Board hears sharply divided views on proposed Solano County sheriff deployment to Vallejo; no contract vote

The Solano County Board of Supervisors on June 24 considered a proposed one‑year contract under which the Solano County Sheriff’s Office would provide temporary law‑enforcement assistance to the City of Vallejo, but the board did not vote to approve the agreement.

Sheriff Thomas Ferrara told supervisors that the county had secured a written confirmation from the California Department of Justice that the sheriff’s office would not be a party to Vallejo’s stipulated agreement, clearing one legal obstacle. But Ferrara said other steps remain: formal meet‑and‑confer negotiations with the Deputy Sheriffs Association (DSA) and relevant labor groups, procurement and outfitting of vehicles, and resolution of human‑resources constraints, including recent CalPERS‑related limits on retired‑annuitant deputies. Ferrara recommended the board not approve the contract at the meeting and suggested staff attempt to complete labor negotiations before the board’s July 22 meeting.

Vallejo officials and many community speakers urged immediate approval. City Council member and former city official Dr. Tanya Letizue, City Manager Andrew Murray and Mayor Andre Sors each asked the board to approve the contract so the city could reduce response times and give the Vallejo Police Department breathing room while it recruits and implements reforms. Several speakers described recent shootings and homicides and said residents lack confidence that 911 calls were being answered quickly.

The Deputy Sheriffs Association submitted a written letter opposing approval of the agreement as drafted and told the board it was open to meet‑and‑confer discussions. Sheriff Ferrara and union leaders told the board they had exchanged substantive information but that final bargaining could not realistically be completed in the days before July 1. Ferrara also warned that county procurement rules and the need to purchase and outfit vehicles under the county’s purchasing process could delay deployment even if labor agreements were reached.

Board members asked questions about timelines, retired‑annuitant limits and whether the sheriff’s office would proceed with bargaining and vehicle purchases if given direction. Several supervisors said they wanted staff to continue meet‑and‑confer talks; other supervisors and many public speakers urged the board to approve the contract immediately.

No formal vote to approve the Vallejo contract occurred at the June 24 meeting. Sheriff Ferrara asked for direction; the record shows the board did not adopt the proposed contract that day and discussion continued about whether staff should intensify meet‑and‑confer negotiations ahead of the July 22 meeting. The DSA and SEIU remain parties to the labor discussions that will affect any deployment plan.

What the board may consider next: staff signaled it could pursue bargaining with DSA and other unions and return to the board at a future meeting (the sheriff suggested the July 22 meeting). The sheriff requested help from the board and other county departments (general services, human resources) to expedite vehicle procurement and other logistics if the board wants a rapid start date.

Provenance: The sheriff summarized legal and logistical constraints and urged against immediate approval; Vallejo elected officials and many residents urged approval; the DSA objected in writing and in public comment. The transcript shows extended public comment in support of the Vallejo request and a recorded DSA opposition letter.

Ending: The board left the decision unresolved June 24. Staff bargaining and logistics work remains; the board may revisit the proposal at its July 22 meeting.