection mechanism from the administration of the program who tried to keep any problems at the lowest possible level in order to prevent what has now happened. The problem is that that approach clearly did not fix the problem and the program ended up in the spotlight.

Instead of trying to fix the program, everyone either tried to cover up the problems or use the problems to destroy the program.

That still does not explain or justify why the Board of Supervisors now apparently fully briefed on some of the problems with the program, made no effort whatsoever to fix the problem.

Again, I fully support the program in concept, but I remain baffled that those in charge have not made efforts to make it work better.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Needle Exchange Program Makes Mess of Parks

Something a little different for everyone on a Sunday morning. Earlier this week there was a story in the Woodland Daily Democrat that a flood of hypodermic needles was showing up in Woodland City Parks.

A year ago, the County Board of Supervisors approved a needle-exchange program in an effort to cut down on diseases spread through the use of intravenous drug users.

However, now the Woodland City council is shocked and frustrated to find out that a county health contractor has been distributing these needles in one of the parks, without consulting the city.

This prompted strongly worded complaints from city officials to the county.

The Board of Supervisors voted by a 4-1 margin to support this program a year ago. The one dissenting voice was Matt Rexroad.

Mr. Rexroad is quoted in the Daily Democrat article:

One county official who does not support the program, however, is Matt Rexroad, the only supervisor to vote against the program when it came up before the board last August.

"I wish I could kill this program so badly, but I can't," Rexroad said.

Rexroad said beyond the health risk of having used needles in public places lies the greater question of the program's effectiveness.

"I keep hearing, if we do this it prevents disease and it will save us money," Rexroad said. "I don't know if I believe that in this case."

The program cost the county around $100,000 to implement - money, Rexroad said, that would be more effectively spent providing the county's impoverished children with health insurance.

"We're talking about $100,000 for a program, when the county is in an economic free-fall right now," Rexroad said. "In terms of bang for your buck, I would rather put $100,000 in the hands of children than the hands of IV drug users."

I find myself in an interesting position on this issue. I support the program in concept. I think these diseases are a severe public health threat in some areas and such exchange programs have been shown to be effective.

However, at the same time, I am appalled at the response of Cheryl Boney, who is the deputy director of public health programs for Yolo County.

When she was made aware of the problem, she pulled the plug on the park exchange:

Boney noted that when the city notified her of the problem, she immediately pulled the plug on the park exchange.

"We were made aware of the concern of doing it in the park," Boney said. "Once we were aware of it, we took care of it.

This is where I start having a problem, who told her to do a needle exchange in a Woodland City Park without informing the Woodland City Council? Could you imagine what would happen in Davis if they did that here without consulting the Davis City Council?

She continues:

The new program is a work-in-progress, Boney said, and Freeman Park was a learning example for the county.

"It's a new program and we're working out the details," Boney said.

Working out a few details? Details like informing the city and the police as to what you are doing? Like handing out needles in a park to begin with, which concentrates drug usage in an area where children and families are likely to frequent?

The article continues:

"[Woodland City Manager Mark] Deven reported in a City Council weekly newsletter Friday that the county agreed to cease distribution in the park and considered labeling their needles to better track where they end up."

That is a good start. Here is the thing, this may be a new program to Yolo County, but this is not a new concept. So when the Ms. Boney is saying we're still working out the details it does not really make sense. Details can be gleaned from other programs. Very basic things should apply, namely interjurisdictional cooperation.

It is commonsense that if you are going to hand out needles in a City's park you inform the city and their police department about it. It also seems commonsense that maybe a city park is not the place to hand out needles.

Ms. Boney continues:

"We're kind of going through that initial education period... We hope there will be support for the program."

It is hard to support such a program when you do not have confidence in those who are administrating it. It could be a good program, but there were such basic failings at the onset, that even those of us who are strongly in support of such efforts have no choice but to question it.

Where is the accountability here? I respect that Matt Rexroad opposes this, but what I really want to see is someone step up and make it work. Where do the rest of the county board of supervisors stand on this?

Ms. Boney believes that if the program prevents one case of HIV in the county, it will be a net savings to the county. I hope that is correct and it is one of the reasons I continue to support the program. However, I continue to have to question the competence of those administering this and the oversight. Who oversees administration of these type of programs? What is the board of supervisors going to do about it? We have so far only heard from Supervisor Rexroad--where do the four Supervisors who supported the program stand on this issue now that it has shown to be a problem in its current form?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

8th AD Race Really Heats Up

Yamada Campaign and EdVoice Go to War Over Pay Increase

Yesterday afternoon I received dueling press releases one from Brian Micek of the Yamada Campaign and the other from Paul Mitchell of EdVoice. The issue was whether or not Mariko Yamada accepted a pay raise during her time as a County Supervisor or whether she lied about it.

At issue was a series of TV ads and fliers from EdVoice attacking Yamada for taking payraises at the same time the county was cutting positions in the face of a county budget crisis.

Here's the press release from EdVoice:

Yamada Caught In Lie About Repeated Pay Increases

Davis, CA – Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada has been caught in a lie about her repeated support for pay increases as a member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors.

A commercial running district wide, viewable at [you tube] highlights the raises that Yamada received while on the County Board of Supervisors and the additional raise she voted for which would have increased her pay by 41%.

These pay increases happened while Yolo was cutting county jobs and unemployment in the region was increasing by as much as 20%. Even faced with a county budget crisis, Yamada was persistent in her support for raises, stating “I need to make no apologies.” (12/13/06 Davis Enterprise)

In today’s media release, and a posting on her website, Yamada repeatedly claims that she did not accept a pay increase in 2004. While she did make a publicity stunt about “declining the pay raise” in an election year, public records show that she accepted the pay increase shortly thereafter.

Yamada’s claim to not accept a future pay raise also rings hollow considering that she received a double pay raise in 2007, there is no expected pay raise coming in June and that she is termed out of the Board of Supervisors. A classic politician, Yamada is declining a pay raise that may or may not come, for a job she will not have.

The attached documents and press coverage of the pay increases provides more than ample evidence of the claims in our television commercial. In fact, given the opportunity we would highlight even more absurdities, like the fact that she has received four pay raises, two in one year, that they were paid retroactively. Furthermore, she has told voters that she declined pay increases, only to go back and accept the raises after the public spotlight had faded.

Here's the Yamada Campaign's response:

Yamada Campaign Issues Notice Over Slanderous Attack Ads
Cabaldon Supporter’s Ads Knowingly Misstate Fact and Distort Yamada’s Record

Vacaville – Friends of Yamada 2008 retained attorney Chad Carlock today to issue a notice of slanderous political advertising to Comcast Spotlight over the airing of intentionally malicious political attack ads produced and purchased by the independent expenditure committee “Democrats Against Government Waste Independent Expenditure Committee major funding provided by EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee” (attached).

Christopher Cabaldon, Yamada opponent in the 8th Assembly District’s Democratic Primary, stepped down as President and CEO of EdVoice just a few months ago in order to orchestrate his run for Assembly. EdVoice has since created multiple independent expenditure committees attacking Yamada and supporting Cabaldon.

Carlock requested that Comcast Spotlight, the advertising arm of Comcast service in both Solano and Yolo counties, pull the ads immediately due to the slanderous content.

The Yamada Campaign is releasing public documents that prove EdVoice’s assertion that Mariko Yamada voted herself two pay raises while on the Board of Supervisors to be false. The pay of Yolo Supervisors is set at a rate of one-third of a Superior Court Judge’s salary by county ordinance. It is the State of California that sets judicial pay each fiscal year. In tough economic times, including 2004 and again this year, Yamada has refused automatic pay raises that come about when the state raises judicial pay as indicated by letters to the Yolo County Administrative Officer and Yolo County Auditor- Controller (attached).

While the Yolo Board of Supervisors did discuss raising the Supervisorial pay formula to 41 percent of a judge’s salary, that discussion was tabled on December 12, 2006 as reflected in the minutes from that day’s Board meeting (attached). The formula has never since been revisited by the Board of Supervisors.

The advertising is part of a $91,000 expenditure by EdVoice in the last week of the campaign, and has been accompanied by a series of similarly misleading “push polls” received by voters on Thursday March 22nd, and Friday March 23rd. Two attack pieces of direct mail have also contained the same false statements about the pay raise.

In Mr. Micek's press release, he sends scanned documents showing Yamada turning down pay increases in both 2004 and 2008.

A few comments. First, I am not sure I could care less any less about this issue than I do. I suppose there is an amusement factor.

Second, Brian Micek is crying foul on this one? After the misleading fliers from his supporters against Cabaldon including the distorted WRONG and the meaningless booted car? Cabaldon and even EdVoice had run a positive campaign until now, but they were not going to stay on the sidelines and take punches forever.

Third, I do not understand the lawyer bit except as a publicity stunt. I mean, if suing for libel was a successful tactic against campaign claims, we would have lawsuits all over the place come election time. This is not the most egregious claim that's even been perpetrated. I do not see the legal avenue the appropriate venue even if Mariko Yamada's record is distorted.

Fourth, on the facts, Yolo County Supervisors have their pay scale tied to that of Yolo County Judges. If the Judges get a pay increase, so do the supervisors. So the idea that Mariko Yamada has control over her pay increases under this system is inaccurate.

However, as long time blog readers will remember in December of 2006, there was a move by the Board of Supervisors to increase their salary beyond that.

In fact, as many will remember, I was a strong proponent of it:

"The current pay for Yolo County supervisors is $49,730. Given that this is a full-time job that pay does not represent a very large salary. The average salary in California for a County Supervisor is $64,515. That's not exactly a rich person's salary either. But that certainly is more livable than the current pay for County Supervisors.

Sacramento County supervisors earn $82,000 while Solano County supervisors make just under $80,000. To live in Yolo County, you'd have to have a second salary to augment the below median salary you are getting for being a County Supervisor.

Given that this is a beyond full-time job it seems rather obvious that unless you are independently wealthy or have a spouse pulling down a strong second income, a lot of people are not going to be able to afford to be a county supervisor. It is the same problem that we mentioned with the compensation for being a Davis City Council member--$500 per month. While it seems like a good idea to have small pay for public servants, the reality is that that severely restricts who can afford to serve."

I remain a strong proponent of the idea that elected Yolo County Supervisors should have comparable pay to adjacent counties and to comparably qualified private sector jobs. Otherwise we are severely restricting who can and who cannot afford to become a County Supervisor.

Mariko Yamada supported that change, but under fire in early January of 2007, the Board voted to table the motion and did not revisit it.

Personally, I think Ed Voice could have picked a better target if they wanted to go after Supervisor Yamada. A targeted piece to Davis on the County General Plan would do just fine.

I have frankly seen very little that these Independent Expenditure Committees have added to this campaign.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting