Orange County Grand Jury
2014-2015
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Deputy Sheriffs and police officers receive insufficient training on how to evaluate and handle the mentally ill in the field.
F2:
Deputy Sheriffs and police officers receive insufficient training regarding Laura’s Law.
F3:
Orange County’s Centralized Assessment Team is inadequate in that it takes too long for them to respond to the scene to assist police officers in their evaluations of the mentally ill.
F4:
Orange County’s mental illness triage system is inadequate in that there are no field screening protocols that would allow medical clearance in the field by law enforcement personnel or paramedics.
F5:
Orange County’s mental illness triage system is inadequate in that the police agencies either do not have a triage desk to advise and assist officers in the field or do not have psychiatric crisis mobile response teams at their disposal.
F6:
Orange County’s Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team clinicians are insufficient in number to meet the needs of police agencies in Orange County.
F7:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Services facility is inadequate in that its capacity is insufficient to permit police officers to take all the mentally ill to it and drop them off at the facility, instead of transporting the patient to a hospital emergency room.
F8:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Service facility is inadequate in that the County does not permit medical triage or medical clearance in the field, and therefore directs police officers to obtain medical screening for even minor health conditions that could easily be treated at the facility.
F9:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Service facility is inadequate in that it directs police officers to take the mentally ill who may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a hospital emergency room rather than to a psychiatric emergency facility.
F10:
Orange County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is only one Evaluation and Treatment Service facility for the entire County.
F11:
The County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that it does not provide strategically located, stand-alone, drop-off psychiatric emergency stabilization facilities with medical treatment capability at convenient locations throughout the County.
F12:
The County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is no real-time, empty-bed registry to enable officers and clinicians in the field to determine bed- availability at the Evaluation and Treatment Service facility and at designated hospitals.
F13:
The County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is no 5150, case management, and conservatorship database in place to assist officers and clinicians in the field to triage the mentally ill who do not qualify for a 5150 hold.
F14:
The Health Care Agency has not established benchmarks and a complete performance-measurement system with which to track the success and cost effectiveness of Laura’s law, as directed by the Board of Supervisors in May 2014. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 14 recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All law enforcement officers should receive at least 40 hours of comprehensive Crisis Intervention Training on how to handle and evaluate the mentally ill in the field with periodic refresher training. (F.1.)
R2:
All law enforcement officers should receive mandatory and specific training regarding Laura’s Law. (F.2.)
R3:
Orange County’s Centralized Assessment Team’s response time should be improved significantly with a goal of eventually reducing its maximum response time to less than 20 minutes. (F.3.)
R4:
The Orange County Health Care Agency should adopt field screening protocols to allow (a) medical clearance in the field by law enforcement personnel and/or paramedics; and (b) transport by paramedics rather than police officers. (F.4.)
R5:
All law enforcement agencies should either have a psychiatric triage desk to advise and assist officers in the field or a psychiatric crisis mobile response team. (F.5.)
R6:
The Orange County Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team staff should be increased significantly so that an embedded clinician can be placed with each law enforcement agency and can provide service 24/7 if requested. (F.6.)
R7:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities should be expanded to easily accommodate all 5150 walk-ins and all 5150s dropped off by police, paramedic, or ambulance. (F.7.)
R8:
Orange County Evaluation and Treatment Services should acquire the capability of conducting limited medical screening for minor health problems and cease from directing police officers to obtain medical screening for 5150s with minor health conditions that could easily be treated at Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities. (F.8.)
R9:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities should acquire the capability of handling 5150s who may have ingested alcohol or drugs, but who are not under the influence to such an extent that it inhibits stabilization or requires medical clearance at a hospital. (F.9.)
R10:
The Orange County Health Care Agency’s crisis intervention system should be expanded so as to provide a minimum of four Psychiatric Emergency Service facilities—one in South County, one in Central County, one in West County, and one in North County. (F.10.)
R11:
The County’s Health Care Agency should provide strategically located, stand- alone, drop-off psychiatric emergency stabilization facilities with medical treatment capability at convenient locations throughout the County. (F.11.)
R12:
The County’s Health Care Agency should provide a real-time, empty-bed registry to enable officers and clinicians in the field to determine immediately and accurately the current bed availability at Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities and at designated hospitals. (F.12.)
R13:
The County’s Health Care Agency should create and maintain a 5150, case management, and conservatorship database in place to assist officers and clinicians in the field to triage the mentally ill in the field who do not qualify for a 5150 hold, but who may qualify for Laura’s Law. (F.13.)
R14:
The Health Care Agency should establish benchmarks and a complete performance-measurement system with which to track the success and cost effectiveness of Laura’s law, as directed by the Board of Supervisors in May 2014. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses are required for Findings F.3 through F.14. and for Recommendations R.3 through R.14. from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses are required for Findings F.1 and F.2. and for Recommendations R.1. and R.2.from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are requested from: Responses are requested for Findings F.3 through F.14. and for Recommendations R.3. through R.14.from the OC Health Care Agency. Responses are requested for Findings F.1 and F.2. and for Recommendations
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Orange County has nine “inactive” Joint Powers Authorities that have no viable activity, revenue, expenditure, assets, or liabilities. The Grand Jury determined that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds.
F2:
Horizontal Joint Powers Authorities among peer organizations appear to meet the intent of State laws to delegate a common service for a city or other legal entity for the purpose of reducing cost on behalf of the taxpayers.
F3:
Orange County has 18 vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its redevelopment agency that no longer exists. The Grand Jury determined that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds.
F4:
Vertical Joint Powers Authorities with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have the potential to use this organizational structure as a shell company to avoid other legal constraints on the controlling entity and to obfuscate taxpayer visibility.
F5:
Vertical Joint Powers Authorities in which the controlling entity transfers assets from itself to a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of obtaining additional funding, or signs a long-term lease to a Joint Powers Authority to obtain assets, are avoiding transparency and are not acting in the best financial interest of the taxpayers.
F6:
32 of the Joint Powers Authorities identified in Orange County are not complying with the California State reporting requirements in code Section 6500 and SB 282 according to the latest information available from the year 2013.
F7:
The Orange County Auditor-Controller knows of the Joint Powers Authorities in which the County is a member, but does not have a list of all of the Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County and cannot confirm compliance of their submittal for public access. The Orange County Auditor-Controller does not provide easy- to-use online access to the data submitted to it by the Joint Powers Authorities that are compliant with the requirement to submit.
F8:
The Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Agency have a joint debt level of over $4.5 billion. The Grand Jury has determined that this debt level is excessive based on their revenues, and it threatens to render them insolvent.
F9:
The Orange County Fire Authority has an off-the-books unfunded debt liability of $577 million which the Grand Jury has determined to be of concern since it is a real liability on the County taxpayers.
F10:
The Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority has a debt exposure of $1.2 billion which the Grand Jury has determined to be excessive in light of the fact that it was incurred without voter approval. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All Orange County Joint Powers Authorities that are “inactive” should submit the official paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their existence or provide at the next public meeting the justification for continuing the Joint Powers Authority. (F.1.)
R2:
All Vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its redevelopment agency should submit the necessary paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their existence. (F.3.)
R3:
All Joint Powers Authorities should take the following actions to insure transparency to the taxpayers: (1) have an annual outside audit, (2) post the complete audit on their city website as a separate Joint Powers Authority entity, (3) send the audit to the County Controller and the State Auditor, and (4) ensure the required reports are filed annually to the County and the State. (F.4., F.5.)
R4:
The 32 Joint Powers Authorities that are not complying with the California State Law requiring annual reporting should become compliant by submitting their 2014 report by December 31, 2015, and submitting the required reports annually thereafter. (F.6.)
R5:
The Orange County Auditor-Controller should maintain a current list of all of the Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County, confirm that reports have been submitted annually, and post the completed reports with all the details on an easy-to-use Internet public access website. (F.7.)
R6:
The Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Agency should address their solvency by an aggressive plan to reduce their public debt. (F.8.)
R7:
The Orange County Fire Authority should address their lack of transparency by providing public disclosure of their off-the-books unfunded public liability in their financial statements and address their solvency by an aggressive plan to reduce their unfunded liabilities. (F.9.)
R8:
The City of Anaheim City Council should redress the debt incurred by the Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority under its direction by an aggressive plan to reduce their public debt. (F.10.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 and Penal Code 933(c) are required from the respondents listed in the following two Response Matrices (one for cities and County and one for Joint Powers Authorities): Matrix 1 REQUIRED RESPONDENTS (Cities & County) Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 City of Anaheim 1 X X X X Mayor & City Council City of Brea Mayor & 2 X X City Council City of Buena Park 3 X X X X Mayor & City Council City of Costa Mesa 4 X X Mayor & City Council City of Fullerton 5 X X X X Mayor & City Council City of Fountain 6 Valley Mayor & City X X Council City of Garden 7 Grove Mayor & City X X X X Council City of Huntington 8 Beach Mayor & City X X Council City of La Habra 9 X X Mayor & City Council City of Lake Forest 10 X X Mayor & City Council City of Mission Viejo 11 X X Mayor & City Council City of San 12 Clemente Mayor & X X City Council City of San Juan 13 Capistrano Mayor & X X City Council City of Santa Ana 14 X X Mayor & City Council City of Seal Beach 15 X X Mayor & City Council City of Stanton 16 X X X X Mayor & City Council City of Tustin Mayor 17 X X X X & City Council Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 City of Westminster 18 X X X X Mayor & City Council City of Yorba Linda 19 X X Mayor & City Council Orange County 20 X X Auditor-Controller Matrix 2 REQUIRED RESPONDENTS (Joint Powers Authorities) Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 Anaheim Community X X X Center Authority 2 Anaheim Housing and X X X Public Improve. Auth. Anaheim Public X X X X X X X Financing Authority 4 Big Independent Cities X X X Excess Pool 5 Bonita Canyon Public X X X Facilities Fin. Auth. Brea Community X X X Benefits Financing Auth. Brea Public Financing X X X X X Authority 8 Buena Park Public X X X X X X X Financing Authority 9 California Insurance Pool X X X Authority 10 Capistrano Unified Public X X X X X X X Financing Auth. Central Net Operations X X X X X Authority 12 City of Brea Midbury X X X X X X Assessment Auth. City of Fullerton Public X X X X X X X Financing Auth. City of San Clemente X X X X X X X Public Fin. Auth. Coastal Animal Services X X X X X Authority Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 16 Coastal District X X X Financing Authority 17 Co-Op- Org. Develop. X X X Employee Selec.Proced. Costa Mesa Public X X X X X Finance Authority 19 Countywide Public X X X X X X X X Finance Authority 20 Fountain Valley X X X X X X X Financing Authority 21 Fullerton Arboretum X X X Authority 22 Fullerton Library Building X X X X X X X Authority 23 Fullerton School District X X X X X Financing Auth. Garden Grove Public X X X X X X X X X Financing Authority 25 Huntington Beach Public X X X X X Financing Auth. Independent Cities Risk X X X X X Management Auth. Integrated Law and X X X X X Justice Agency for OC 28 Irvine Child Care Project X X X X X 29 Irvine Unified School X X X District Financing Auth. Joint Powers Employee X X X Benefit Authority 31 La Habra Civic X X X X X X X Improvement Authority 32 Metro Cities Fire X X X X X Authority 33 Mission Viejo Commu. X X X X X X X Devel. Fin. Auth. National Water Research X X X X X Institute 35 Newport-Mesa United X X X X X X X School Fin. Auth. North Net Joint Powers X X X X X Training Agree. Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 37 Northern OC Self- Funded Workers X X X Comp..Auth. Northern OC Lia. & X X X Property Self-Insu.Auth. Orange County Cities X X X Airport Authority 40 Orange County Civic X X X X X Center Authority 41 Orange County Council X X X X X of Governments 42 Orange County Fire X X X X X Authority 43 Orange County Fringe X X X Benefits Agreement 44 Orange County Public X X X Financing Authority 45 Orange County-City X X X Hazardous Matl. Auth. Orange Uni. School X X X X X Distr. Public Fin. Auth. Public Cable Television X X X Authority 48 Rancho Canada X X X X X Financing Authority 49 Rancho Santa Margarita X X X X X Public Fin. Auth 50 Saddleback Valley X X X Unified Sch. Fin. Auth. San Joaquin Trans. X X X X X Corridor Agency 52 San Juan Basin Authority X X X 53 Santa Ana Financing X X X X X X X Authority 54 Santa Ana River Flood X X X Protection Agency 55 Santa Margarita-Dana X X X Point Authority 56 Santiago Aqueduct X X X Commission 57 School Employers X X X Association of California 58 Seal Beach Public X X X X X X X Financing Authority 59 South Coast Water X X X District Financing Auth. South Orange County X X X Public Financing Auth. Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 61 South Orange County X X X Wastewater Auth. Southern Orange County X X X Prop/Lia. Self Insu. Stanton Public Financing X X X X X X X X X Authority 64 The Foothill Trans. X X X X X Corridor Agency 65 Trabuco Canyon Public X X X Financing Authority 66 Tustin Public Financing X X X X X X X X X Authority 67 Tustin Unified School X X X X X District Fin. Auth. West Cities Commun. X X X X X Cntr. Joint Powers Auth. Western Orange County X X X Self-Funded Comp 70 Westminster Public X X X X X X X X X Finance Authority 71 Yorba Linda Public X X X X X X X Finance Authority
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The condition and management of the Orange County Adult Jail facilities are acceptable and in overall compliance with state and local standards.
F2:
The James A. Musick Facility offers a commendable and highly beneficial program called Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR).
F3:
The OCSD is taking advantage of the recent decrease in jail population to perform needed maintenance and upgrades to a countywide aging facilities infrastructure.
F4:
Although the jails still have outdated and inadequate video equipment, a viable upgrade plan with committed funding and priorities has been approved for implementation over the next five years. Juvenile Facility Findings
F5:
The condition and management of the Orange County Juvenile Detention facilities are acceptable and in overall compliance with state and local standards
F6:
The need for a gymnasium at Juvenile Hall/Youth Leadership Academy will be met, now that a State grant via Senate Bill 81 has been received to fund this project.
F7:
Some deputy juvenile correctional officers do not wear uniforms, providing an overall appearance that is less than professional and making it difficult to differentiate deputy juvenile correctional officers from other staff.
F8:
The reduction in population at the various Juvenile facilities provides opportunities to conduct maintenance, repairs, and upgrades.
F9:
Two of the Juvenile facilities have inadequate video surveillance systems. The Joplin Youth Center and the Youth Guidance Center have no video surveillance systems. RECOMMENDATIONS: In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Annual Inquiry on Jail and Juvenile Detention Facilities,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three Adult Jail recommendations and four Juvenile detention facility recommendations: Adult Jail Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Consider expanding the Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR) program at James A. Musick facilty. (F.2.)
R2:
In the event of any future decrease in jail population, continue to utilize that time to conduct the needed maintenance work on the various facilities. (F.3.)
R3:
OCSD should closely monitor and expedite the five year plan for installing video surveillance system upgrades. (F.4.) Juvenile Facility Recommendations
R4:
The new facility at Juvenile Hall should serve multiple purposes, including a gymnasium, capability for vocational training, and a visitation center. (F.6.)
R5:
Deputy juvenile correctional officers working with juveniles should be required to dress uniformly in order to look more professional and to be more easily identifiable. (F.7.)
R6:
During periods of population reduction, the OCPD should conduct maintenance projects as done by the OCSD. (F.8.)
R7:
Upgrade the video surveillance system in all of the juvenile facilities by installing modern equipment and increase retention capacity to one year. (F.9.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner for Adult Jail Findings F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., and Adult Jail Recommendations R.1., R.2., and R.3., Responses are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors for Juvenile Facility Findings F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9 and Juvenile Facility Recommendations R.4., R.5., R.6., and R.7. Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the Orange County Probation Department for Juvenile Facility Findings F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9., and Juvenile Facility Recommendations R.4., R.5., R.6, and R.7.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The County’s Evaluation Treatment Services facility does not provide needed medical stabilization services such as those included in the Psychiatric Emergency Services model.
F2:
The current need and demand for involuntary psychiatric emergency services in South Orange County is not being met.
F3:
The County has an insufficient number of psychiatric beds to provide in-patient care to mentally ill clients who are not able to be referred to less restrictive treatment.
F4:
Although a plan is in place at CHOC for an 18-bed unit to open in 2017, there are currently no psychiatric beds in Orange County for children under the age of 12.
F5:
The Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee has no direct representation from local designated private hospitals.
F6:
Given the language in the California Code of Regulations and the Welfare and Institutions Code regarding funding for involuntary treatment, the issue of using Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary psychiatric clients who are gravely disabled or a danger to self or others, is unclear. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs”, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue with the planned expansion of the Evaluation Treatment Services facility in Santa Ana and convert it to a Psychiatric Evaluation Services model of care that includes basic medical services currently provided 5150 clients by private hospital emergency departments. (F.1.)
R2:
Add an additional Evaluation Treatment Services facility to be located in South Orange County and initiate substantive, concrete efforts to do so in Fiscal Year 2015-2016. (F.2.)
R3:
Continue efforts to locate and secure commitments for additional psychiatric beds in Orange County and nearby adjacent counties in order to increase the number of beds available for County use. (F.3.)
R4:
Follow-up on the planned children’s psychiatric unit at CHOC and continue to work with appropriate private hospitals in Orange County in an effort to provide additional psychiatric beds for children in Orange County. (F.4.)
R5:
Add Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee representation from designated private hospitals that have demonstrated effectiveness in evaluating and treating Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 clients in crisis situations. (F.5.)
R6:
Request an opinion from County Counsel regarding the purported restrictions on using Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary mental health programs. (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Responses to Findings F.1. through F.6. and Recommendations R.1. through
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
There are serious morale issues among Animal Shelter staff, many of which can be attributed to poor management practices and lack of effective leadership.
F2:
The trap, neuter, and return practice is reportedly delaying the spaying, neutering, and treatment of domestic dogs and cats awaiting adoption and is evidence that the domestic animals have been assigned a lower priority for surgery than the spaying, neutering, and micro-chipping of the feral cats.
F3:
Feral cats have been allowed to roam freely in and around the Animal Shelter and have been fed by Animal Shelter staff, possibly contributing to human and animal exposure to zoonotic diseases.
F4:
Animal Control Officers do not have effective equipment or appropriate procedural options to deal with unique, emergency circumstances that may require special procedures such as tranquilizing and euthanizing in the field.
F5:
OC Animal Care is currently operating with a shortage of personnel, including Animal Control Officers (ACOs), thereby making it much more difficult for them to respond to calls in a timely manner throughout such a large county, especially since there is only one shelter to serve all of Orange County.
F6:
There is little evidence that the Feral Free Program has been successful in reducing the feral cat population, which could be a contributing factor to the spread of zoonotic diseases.
F7:
Kennels are hosed down with dogs still present in the kennels, resulting in the dogs getting soaked and becoming more susceptible to disease.
F8:
Kennel attendants were observed leaving the large water hoses running when not being used for cleaning purposes, thereby wasting large quantities of water.
F9:
There is limited airflow and no air conditioning in the cat trailers. The conditions in these trailers increase the vulnerability to disease.
F10:
There is a rodent problem, creating additional risk of humans and animals contracting zoonotic diseases. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following ten recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Consider a change of leadership within the Orange County Community Resources Department and arrange for mandatory leadership training for all managers and supervisors that includes a curriculum of leadership skills, people skills, and diversity (F.1.).
R2:
Discontinue the practice of giving feral cats priority for surgery over the domestic dogs and cats awaiting adoption (F.2.).
R3:
Discontinue feeding feral cats and allowing feral cats to roam freely in and around the Animal Shelter (F.3.).
R4:
Develop proper protocols for Animal Control Officers to follow when confronted with unique circumstances in the field that require tranquilizing or euthanizing animals and take all measures necessary to ensure that the Animal Control Officers can be given the proper equipment and training in that regard (F.4.).
R5:
Establish a more aggressive approach in hiring qualified personnel on a timely basis, especially with the position of Animal Control Officer (F.5.).
R6:
Conduct an evaluation of the Feral Free Program to determine its effectiveness in the reduction of zoonotic diseases. (F.6.).
R7:
Utilize the “move-one-down” method for cleaning kennels to avoid soaking the animals. (F.7.).
R8:
Place nozzles on all water hoses and direct kennel attendants to turn off the water when not being used. (F.8.).
R9:
Improve the ventilation system in all cat trailers for the health and survival of the cats (F.9.).
R10:
Promptly control the rodent population in order to reduce the possibility of spreading diseases to human beings and animals (F.10.). REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors for Findings F.1. through F.10. and Recommendations R.1. through R.10. Responses are requested from the Director of OC Community Resources and from the OC Animal Shelter Director for Findings F.1. through F.10. and Recommendations R.1. through R.10.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
While the Board of Supervisors has officially recognized the need to have comprehensive management of County real estate, there does not appear to exist any sense of priority or urgency in the County relative to the development of a complete, up-to-date database.
F2:
Management of County real estate assets is decentralized, and individual departments track property under their purview.
F3:
The County does not have a single, comprehensive, accurate real estate database with information that can be used by the County departments.
F4:
Having a comprehensive County real estate database would be beneficial in managing County real estate assets and support prudent decision making. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Real Estate in Orange County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should create a regularly updated database that includes information that will improve the stewardship of County real estate. This database should include a comprehensive, uniform list of data elements so that all County departments can benefit from its use. The Grand Jury recommends the following data items be included at a minimum: 1. Building address 2. Assessor’s Parcel Number 3. Description of property 4. Date of acquisition 5. Building Number 6. Relationship to other properties, if appropriate 7. Property size: a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage c. Land square footage or acres 8. Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space) 9. Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage 10. Non-occupied space by square footage 11. Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) c. Leased to County by private owner d. Leased to OCFCD by private owner e. Leased to private party by the County of Orange f. Leased to private party by the OCFCD 12. Contract terms for County income-generating property 13. Maintenance information, including responsibility 14. Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates b. Monthly lease payments c. Cost per square foot d. Restrictions e. Options 15. Is the property vacant land or open space? 16. Is the property not available for use? If so, why? 17. Transaction Value 18. Depreciated Value 19. Information on upgrades, remodeling 20. Insurance coverage 21. Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil contamination 22. Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.)
R2:
The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County’s real estate to help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.)
R3:
The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Board of Supervisors (BOS): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. Responses Requested: County Executive Officer (CEO): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. Chief Real Estate Officer (CREO): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3.
R6:
Relationship to other properties, if appropriate
R7:
Property size: a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage c. Land square footage or acres
R8:
Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space)
R9:
Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage
R10:
Non-occupied space by square footage
R11:
Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) c. Leased to County by private owner d. Leased to OCFCD by private owner e. Leased to private party by the County of Orange f. Leased to private party by the OCFCD
R12:
Contract terms for County income-generating property
R13:
Maintenance information, including responsibility
R14:
Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates b. Monthly lease payments c. Cost per square foot d. Restrictions e. Options
R15:
Is the property vacant land or open space?
R16:
Is the property not available for use? If so, why?
R19:
Information on upgrades, remodeling
R21:
Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil contamination
R22:
Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.) R.2. The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County’s real estate to help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.) R.3. The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Orange County Sanitation District processes an average of 198 million gallons per day of wastewater and sends 121 million gallons per day of secondary treated wastewater to the ocean.
F2:
The Orange County Water District receives an average of 92 million gallons per day of treated wastewater from Orange County Sanitation District and recycles 70 million gallons per day of water treated to potable water standards that is then returned to the groundwater basin aquifers.
F3:
From the 92 million gallons per day from Orange County Sanitation District the Orange County Water District recycles 7 million gallons per day of water treated to plant irrigation standards.
F4:
The Irvine Ranch Water District processes 21.9 million gallons per day of wastewater and recycles 20.2 million gallons per day for purple pipe use.
F5:
The South OC Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) processes 22.7 million gallons per day of wastewater, treats 8 million gallons per day to purple pipe standards, and sends 14.7 million gallons per day to the ocean.
F6:
The El Toro Water District, the City of San Clemente, the Santa Margarita Water District and the Trabuco Canyon Water District process a combined average total of 19.3 million gallons per day and send to the ocean 9.5 million gallons per day. The remaining 9.8 million gallons per day are used for landscape irrigation.
F7:
In north and central Orange County, the cost to create potable recycled water is $1,468 per million gallons or $1,133 less than the current cost per million gallons of imported water.
F8:
The South OC Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) cost to recycle wastewater currently exceeds the cost of imported water, however the Grand Jury believes that the cost of imported water will increase. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Wastewater Processing in Orange County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Orange County Sanitation District should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater sent to Orange County Water District, including timelines and noting any barriers that may prevent increasing flow, and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F.1.) (F.2.) (F.7.)
R2:
Orange County Water District should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F.2.) (F.3.) (F.7.)
R3:
South Orange County Wastewater Authority should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F. 5.) (F. 8.)
R4:
The El Toro Water District, the City of San Clemente, the Santa Margarita Water District, and the Trabuco Canyon Water District should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: 1. Responses to Findings F.1., F.2. and Recommendation R.1. are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District. 2. Responses to Findings F.1., F.3., F.7., and Recommendation R.2. are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. 3. Responses to Findings F.5., F.8., and Recommendation R.3. are required from the Board of Directors of the South Orange County Wastewater Authority. 4. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the Board of Directors of the El Toro Water District. 5. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the Mayor of the City of San Clemente. 6. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the Board of Directors of the Santa Margarita Water District. 7. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the Board of Directors of the Trabuco Canyon Water District. 8. Response to Finding F.4. is required from the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District. COMMENDATIONS The 2014-2015 Grand Jury commends the OC Sanitation District and the OC Water District for the partnership they developed to recycle wastewater for the beneficial use of north and central OC residents. Last year’s average of 77 mgpd of recycled water reduces dependence on more expensive imported water at a time when the amounts of external water supplies are stressed by the State’s prolonged drought. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury commends the Irvine Ranch Water District for the years of recycling water for landscape irrigation leadership. Last year they recycled over 92% of the wastewater they received.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual is REPORT officer supervised 83 cases. Considering the caseload standards of the APPA, the consistent with professional standards for use of risk assessment tools and 8 current caseload size for 23 of the officers may be considered manageable. However, determination of classification levels for each AB109 offender. the 10 remaining officers are supervising more than the APPA recommended for optimal service and community safety. F.2. Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual is not REPORT consistent with professional standards for development of supervision plans for 9 Conclusion AB109 offenders, including frequency and types of contacts. REPORT Historically, probation departments have two major roles: social work or the
F3:
Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual does 10 rehabilitation role, and the law enforcement role, assuring compliance with the not identify the maximum caseload size for Probation Officers supervision of conditions of probation, and holding the probationer accountable—all aimed at the AB109 offenders. ultimate goal of community protection. While most agencies tend to gravitate toward REPORT one end of the social work-law enforcement continuum (rehabilitation v. enforcement), F.4. Orange County Probation Department's Policies and Procedures Manual does 11 ideally, departments will possess a proper balance, providing both treatment services, not provide adequate requirements for drug-testing classifications or frequency while assuring compliance with the conditions of probation. guidelines. REPORT 12 The Grand Jury observed that the OCPD provides considerable drug treatment F.5. Orange County Probation Department's Policies and Procedures Manual does opportunities to its AB109 offenders. Treatment services can always be improved, and not provide adequate requirements to address the issue of drug-testing we observed a shortage of residential resources. Specifically, the Health Care Agency avoidance or recommend responses for AB109 probationers who attempt to REPORT in October 2014, implemented a change in policy to reduce availability of residential avoid positive drug tests by failing to appear or by diluting their urine samples. 13 treatment beds, thereby creating a waiting list. The number of beds for AB109 offenders was limited to 25 per month. Several of the OCPD staff indicated that this restriction F.6. Orange County Probation Department does not incorporate current technology REPORT prevented the reform of AB109 offenders who would greatly benefit by residential drug (refractometer) in its drug testing system. Including such technology may assist 14 treatment. There were also indications of a need for more sober-living beds, and more in the ability to quickly detect diluted urine samples provided by probationers. housing for identified sex offenders. REPORT
F7:
The Orange County Probation Department and Health Care Agency have lost an 15 The Grand Jury observed that the intensity of supervision for AB109 offenders opportunity to reduce recidivism by not increasing residential drug treatment fell short of recognized standards. The number of supervision contacts was inconsistent options for AB109 probationers over outpatient treatment or incarceration. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? REPORT
F8:
There exists a need for increased housing availability for AB109 probationers 2 who are homeless. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 3 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the 4 Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation REPORT Strategies Effective?” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 5 six recommendations: REPORT
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Standards and guidelines for AB109 offender supervision, such as number of 6 contacts, home visits, drug tests, and collateral contacts based on the risk-needs assessment should be included in the Orange County Probation Department's REPORT Policy and Procedures (F.1., F.2.) 7
R2:
The Orange County Probation Department should take steps to lower caseload sizes consistent with American Probation and Parole Association standards of no REPORT more than a 40:1 ratio caseload per officer for high-risk offenders. (F.3.) 8
R3:
Standards and guidelines should be included in the Policies and Procedures REPORT Manual to address failures to report for drug testing. (F.5.) 9
R4:
The Orange County Probation Department should implement standards and guidelines in its Policy and Procedures Manual to address the frequently used REPORT technique of "flushing" to avoid drug detection and a refractometer or other 10 dilution-measuring device should be used to improve the integrity of the drug- testing program. (F.4., F.5., F.6.) REPORT 11 R.5. The Health Care Agency and the Probation Department should assess current funding priorities and options to seek additional residential drug treatment beds. (F.7.) REPORT 12
R6:
The Social Services Agency should address the needs of the AB109 offenders who are homeless or who experience instability in housing. (F.8.) REPORT 13 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public REPORT agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, 14 to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 15 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? 1 REPORT official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to 2 the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), REPORT provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: 3 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 4 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case 5 the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report 6 one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the 7 implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented REPORT in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 8 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 9 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 10 the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or REPORT is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 11 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the REPORT agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by 12 the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The REPORT response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the 13 findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal 14 Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: REPORT 15 Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6.,
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
AB109 has not resulted in an overall increase in crime in Orange County.
F2:
Although AB109 offenders must meet requirements for no convictions of serious, REPORT violent, or sexual crimes, this is only true for their latest offense. Many AB109 14 offenders do have prior convictions for serious, violent, or sexual crimes in their criminal background. REPORT 15
F3:
AB109 offenders continue to pose a danger to the community at the current recidivism rate of approximately 30%, especially as it relates to property crimes. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? REPORT
F4:
AB109 offenders are at a higher risk for reoffending with 88% of them having a 2 drug abuse history. Orange County does not have adequate residential drug treatment beds available for the number of AB109 offenders, thus limiting the use REPORT of this preventative alternative. 3
F5:
AB109 has placed Probation Officers at greater risk, however the Orange County Probation Department has placed a high priority on officer safety by providing REPORT adequate defensive tools to the officers including firearms, batons, pepper spray, 4 and protective vests. REPORT F.6. OCPD has provided many additional tools to probation officers under AB109 to 5 ensure officer safety, with the exception of a Taser. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT 6 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the REPORT Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of AB109 and Community Safety in Orange County, REPORT the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations: 8
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Health Care Service Agency and/or the Probation Department should review the cost of services provided to probationers, and/or on enforcement actions, to REPORT determine if any of these services or actions provide less consistent benefits 9 toward reduced recidivism than residential treatment beds and, using funds that would otherwise be spent on those services or actions, increase the number of REPORT residential drug treatment beds. (F.4.) 10
R2:
The OCPD should provide Tasers as an option for AB109 probation officers. REPORT (F.6.) 11 REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 12 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 13 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 14 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to REPORT the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 1 REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 6 in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 8 the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel REPORT matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 10 agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 11 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code 12 section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Required Reponses 13 Orange County Board of Supervisors: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. REPORT Requested Responses 14 Orange County Probation Department: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. REPORT Health Care Agency (HCA): F.4., R.1. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? REPORT REFERENCES 2 Bird, M. & Grattet, R. A (2014). Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC): Do local realignment policies affect recidivism in California? Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_814MBR.pdf 3 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2013). Realignment REPORT Report: An examination of offenders released from state prison in the first year of 4 public safety realignment. Retrieved from: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/ REPORT California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2011). 2011 adult 5 institutions outcome evaluation report. Retrieved from : http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/ REPORT 6 Crime in the United States January to June 2012-2013. (2013). In FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.gbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the u.s/2013/preliminary REPORT 7 California Penal Code Section 3450-3465. Retrieved from: http://.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=03001-04000&file=34... REPORT 8 FBI: Overall Crime Dropped Across Orange County in 2013. In Orange County Register: (November, 2014). Retrieved from: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/crime-641562-county-saw.html REPORT 9 Hernandez, S. (2014, November). FBI: Overall Crime Dropped Across Orange County in 2013. In Orange County Register: Retrieved from REPORT http://www.ocregister.com/articles/crime-641562-county-saw.htm 10 Orange County Community Corrections Partnership (OCCCP) meeting handouts, September 24, 2014, Santa Ana, CA: OC Probation Office, Grand Ave Office. REPORT 11 Orange County Grand Jury. (2012). AB109: Public safety realignment: a paradigm change .Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/artic_anti_abreport/ab109report.pdf 12 Orange County Public Safety Realignment and Postrelease : Community Supervision: 2013 Update Report (2013). Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Orange_County_2013-14.pdf 13 Orange County Probation Department. (2012). Authorization to Carry Firearms: REPORT Procedures Manual Item 1-4-107. Santa Ana, CA: Author 14 Orange County Probation Department. (2011). Field Officer Safety Information/Required for Field Activities: Procedures Manual Item 1-4-119. Santa Ana, CA: Author. REPORT 15 Orange County Probation Department (2014). April-June Realignment Prerelease Community Supervision (PRCS) Quarterly Report. Santa Ana, CA: Author. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 1 REPORT Rubin, J. and Poston, B. (2014, October 3). L.A.'s long-declining violent crime total on 2 pace to rise this year. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me- crime-stats-20141004-stor. REPORT Skeem, J.L. & Manchak, Sarah (2014). Back to the future: fFrom Klockars' model of 3 effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Juvenile Offender Rehabilitation,47(3), 220-247. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? REPORT
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The condition and management of the Orange County Adult Jail facilities are REPORT acceptable and in overall compliance with state and local standards. 6
F2:
The James A. Musick Facility offers a commendable and highly beneficial program called Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR). REPORT 7 F.3. The OCSD is taking advantage of the recent decrease in jail population to perform needed maintenance and upgrades to a countywide aging facilities infrastructure. REPORT 8
F4:
Although the jails still have outdated and inadequate video equipment, a viable upgrade plan with committed funding and priorities has been approved for REPORT implementation over the next five years. Juvenile Facility Findings REPORT
F5:
The condition and management of the Orange County Juvenile Detention 10 facilities are acceptable and in overall compliance with state and local standards
F6:
The need for a gymnasium at Juvenile Hall/Youth Leadership Academy will be REPORT met, now that a State grant via Senate Bill 81 has been received to fund this 11 project. REPORT F.7. Some deputy juvenile correctional officers do not wear uniforms, providing an 12 overall appearance that is less than professional and making it difficult to differentiate deputy juvenile correctional officers from other staff. REPORT
F8:
The reduction in population at the various Juvenile facilities provides 13 opportunities to conduct maintenance, repairs, and upgrades. REPORT F.9. Two of the Juvenile facilities have inadequate video surveillance systems. The 14 Joplin Youth Center and the Youth Guidance Center have no video surveillance systems. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: 15 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- REPORT 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 2 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Annual Inquiry on Jail and Juvenile Detention REPORT Facilities,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three Adult 3 Jail recommendations and four Juvenile detention facility recommendations: REPORT Adult Jail Recommendations 4
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Consider expanding the Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR) program at James A. Musick facilty. (F.2.) REPORT 5
R2:
In the event of any future decrease in jail population, continue to utilize that time to conduct the needed maintenance work on the various facilities. (F.3.) REPORT
R3:
OCSD should closely monitor and expedite the five year plan for installing video 6 surveillance system upgrades. (F.4.) REPORT Juvenile Facility Recommendations 7
R4:
The new facility at Juvenile Hall should serve multiple purposes, including a gymnasium, capability for vocational training, and a visitation center. (F.6.) REPORT 8
R5:
Deputy juvenile correctional officers working with juveniles should be required to dress uniformly in order to look more professional and to be more easily identifiable (F.7.) REPORT 9
R6:
During periods of population reduction, the OCPD should conduct maintenance projects as done by the OCSD. (F.8.) REPORT 10
R7:
Upgrade the video surveillance system in all of the juvenile facilities by installing modern equipment and increase retention capacity to one year (F.9.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 11 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 12 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 13 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 14 official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), 15 provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT 6 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being REPORT investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when 8 applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 11 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Responses Required: 13 Responses are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner for Adult Jail REPORT Findings F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., and Adult Jail Recommendations R.1., R.2., and R.3., 14 Responses are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors for Juvenile Facility Findings F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9 and Juvenile Facility REPORT Recommendations R.4., R.5., R.6., and R.7. Responses Requested: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT Responses are requested from the Orange County Probation Department for 2 Juvenile Facility Findings F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9., and Juvenile Facility Recommendations R.4., R.5., R.6, and R.7. REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities REPORT REFERENCES 2 Board of State and Community Corrections. (2014, August 21). Detention facilities inspections. Orange County Grand Jury Training. [Slides]. Santa Ana, CA REPORT 3 Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) California (n.d.). Data and research. Retrieved from http://www.bscc.ca.gov/data&research REPORT Board of State and Community Corrections. (2015, April 1). 2012 -2014 biennial 4 inspection Orange County Type II, and court holding facilities penal code section 6031; welfare and institutions code section 209 juvenile justice and delinquency REPORT prevention act. Sacramento, CA 5 California Assembly Bill 109, 2011 Public Safety Realignment REPORT California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative 6 Cuniff, M.M. (2014, April 5). Sheriff using GPS to keep jails clear for repairs. The REPORT Orange County Register, Local section, 1,13 &14. Joplin Youth Center. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://ocgov.com/gov/probation/contact/institutions/joplin REPORT 8 Juvenile Hall. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from http://ocgov.com/probation/contact/institutions/juvehall REPORT 9 Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Central Jail Complex brochure received September 24, 2014, from Jail personnel. REPORT Orange County Sheriff’s Department. ICE/ERO Detention Contract. Retrieved April 3, 10 2015, from ocsd.org/divisions/custody/ocsd_ice_ero_detention_contract Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Intake Release Center brochure received REPORT September 24, 2014, from Jail personnel. Orange County Sheriff’s Department. James A Musick brochure received December 18, REPORT 2014, from Jail personnel 12 Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Theo Lacy Facility Grand Jury brochure, received October 21, 2014, from Jail personnel. REPORT 13 Youth Guidance Center. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://ocgov.com/gov/probation/contact/institutions/youthguide REPORT 14 Youth Leadership Academy. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://ocgov.com/gov/probation/contact/institutions/yla REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT COMMENDATIONS 2 The OCGJ received full cooperation from all personnel at every facility. The OCGJ was given complete access to each facility. Staff members throughout the adult REPORT jails and the juvenile detention facilities were cordial, professional, and knowledgeable. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities REPORT APPENDIX: INQUIRY CRITERIA AND CHECKLISTS 2 With regard to each area of jail and juvenile facility inquiries, the criteria were: REPORT 1. Condition of the facility 3 2. Cleanliness 3. Staff presence REPORT 4. Overall safety and security 4 5. Orderliness of operation The OCGJ applied the above criteria on the Adult Evaluation Checklist in the REPORT following areas: 5 1. Booking REPORT 2. Intake-Release Center 6 3. Safety Cell 4. Sobering Cell 5. Kitchen REPORT 6. Dining Hall 7 7. Housing 8. Laundry REPORT 9. Exercise Area / Recreation 8 10. Visiting Area 11. Medical Area REPORT 12. Court Holding Area 9 13. Administrative Segregation (Anti-social / Poor behavior) 14. Segregation of AB 109 Inmates REPORT 15. Segregation of ICE Detainees 10 16. Housing for the Mentally ill / Medication / Suicide Watch 17. Protective Custody (Child Molesters / Law Enforcement Family) 18. Segregation of Gang Members REPORT 19. Disciplinary Isolation (Up to 10 days) 11 20. Operational Condition of Surveillance Cameras REPORT Similarly, the OCGJ thoroughly applied the same criteria to each area on the 12 Juvenile Evaluation Checklist. These areas included: 1. Booking REPORT 2. Intake-Release Center 13 3. Safety Cell 4. Kitchen REPORT 5. Dining Hall 14 6. Housing 7. Laundry REPORT 8. Schools/Classrooms/Programs 15 9. Exercise Area / Recreation Area 10. Visiting Area REPORT 11. Medical Area 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT 12. Court Holding Area 2 13. Administrative Segregation (Anti-social / Poor behavior) 14. Segregation of ICE Detainees 15. Housing for the Mentally ill / Medication / Suicide Watch REPORT 16. Protective Custody (Child Molesters / Law Enforcement Family) 3 17. Segregation of Gang Members 18. Disciplinary Isolation (Up to 10 Days) REPORT 19. Operational Condition of Surveillance Cameras 4 20. Maintenance of Grounds 21. Overall Condition of Buildings REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2:
Significant improvement in dropped call rates is a reasonable expectation REPORT because during the last three years, there have been months when the Child 7 Abuse Registry achieved dropped call rates in the range of 5%-7%. REPORT F.3. The new requirement to document all Information-Only calls from mandated 8 reporters contributed to increased waiting time on Child Abuse Registry calls because most social workers do not answer waiting calls while doing the additional documentation. REPORT 9
F4:
The volume of child abuse calls coming into the Child Abuse Registry has significantly increased, which necessitates changing management strategies for REPORT dealing with the increased amount and complexity of the activity. 10
F5:
The Adult Protective Services hotline was absorbed into the Child Abuse Registry. Most social workers interviewed reported that they felt competent and REPORT enjoyed taking the calls for the agency from which they came (child or adult), but 11 still felt unsure, slower, and less confident taking calls for the other agency. REPORT F.6. Hotline social workers are required to input the same repeated data on multiple 12 forms for the same call. Manual data entry is duplicated, which requires additional time away from being available to take waiting calls. REPORT
F7:
CAR management does not appear to have specific policies or strategies for 13 dealing with peak periods when there are long wait times and high dropped call rates. REPORT 14 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- REPORT 2015 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the 15 recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help 1 Based on its investigation titled “Child Abuse Hotline – Unanswered Cries for REPORT Help,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four 2 recommendations: REPORT
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Child Abuse Registry should examine the feasibility of utilizing an 3 abbreviated report for mandated Information-Only calls to expedite completion of these reports, thus freeing up the hotline worker to take waiting calls. (F.3.) REPORT
R2:
Additional training of all Child Abuse Registry social workers should continue until 4 all workers feel equally competent taking both adult and child calls. While training is disruptive and time consuming, the formal training should continue as a REPORT priority. (F.5.) 5
R3:
All documentation completed by hotline social workers should be examined with REPORT the goal of eliminating redundancies in order to allow quicker completion of the 6 paperwork, thus freeing up social workers for waiting calls. (F.6.)
R4:
The Social Services Agency and the Child Abuse Registry should become more REPORT proactive in addressing the excessive number of dropped calls and establish 7 strategies and policies to reduce the dropped-call rate with an initial goal of returning to less than 5%. A partial list of strategies that could be considered for REPORT dealing with spike volume periods include: 8 a) training and requiring staff to multitask (taking a waiting call prior to completing the post-call work on the previous call); REPORT b) designating supervisors to answer waiting calls; and 9 c) specifying staff members to triage calls to determine the level of urgency and potentially taking a message for call-back. REPORT 10 (F.1., F.2., F.4., F.7) REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT 11 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 12 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings REPORT and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected 13 County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected REPORT official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to 14 the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), REPORT provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT 6 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being REPORT investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when 8 applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 11 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Responses Required 13 Orange County Board of Supervisors: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.7., R.1., REPORT R.2., R.3., R.4. Responses Requested: REPORT Social Services Agency: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.7., R.1., R.2., R.3., R.4. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help 1 REPORT COMMENDATION 2 The Grand Jury wishes to commend all of the CAR managers and social workers who were interviewed during the course of this investigation. Their responsiveness to REPORT requests for information and coordination of interviews facilitated the work of the Grand 3 Jury. The commitment to their work in addressing the difficult task of preventing child abuse was most notable. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F2:
The trap, neuter, and return practice is reportedly delaying the spaying, REPORT neutering, and treatment of domestic dogs and cats awaiting adoption and is 9 evidence that the domestic animals have been assigned a lower priority for surgery than the spaying, neutering, and micro-chipping of the feral cats. REPORT
F3:
Feral cats have been allowed to roam freely in and around the Animal Shelter 10 and have been fed by Animal Shelter staff, possibly contributing to human and animal exposure to zoonotic diseases. REPORT 11 F.4. Animal Control Officers do not have effective equipment or appropriate procedural options to deal with unique, emergency circumstances that may REPORT require special procedures such as tranquilizing and euthanizing in the field. 12
F5:
OC Animal Care is currently operating with a shortage of personnel, including Animal Control Officers (ACOs), thereby making it much more difficult for them to REPORT respond to calls in a timely manner throughout such a large county, especially 13 since there is only one shelter to serve all of Orange County. REPORT F.6. There is little evidence that the Feral Free Program has been successful in 14 reducing the feral cat population, which could be a contributing factor to the spread of zoonotic diseases. REPORT
F7:
Kennels are hosed down with dogs still present in the kennels, resulting in the 15 dogs getting soaked and becoming more susceptible to disease. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter 1 REPORT
F8:
Kennel attendants were observed leaving the large water hoses running when 2 not being used for cleaning purposes, thereby wasting large quantities of water.
F9:
There is limited airflow and no air conditioning in the cat trailers. The conditions REPORT in these trailers increase the vulnerability to disease. 3
F10:
There is a rodent problem, creating additional risk of humans and animals REPORT contracting zoonotic diseases. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 5 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT 6 Based on its investigation titled “If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following ten REPORT recommendations: 7
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Consider a change of leadership within the Orange County Community Resources Department and arrange for mandatory leadership training for all REPORT managers and supervisors that includes a curriculum of leadership skills, people 8 skills, and diversity (F.1.). REPORT
R2:
Discontinue the practice of giving feral cats priority for surgery over the domestic 9 dogs and cats awaiting adoption (F.2.).
R3:
Discontinue feeding feral cats and allowing feral cats to roam freely in and REPORT around the Animal Shelter (F.3.). 10
R4:
Develop proper protocols for Animal Control Officers to follow when confronted REPORT with unique circumstances in the field that require tranquilizing or euthanizing 11 animals and take all measures necessary to ensure that the Animal Control Officers can be given the proper equipment and training in that regard (F.4.). REPORT
R5:
Establish a more aggressive approach in hiring qualified personnel on a timely 12 basis, especially with the position of Animal Control Officer (F.5.). REPORT
R6:
Conduct an evaluation of the Feral Free Program to determine its effectiveness 13 in the reduction of zoonotic diseases. (F.6.).
R7:
Utilize the “move-one-down” method for cleaning kennels to avoid soaking the REPORT animals. (F.7.). 14
R8:
Place nozzles on all water hoses and direct kennel attendants to turn off the water when not being used. (F.8.). REPORT 15
R9:
Improve the ventilation system in all cat trailers for the health and survival of the cats (F.9.). REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter REPORT
R10:
Promptly control the rodent population in order to reduce the possibility of 2 spreading diseases to human beings and animals (F.10.). REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 3 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 4 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 5 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected REPORT official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to 6 the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), 7 provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 8 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case 9 the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 10 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the 11 implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 12 in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 13 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 14 the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or REPORT is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 15 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel REPORT matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter 1 REPORT agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by 2 the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal REPORT Code section 933.05 are required from: 4 Responses are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors for Findings F.1. through F.10. and Recommendations R.1. through R.10. REPORT 5 Responses are requested from the Director of OC Community Resources and from the OC Animal Shelter Director for Findings F.1. through F.10. and REPORT Recommendations R.1. through R.10. REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter REPORT REFERENCES 2 Cummings, et.al. (2014). The conflicting roles of vector control and animal control agencies in mitigating the rise of human cases of flea-borne typhus in Orange REPORT County, California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. JVR Shelter Strategies (2014, June 16). The Orange County Animal Care, Shelter REPORT Consultation Summary. Author. Krueger, L., & Kieltyka, D. (2011). Orange County Vector Control District and Orange County Animal Care Agency request to conduct disease surveillance (opossums REPORT and other wildlife) around human endemic (flea-borne) typhus exposure sites. Orange County Vector Control District. Garden Grove, CA. Author. REPORT Leptospirosis. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/Leptospirosis 6 Logan v. Orange County Animal Care. Orange County Superior Court (30-2014- 00736691) (CU-WM-CJC).Maniaci v. County of Orange. Orange County Superior REPORT Court (30-2014-00752228). (CU-WT-CJC). OC Community Resources, FY 2015-16 Annual Grants Table REPORT Orange County Animal Care. (2015, March 5). OC animal care impound summary. Santa Ana, CA. Author. REPORT Orange County Grand Jury. (2000). We Can Do Better…..Improving animal care in 9 Orange County. Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Grand Jury. (2004). The Orange County Animal Shelter – Are REPORT improvements needed? Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Grand Jury. (2008) Is Orange County Going to the Dogs? Santa Ana, REPORT CA. Psittacosis. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/pneumonia/ atypical/psittacosis.html) REPORT 12 Rabies. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/ Ritchie, E. (2015, February 26). OC Animal Care officers accused of ‘barbarically’ REPORT cutting deer’s throat dismissed by agency. The Orange County Register. (para. 13 3-5). REPORT Ritchie, E. (2015, April 19). Protesters target officers who slit deer’s throat. The Orange 14 County Register, (Local, p.12). Shimura, T. (2015, April 19). County’s release of feral cats stirs concerns. The Orange REPORT County Register, (Local, p.13). Typhus (n.d). Retrieved from http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2014/chapter-3- REPORT infectious-diseases-related-to-travel/rick 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter 1 REPORT UC Davis (2008, February 2). The UC Davis Koret Shelter medicine program, Final 2 consultation report. Davis, CA: Author. Workplace Investigation Report. (2014, October 27). Investigation on Orange County REPORT Animal Care. Santa Ana, CA. Zoonotic diseases (n.d.) Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/onehealth/zoonotic-diseases.html REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Orange County Sanitation District processes an average of 198 million REPORT gallons per day of wastewater and sends 121 million gallons per day of 12 secondary treated wastewater to the ocean.
F2:
The Orange County Water District receives an average of 92 million gallons per REPORT day of treated wastewater from Orange County Sanitation District and recycles 13 70 million gallons per day of water treated to potable water standards that is then returned to the groundwater basin aquifers. REPORT 14 F.3. From the 92 million gallons per day from Orange County Sanitation District the Orange County Water District recycles 7 million gallons per day of water treated REPORT to plant irrigation standards. 15
F4:
The Irvine Ranch Water District processes 21.9 million gallons per day of wastewater and recycles 20.2 million gallons per day for purple pipe use. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County 1
F5:
The South OC Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) processes 22.7 million gallons REPORT per day of wastewater, treats 8 million gallons per day to purple pipe standards, 2 and sends 14.7 million gallons per day to the ocean. REPORT
F6:
The El Toro Water District, the City of San Clemente, the Santa Margarita Water 3 District and the Trabuco Canyon Water District process a combined average total of 19.3 million gallons per day and send to the ocean 9.5 million gallons per day. REPORT The remaining 9.8 million gallons per day are used for landscape irrigation. 4
F7:
In north and central Orange County, the cost to create potable recycled water is $1,468 per million gallons or $1,133 less than the current cost per million gallons REPORT of imported water. 5
F8:
The South OC Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) cost to recycle wastewater REPORT currently exceeds the cost of imported water, however the Grand Jury believes 6 that the cost of imported water will increase. REPORT 7 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- REPORT 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected 8 by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT Based on its investigation of Wastewater Processing in Orange County, the 9 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations: REPORT
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Orange County Sanitation District should conduct a study of possible methods of 10 increasing the amount of processed wastewater sent to Orange County Water District, including timelines and noting any barriers that may prevent increasing REPORT flow, and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of 11 imported water to Orange County. (F.1.) (F.2.) (F.7.)
R2:
Orange County Water District should conduct a study of possible methods of REPORT increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost 12 effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F.2.) (F.3.) (F.7.) REPORT 13
R3:
South Orange County Wastewater Authority should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange REPORT County. (F. 5.) (F. 8.) 14
R4:
The El Toro Water District, the City of San Clemente, the Santa Margarita Water REPORT District, and the Trabuco Canyon Water District should conduct a study of 15 possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported REPORT water to Orange County. (F.6.) 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County 1 REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 2 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 3 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 4 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected REPORT official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to 5 the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as 6 follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 7 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 8 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 9 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 10 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 11 in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 12 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 13 the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 14 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel REPORT matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 15 agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County 1 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code REPORT section 933.05 are required from: 3 Responses Required: REPORT 1. Responses to Findings F.1., F.2. and Recommendation R.1. are required 4 from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District. 2. Responses to Findings F.1., F.3., F.7., and Recommendation R.2. are REPORT required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. 5 3. Responses to Findings F.5., F.8., and Recommendation R.3. are required from the Board of Directors of the South Orange County Wastewater REPORT Authority. 6 4. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the Board of Directors of the El Toro Water District. 5. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the REPORT Mayor of the City of San Clemente. 7 6. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the Board of Directors of the Santa Margarita Water District. REPORT 7. Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the 8 Board of Directors of the Trabuco Canyon Water District. 8. Response to Finding F.4. is required from the Board of Directors of the Irvine REPORT Ranch Water District. COMMENDATIONS REPORT The 2014-2015 Grand Jury commends the OC Sanitation District and the OC 10 Water District for the partnership they developed to recycle wastewater for the beneficial use of north and central OC residents. Last year’s average of 77 mgpd of recycled REPORT water reduces dependence on more expensive imported water at a time when the 11 amounts of external water supplies are stressed by the State’s prolonged drought. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury commends the Irvine Ranch Water District for the REPORT years of recycling water for landscape irrigation leadership. Last year they recycled over 12 92% of the wastewater they received. REPORT REFERENCES 13 State of water, summer 2013: A call for investing in reliability.[Pamphlet]. (2013). Municipal Water District of Orange County. REPORT Municipal Water District of Orange County (2014). Water rates and charges. Retrieved from http://www.mwdoc.com/pages.php?id_pge=166 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County 1 REPORT APPENDIX: 2 GLOSSARY AF. Acre-Foot. The amount of water needed to cover an acre (approximately a football REPORT field) one foot deep, or 325,900 gallons. One acre-foot can support the annual indoor 3 and outdoor needs of between one and two households per year, and, on average, three acre-feet are needed to irrigate one acre of farmland. REPORT Aquifer. A geologic formation of sand, rock and gravel through which water can pass 4 and which can store, transmit, and yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. REPORT 5 Groundwater. Water that occurs beneath the land surface and fills partially or wholly pore spaces of the alluvium, soil, or rock formation in which it is situated. Does not REPORT include water which is being produced with oil in the production of oil and gas or in a 6 bona fide mining operation. Groundwater basin. A groundwater reservoir defined by all the overlying land surface REPORT and the underlying aquifers that contain water stored in the reservoir. Boundaries of 7 successively deeper aquifers may differ and make it difficult to define the limits of the basin. REPORT 8 Groundwater Replenishment System (GRS). An OCWD/OCSD joint project being developed to provide up to 100,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water annually for groundwater replenishment. Treated wastewater will undergo further treatment at REPORT OCWD-using the same technology as bottled water companies-before it is piped 9 northward along the Santa Ana River to replenish the groundwater basin in the inland part of the county. Visit the GWR System website (http://www.gwrsystem.com). REPORT 10 Imported water. Water that has originated from one hydrologic region and is transferred to another hydrologic region. Metropolitan Water District of Southern REPORT California(MET) imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California. MET’s 11 agency in OC is the Municipal Water District of OC (MWDOC). Potable water. Suitable and safe for drinking. REPORT 12 Primary treated water. First major treatment in a wastewater treatment facility, usually sedimentation removal but not biological oxidation. REPORT Recycling. A type of reuse, usually involving running a supply of water through a closed 13 system again and again. Legislation in 1991 legally equates the term “recycled water” to reclaimed water. REPORT 14 Santa Ana River Basin Aquifer. That portion of the Santa Ana River that is located within OC. REPORT Secondary Treatment. Generally, a level of treatment that produces 85 percent 15 removal efficiencies of biological oxygen demand and suspended solids. Usually carried out through the use of trickling filters or by the activated sludge process. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County 1 Tertiary treatment. The treatment of wastewater beyond the secondary or biological REPORT stage. Normally implies the removal of nutrients, such as phosphorous and nitrogen, 2 and a high percentage of suspended solids. REPORT Wastewater. Water that has been previously used by municipality/residences, industry 3 or agriculture and has suffered a loss of quality as a result of use. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
R5:
Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the REPORT Mayor of the City of San Clemente. 7
R6:
Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the Board of Directors of the Santa Margarita Water District. REPORT
R7:
Responses to Findings F.6., and Recommendation R.4. are required from the 8 Board of Directors of the Trabuco Canyon Water District.
R8:
Response to Finding F.4. is required from the Board of Directors of the Irvine REPORT Ranch Water District. 9
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Irvine City Council originally had a vision of a metropolitan park that would REPORT rival Central Park in New York, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Balboa 12 Park in San Diego but neglected to follow standard industry practices in managing such a large project. REPORT
F2:
From the outset, with the City of Irvine assuming a land developer role, the 13 project was poorly managed and did not follow conventional program management principles. There was excessive political control, influence, and REPORT interference over the Great Park project. The City allowed individuals, including 14 some elected officials to make technical decisions without ensuring that these individuals were qualified or experienced to make such decisions. Basically, the REPORT City abandoned sound project management principles. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City of Irvine should develop and publish a new 10-year comprehensive REPORT strategic plan for all of the development activities beyond the ALA II plan with 8 time commitments for the Cultural Terrace, including the library, lake, museums, etc. along with all of the funding and expenditure plans (F2, F7, F11). REPORT 9
F3:
The organizational structure established by the Irvine City Council was such that 2 total control over the project rested with the City Council and the Orange County Great Park Corporation was relegated to an advisory role. REPORT 3 F.4. Many California communities, including Mission Viejo, Belmont, Watsonville, and Norwalk have ordinances restricting elected officials from interfering in REPORT operational activities under a city manager. 4
F5:
Appropriate transparency over the project was lacking. The City Council and the OCGPC did not publicly reveal the estimated true costs to build the park as REPORT originally designed as well as other non-capital expenditures. 5
F6:
There were serious questions about the ability of the City to implement the original design based on the City’s available financing and U.S. Navy constraints. REPORT 6
F7:
Many of the contracts of the Great Park were open-ended and without defined deliverables, minor oversight, or safeguards. There seemingly was no effective REPORT oversight over invoices, contract compliance, or quality control. 7
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The City of Irvine should develop and publish a new 10-year comprehensive REPORT strategic plan for all of the development activities beyond the ALA II plan with 8 time commitments for the Cultural Terrace, including the library, lake, museums, etc. along with all of the funding and expenditure plans (F2, F7, F11). REPORT 9
R6:
The City should review and ensure compliance with its policies and guidelines REPORT regarding contracts and appropriately restricting the use of sole source and no- 11 bid contracts. (F7) REPORT
R7:
The City of Irvine should create a master document that lays out all of the terms 12 and conditions of the ALA, ARDA, ALA II contracts and alterations to the Master Plan and Land Use Agreements. These need to be consolidated into one document of record which clearly indicates each party’s obligations under the REPORT contract (F7). 13
F8:
There seemed to be over-use of no-bid and sole source contracts without full justification which possibly violates the City’s processes and procedures. There REPORT are also questions of clarity relative to terms and conditions of current contracts. 8
F9:
Orange County Great Park financial statements indicated that less than 50% of REPORT expenses incurred were spent on capital, i.e., on the actual design and 9 construction of the Great Park, which is well outside industry standards. The remaining expenses were on salaries, overhead, and contract services. REPORT
F10:
The complexity of financial transactions relative to the Great Park made it difficult 10 to understand the flow of funds relative to sources and uses of monies. The lack of clarity on such basic issues as the number of units authorized to be REPORT constructed raises concerns about other issues in the contract that are unclear. This was a major flaw in the reporting system. REPORT F.11. An inordinate amount of funds were spent on public relations and lobbying, “free” 12 public events, exhibitions, food, and a balloon whose benefits did not justify its costs. REPORT
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City of Irvine should discontinue extravagant expenditures in favor of more cost conscious public events. As an example, the City should consider REPORT “grounding” the balloon or severely limiting its use, as this expensive attraction 10 costs over $1 million per year to operate (F10).
F12:
The current plan for the construction of the Great Park will require less funding 13 than the original plan but will still require a high cost of construction and operations and maintenance that will be passed on to home buyers. REPORT
F13:
There was no explanation by the City Council as to where the tax increment of 14 $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized. REPORT F.14. The OCGPC has become a “shell” corporation and serves no intrinsic function as 15 members of the Board of Directors are the same as members of the Irvine City Council. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 2 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 3 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT Based on its investigation titled “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris,” the 4 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations:
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The City of Irvine should give serious consideration to dissolving the Orange County Great Park Corporation as it serves no intrinsic purpose (F13). REPORT 6
R8:
The City of Irvine needs to provide an explanation as to where the tax increment REPORT of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized. (F13). REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 15 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 2 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 3 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to REPORT the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 5 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 6 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case REPORT the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an 7 explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report REPORT one of the following actions: 8 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the REPORT implemented action. 9 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT 10 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be REPORT prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being 11 investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of REPORT the Grand Jury report. 12 (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT 13 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 14 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal REPORT Code section 933.05 are required from: 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Responses Required: 2 Irvine City Council – All Findings and Recommendations REPORT : 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT COMMENDATIONS 2 The Grand Jury is very appreciative of the cooperation and efforts of the staff of REPORT the City of Irvine and the Orange County Great Park Corporation. They could not have 3 been more courteous, professional, and helpful. Appreciation also goes out to the Office of the Orange County District Attorney for their assistance. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT ENDNOTES 2 1. Measure W: County Parks Initiative: REPORT Shall the initiative measure: 1) eliminating planned airport uses at the closed 3 El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS El Toro) by repealing Measure A, and 2) amending the Orange County General Plan to authorize an urban regional park and REPORT a variety of agricultural, material recovery/recycling, recreational, cultural, 4 educational, employment, public and housing land uses at MCAS El Toro, be adopted.” REPORT The intention of the initiative was to cease all activities to transform the 5 former air base into a commercial airport and to “provide Orange County’s three million residents with an opportunity to enjoy a park on par with Golden Gate Park REPORT and The Presidio in San Francisco, Griffith Park in Los Angeles, and Balboa Park in 6 San Diego.” Further rationale included: “The park will generate regional and state- wide economic benefits from tourism, education, and the attraction of businesses to the area.” (Orange County, California Measure W. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from REPORT http://airportnoiselaw.org/orangew.html para H) 7 2. Bosque: The term bosque is from the Spanish meaning “woodlands.” It refers to REPORT clumps of trees found along flood plains of stream and river banks in the 8 southwestern United States. REPORT 3. The Irvine City Manager stated in 2003: 9 “The financial plan for the OC GP will fulfill the promise our City made to the people of Orange County when we drafted Measure W nearly two years ago. REPORT 10 “Working in cooperation with the Navy, we have created a sound financial plan for building and maintaining the Great Park without any federal, state, or local REPORT taxpayer subsidies. 11 “Master-planned communities throughout Southern California, including Irvine, maintain high standards and amenities by requiring developers and property REPORT buyers to contribute to the construction and maintenance of public facilities. 12 “Real estate experts who have reviewed the Orange County GP Plan all REPORT agree that the sale of the developable property will more than support the $200 13 million in development fees. The assessments and special maintenance levies, plus the basic 1% property tax, will not exceed the overall 2% property tax levied on property owners in most master-planned communities. REPORT 14 “The most exciting feature of this plan is the speed in which it allows the GP to be developed. REPORT “We will begin tearing up the runways within days of the completion of the 15 sale of the property. Our children will be playing in the county’s largest Sports Park, and people will be able to enjoy the first phase of the Meadows Park within three REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT years. Within only five years of the sale of the property, the OCGP will be fully 2 landscaped and will serve all of our county for many generations to come.” (p. 1) REPORT 4. According to Orange County Great Park Planning Report (2003): “Other great 3 metropolitan parks have required fifty years or more to develop. By contrast, the Orange County Great Park development strategy—harnessing the power of private REPORT capital and the benefit of enlightened public planning—will enable all key elements 4 of the Great Park to be developed within five to seven years of the sale of the property.” REPORT 5 5. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury stated in their report “Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”: “By merging the operations of the City of Irvine and the GPC, employees REPORT of the GPC are now employees of the City of Irvine and everything from job 6 assignments to raises and other factors are at the behest of the City of Irvine. It raises the question, what exactly is the purpose or function of the OCGPC if the City of Irvine collects all park related revenue, hires employees whose duties are related REPORT to the park, and pays the other expenses related to the park.” (p. 9) 7 REPORT 8 6. This is not in violation of public law. According to the Health & Safety Code (§33200, sub d). [a]) a city council, in activating the redevelopment agency in its community, is authorized under State law to name itself to members of the redevelopment agency REPORT board, as the Irvine City Council did when it adopted Ordinance 99-04 in 1999 9 activating the Irvine Redevelopment Agency. REPORT 10 7. City of Irvine Contract Award Process: A contract can primarily be awarded in the following three methods. REPORT Use of Consultant Team Member 11 Request for Proposal (RFP)/Formal Bidding Process Sole Sourced REPORT 12 The city creates a list of business needs and establishes a list of Consultant Team Members who have been properly vetted. When a need is REPORT discovered the responsible manager is to go to the Consultant Team first, next 13 option is to request a RFP from any and all vendors, and last option is sole sourcing. REPORT The following is a summary of the key levels of contract authority and 14 signature levels contained in the Great Park Procurement policies. Authority to sign a contract must be preceded by approval of the contractor, program or expenditure, either through the budget process or through separate action of the REPORT Corporation’s Board of Directors. The levels and amounts are consistent with 15 comparable functions in the City of Irvine. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Contract Amount Contract Authority 2 $100,000 or less Orange County Great Park Managers >$100,000 up to $1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and REPORT Deputy Chief Executive Officer 3 >$1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and Chairman* *Any contract requiring the Chairman’s signature must first be approved by the Board of Directors. REPORT Additional highlights of the revised Orange County Great Park 4 Procurement Policies include: REPORT Purchases or contracts in excess of $5,000 for supplies, equipment, or 5 construction require three qualified bids or quotes. Professional services or consultants require a formal proposal process for REPORT contracts expected to be greater than $5,000. In this case, three qualified 6 proposals are also required. Pricing, however, is of secondary consideration to qualifications (as required by applicable State law). REPORT The use of a Consultant Team Program whereby certain professional 7 consultants are pre-qualified through a competitive selection process and have master agreements which extend for a period of up to three years. (Consultant REPORT Teams pre-approved by the City are available for use by the Orange County 8 Great Park.) REPORT Sole source—the policies allow for sole source purchase or contract 9 where a competitive bidding or selection process cannot be accomplished. Such situations could occur due to time constraints, proximity, highly specialized knowledge, or unique product. Sole source request, in all cases, must be REPORT accompanied by a justification memo to the Chief Executive Officer. REPORT 8. The following is an excerpt from the Mission Viejo Municipal Code: 11 “The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose REPORT of inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give 12 orders to any subordinate of the city manager. For purposes hereof, “inquiry” means any and all communications short of giving orders, directions, or instruction to any member of the administrative staff. Such REPORT members shall provide all information reasonably requested by any 13 councilmember. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only when sitting in a duly convened meeting of the REPORT city council and no individual councilmember shall give any orders or 14 instructions to the city manager. The city council shall instruct the city manager in matters of policy. Any action, determination or omission of the REPORT city manager shall be subject to review by the city council. The city council 15 may not overrule, change or modify any such action, determination or omission except by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the REPORT city council.” (Code 1988, § 2.08.070) 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT REFERENCES 2 Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014a, October). Great Park Audit: Status update. REPORT Irvine, CA. Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014b, October 14). Great Park Audit: Status update. Irvine, CA. REPORT 4 Aleshire & Wynder (2015, March 24). Report of Special Counsel. Irvine, CA. Author. American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2007, August 27). Standard for of agreement REPORT between owner and architect: Document B141-1997 Part I. Irvine, CA. BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, November 17). Review of the Great REPORT Park Design Studio invoices (#2-#7, #9). Irvine, CA. BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, October). Review and Comments: Great Park Design Studio contract no. 2 monthly report: October 2007. Irvine, REPORT CA. Bovis Lend Lease. (2008, July 16). Orange County Great Park: Program Management REPORT Team: Schematic Design 70% milestone submitted review and comments. Irvine, 8 CA. Burgess, M.A. (2014, June 24). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. REPORT Newport Beach, CA. City Manager. (2013). 2014 Reorganization plan. City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Clark, C. (2014, April 23). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport 10 Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 11 County Executive Officer, County of Orange. (2006). Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it.” Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 12 Cowan, J. (2014, October 19). Yet another flare-up over Great Park. Los Angeles Times, p. A33. REPORT 13 Design Studio. (2006). Orange County Great Park Preliminary Master Plan. Irvine, CA. Ellzey, M.D. (2014, June 18). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 14 Elmahrek, A. (2014a, September 7). Video derides findings of Great Park audit. Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 15 Elmahrek, A. (2014b, November 6). Is it the end of an era in Irvine politics? Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Elmahrek, A. (2015, February 19). Auditor sees bias in Irvine’s Great Park investigation. 2 http://voiceofoc.org. Ford, A. (2014, August 5). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 3 Fuscoe, P. (2014, July 14). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 4 Gaffen, Y. (2014, August 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 5 Gibbs Giden (2014). Orange County Great Park audit. Los Angeles, CA. Author. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2007, August 9). Transcript from OCGP Board Meeting on 6 August 9, 2007. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2010, June 17). Notice of termination without cause of 7 agreement for contract services for the Orange County Great Park for marketing and communication services (No. 7469) dated September 7, 2012. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2013, January 10). Schematic design contract close-out. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Conservancy. (n.d.). Foundation for the Great Park. 9 http://www.orangecountygreatpark.org Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2014). Orange County Great Park forensic REPORT contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2015, March 23). Orange County Great Park REPORT forensic contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. Irvine, City of. (2006a). Response of City of Irvine - 2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it”). Irvine, CA. REPORT 12 Irvine, City of. (2006b). City Council Resolution No. 06-42: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Irvine restating and clarifying the governing structures and REPORT responsibilities relating to the Orange County Great Park. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2010a). Response of City of Irvine - 2010 Grand Jury Report dated June 3, 2010. Irvine, CA. REPORT 14 Irvine, City of. (2010b, September 13). Agreement concerning close-out of schematic design contract. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012a, August 14). Dismissal agreement in connection with State of 15 California Department of Finance settlement negotiations by and between City of Irvine Successor Agency to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency and Irvine REPORT Community Land Trust. Irvine, CA. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012b). Heritage Fields Project 2012 GPA/ZC: Draft Second 2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSSEIR). Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2013a, March 26). Formation of community facilities district no. 2013-3. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2013b, November 11). Second agreement with City of Irvine as adjacent REPORT landowner (ALAII). Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2013c, November 26). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014, January 28). Resolution of the City Council of City of Irvine 5 authorizing an investigation into the financial management of the Orange County Great Park, approving a scope of work for a forensic investigation, and REPORT authorizing the City Council subcommittee and retained special counsel to 6 facilitate the investigation and issue subpoenas. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014b, July 9). Settlement agreement and release of claims. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2014c). Accounts paid listing: 2012-2013. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014d, March 18). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. Jow, L. (2014a, October 28). Irvine ballot measures: Great Park transparency, term limits. Orange County Register, p. L-4. REPORT 9 Jow, L. (2014b, November 4). Irvine voters approve Great Park fiscal reform, term limits. Orange County Register. Retrieved from: http://www.ocregister.com REPORT Jow, L. (2014, November 6). Agran is out after 16 years; Republicans look set for Irvine 10 supermajority. Orange County Register, pp. L1, L5. REPORT Joyce, S. (2014a, February 2). Memo: Reorganization plan. Irvine, CA 11 Joyce, S. (2014b, July 18). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 12 King, T., & Butow, R. (2011, November 27). So far all the Orange County got was a big ugly balloon. Salem-News. Retrieved from http;//www.salem-news.com REPORT 13 Kogerman, W.G. (2014, June 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 14 Kohn, P.D. (2014, August 11). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. REPORT 15 Kreutzen, W. (2014, April 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Krom, B. (2006, September 13). Response of City of Irvine to Orange County Grand 2 Jury 2005-2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”). City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Krom, B. (2015, April 19). Great park now about profits, not people. Orange County 3 Register, Opinion 6. REPORT Landers, S. (2014, July 9). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Lough, M. (2011). Design development quality management checklist. American 5 Institute of Architects. New York. REPORT McDevitt, B. (2014, July 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT McDonnell, K. (2014, October 22). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 8 Maxwell-Miller, T. (2014, October 2). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 9 Mollrich, S. (2014, July 30). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 10 Mission Viejo, City of. (1988). Municipal Code Sec 2.08.070. Mission Viejo, CA. Orange County Great Park Corp. Board of Directors (2008, June 19). Agenda. Irvine, REPORT CA. Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2006). The Orange County Great Park: Whose REPORT park Is it? Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Great Park. (n.d.a.). History of land. Irvine, CA. REPORT Orange County Great Park Corp. (n.d.b.). FY 2009-2020: Strategic business plan. Irvine, CA. Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2010). Financing the Great Park: Now you see it, REPORT now you don’t. Santa Ana, CA. Orange County (2002). Measure W: County Parks Initiative. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/or/meas/W/.html 15 Orange County Great Park Design Studio. (2007). Major milestone review: 30% schematic estimate construction elements. Irvine, CA. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Schulman, M. (n.d.). California without redevelopment monies: The ethical issues. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, CA. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu. REPORT 3 Sim, R. (2005, March 14). Great Park Audit: Statement of Richard Sim to Conservancy. Irvine, CA. REPORT Sim, R. (2014, July 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Smith, K. (2014, September 5). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. San Clemente, 5 CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp Smith, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Greg Smith regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 6 Starnes, J.L. (2014, June 30). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 7 Urch, G.T. (2014, August 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 8 Wood, T. (2014, July 28). Arnold Forde: Half century of big time politics. Voice of REPORT Orange County, Retrieved from: http://ww.voiceofoc.org. Worthington, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Glen Worthington regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, CA REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX A: 2 ORANGE COUNTY GREAT PARK CHRONOLOGY REPORT 1993 July Department of Defense places MCAS El Toro on the BRAC closure list. 3 2002, March 5 Orange County voters approve Measure W that creates the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve to replace MCAS El Toro. REPORT 2002, March 6 The Department of the Navy announces its intention to sell MCAS El Toro on a 4 bid basis. 2003, January 28 Irvine City Council announces in a press release that the Great Park would cost a projected $353 million to construct. REPORT 5 2003, July 7 The Orange County Great Park is incorporated. 2003, November 12 The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approves the City of Irvine’s REPORT annexation of the former MCAS El Toro, putting the City of Irvine in control of land use decisions for the entire property. 6 2003, December 5 The Orange County Great Park Corporation (OCGPC) holds its first public meeting and adopts a resolution that expands the Board of Directors to nine (9) REPORT members. 7 2004, January 14 City of Irvine officially annexes former MCAS El Toro. 2004, September The Department of the Navy invites bids for MCAS El Toro. REPORT 8 2004, December 16 The OCGPC approves the 2004-2005 business plan with an anticipated budget to build the park at $401 million. REPORT 2005, March 8 Redevelopment funding for the Great Park is authorized by ordinance. 9 2005, April The OCGPC inaugurates design contest for the Great Park. 2005, June 23 Based on design submittals and recommendation by a “Design Jury,” seven REPORT finalists are selected and each is given $50,000 to develop and Conceptual 10 Master Design Plan. 2005, July 12 Lennar had the winning bid for MCAS El Toro of $649.5 million. Lennar REPORT contributes 1,347 acres to the City of Irvine, pays $200 million in developer fees, and pledges an additional $201 million for joint infrastructure and facilities 11 intended to be funded by a Community Facilities District (CFD) bond sale. 2005, September Finalists present their design plans during the OCGPC public meetings. REPORT 12 2006, January 23 OCGPC board selects the project designer and architect of the Orange County Great Park. 2006, March 9 OCGPC enters into Agreement for Master Designer Services to develop a Great REPORT Park Master Plan for $372 million. The main purpose of the contract is to develop 13 a conceptual design of the Great Park that would be approved by the OCGPC Board and the Irvine City Council. REPORT 2006, March 23 A contractor is selected from among five bidding firms to be the program 14 manager for the Great Park. 2006, October 26 OCGPC Board approves the Preliminary Master Plan in concept. REPORT 2007, January 9 Irvine City Council authorizes approximately $4.1 million in expenditures for 15 design, construction, operations, and insurance for the Great Park balloon. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT 2007, January 25 Original plan designer makes proposal to OCGPC Board to continue services for 2 the design development of the entire park, including park schematics, mass grading, and construction documents for the initial park construction. REPORT 2007, July 14 The Great Park Balloon opens to the public. Features include parking, lighting, 3 temporary visitor center, construction of the observation balloon, and associated infrastructure and utilities. REPORT 2007, July 24 OCGPC Board and Irvine City Council approve a schematic design contract 4 (Contract #5759) for $27.3 million. The purpose of the contract is to develop construction documents in accordance with the Master Design Plan and to establish reasonable cost estimates for the Great Park features included in the REPORT Schematic Design. 5 2007, September 27 The OCGPC Board adopts the Comprehensive Master Plan. Contractor estimates total cost to build park at $979.8 million. REPORT 2007, December 11 Irvine City Council authorizes $11.4 million for design and construction of the 6 Balloon Enhancement Project and $2.5 million for first year operating costs, totaling $13.9 million. Features include new signage and lighting, parking and site access, night flights, a revised multipurpose 5-acre landscaping, and REPORT cleaning and painting an existing hangar that will be used for future events. 7 2008, January 8 Decision to proceed with the Schematic Design to ultimately develop construction documents for the improvements. REPORT 2008, March 25 Balloon Enhancement Project is expanded by Irvine City Council to become the 8 27.5-acre “Preview Park.” Irvine budgets approximately $6.97 million for construction of the entire Preview Park. Balloon project is considered Phase One. REPORT 9 2008, July Second phase of Preview Park is completed. This phase consists of a lawn, trees, park furnishings, additional lighting, timeline prototype, shade structures, and a relocated and improved visitor center. REPORT 10 2008, July 11 Program Manager estimates the cost of horizontal construction (not including buildings) to be over $1.6 billion. 2008, August The City of Irvine hires an independent public accounting firm to audit contract REPORT compliance under the Agreement for Master Designer Services (Contract 1). 11 2009, January OCGP Board commissions consulting firm to evaluate the merits and feasibility of a major fundraising effort to generate private funds for selected facilities and REPORT programs within the Great Park Master Plan. 12 2009, February Schematic design is halted by CEO and states no further work necessary on the design. Staff concludes that the project budget to be approximately $1.4 billion. REPORT 2009, March 19 Contractor presents a 36-month construction plan to develop 500 acres for $61 13 million. 2009, April 23 OCGP Board votes to recommend that the Irvine City Council appropriate $61.2 REPORT million for the 500-acre park from development proposal. 14 2009, May 21 Contractor presents Phase 1 plan of the 500-acre plan and attains an additional $4.7 million to implement Phase 1. REPORT 2009, July Phase 3 of the Preview Park is completed. Third phase included transplanting 15 mature trees into the lawn area and the Farm and Food Lab. REPORT 16 2009, October Accounting firm auditing contract compliance under the Agreement for Master 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Designer Services delivered their report. 2 2009, October 22 GP CEO submitted a proposal for $65.5 million to develop 200 acres (Western Sector) and to replace the 500-acre plan The proposal was approved by the REPORT OCGPC Board . This area is adjacent to Park Preview. 3 2009, November 10 The City of Irvine approves a sole source contract with WRNS Studio, an architectural firm, for $10.1 million for design and pre-construction services for the Western Sector. Construction design of Western Sector began shortly REPORT thereafter. 4 2009, November 12 Consulting firm delivered its report to the OCGP Board, concluding that it is infeasible to raise enough private funds to construct facilities for the Great Park REPORT due to many obstacles. 5 2010, June 17 A Close Out Agreement between the original designer and the City of Irvine is presented at a joint meeting with OCGPC and Irvine City Council. REPORT 2010, August 13 Final Close Out Agreement with the original designer and City of Irvine is 6 executed. 2011, January Governor Brown proposes statewide elimination of Redevelopment Agencies REPORT (RDA) beginning with 2011-2012 budgets. 7 2011, June 15 California Legislature passes ABX1 26 which eliminates RDAs and sets up Successor Agencies and Oversight Boards to wind down dissolved RDAs. REPORT 2011, November An independent public accounting firm, is engaged by the City of Irvine to review 8 contract compliance of the Schematic Design contract (Contract 2). 2012, June 7 Irvine enters into a contract with USS Cal Builders, Inc. for $22 million to REPORT complete construction of 30 acres of the Western Sector. 9 2012, June 21 Independent accounting firm delivered Schematic Design Contract Compliance Review to Board and city. The report did not reveal any significant or material findings. REPORT 10 2012, November City Council election was held resulting in the composition of the council being significantly changed. Four of the at-large members were dismissed. REPORT 2013, January City Council cancelled the park public relations contract. 11 2013, June 17 The City of Irvine retained Hagen, Streiff, Newton, & Oshiro Accountants, PC (HSNO) for $240,000 to perform a forensic audit of the planning, development, and construction of the Great Park. REPORT 12 2013, November The Prime Contractor proposed 688-acre park project to the Irvine City Council. 2014, August City of Irvine readjusts its Master Plan and Design Review to be in concert with the Prime Contractor proposal. REPORT 13 2014, November The 5-year Master Plan for 688 acres is approved by the City Council. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX B: 2 PROBLEMS WITH FORMER CONTRACTS REPORT The Grand Jury found many inconsistencies and problems in managing contracts 3 involving the Great Park. An examination of the previous largest contracts revealed that many of them REPORT contained no deliverables or milestones. Several were open-ended, had minor 4 oversights, and provided for no true safeguards. It seems that there was never an outside audit of finances or contracts. REPORT 5 No-Bid Contracts. Very early in the life of the project, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury had recommended that “The Irvine City Council should review current practices involving no-bid contracts to ensure that appropriate business controls are in place to REPORT protect the citizens of the City of Irvine” (p. 11). In the response from the City of Irvine, 6 they “wholly” disagreed with this finding. In the City’s response they referenced the current policy on purchasing8 which they claimed they were following. REPORT 7 However the practice of no-bid contracts continued over the years. In projects costing over $100,000, 29 of 83 (35%) were sole source contracts according to records from the Office of the Irvine City Clerk. This seems extraordinarily high; however, the REPORT law does not prohibit these contracts if they are for highly specialized services. As an 8 example, the Western Sector was built with sole source contracts, but to management’s credit, the project was completed within 10% of its budget ($69.9 million actual versus REPORT budgeted $65.5 million). Change Orders. A review of several contracts revealed an extensive use of REPORT change orders. These change orders allowed for additional expenditures. A cursory 10 review determined that over $15 million was spent on change orders alone. The forensic auditor found strong evidence of a lack of definition of scope in REPORT contracts until after the work had begun (HSNO, 2014). Also found was significant 11 confusion concerning scope of work. There were various testimonies in sworn dispositions that one contractor was performing work outside of its scope. Other REPORT testimony stated that the same contractor would begin work prior to the contract being 12 approved. The magnitude of change orders indicated a lack of definition of scope of work or poor project management by the City. REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX C: 2 CITY OF IRVINE ORGANIZATION CHART REPORT Residents of 3 Irvine REPORT Orange County 4 Great Park Board City Council of Directors REPORT 5 City Manager REPORT 6 Assistant City Assistant City Manager Manager OCGP REPORT 7 Administrative REPORT Services Public Safety 8 Department Department REPORT Community Public 9 Development Communication Department REPORT 10 City Clerk Community Services REPORT Department 11 City Treasurer REPORT Public Works 12 Department City Attorney REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX D: 2 OCGP ORGANIZATION STRUCTURES REPORT 3 Single Organization Staffing Structure (Approved by Irvine City Council) REPORT 4 REPORT 5 OCGP Board City Council RDA REPORT 6 Executive City Manager REPORT Director (RDA) 7 REPORT 8 Assistant City Assistant City Manager/CEO Manager REPORT 9 Deputy CEO/GM (CFO) REPORT City Departments 10 REPORT 11 Manager of Manager of Manager of Manager of Communications Engineering Planning Operations REPORT and Public Affairs 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Traditional Structure (Rejected by Irvine City Council) 2 REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX E: 2 CITY OF IRVINE COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF APRIL, 2006 REPORT Organization 3 The Orange County Great Park Corporation Board of Directors consists of five members of the Irvine City Council and four appointed directors. REPORT Employees serving the Corporation are employees of the City of Irvine, working 4 within the City’s organizational structure, (i.e., as a distinct operating department of the City) and functioning under the general direction and supervision of the REPORT City Manager. Funding REPORT Funds for the development of the Park are managed by the City of Irvine in a 6 separate city fund. Operations and Maintenance REPORT 7 Operation and maintenance of the Park shall be based on a self-sustaining budget. REPORT 8 The Great Park Board of Directors REPORT May develop policies for presentation for City Council adoption. 9 Is responsible for direction and oversight with respect to planning, designing, and constructing the Park. REPORT Is responsible for ensuring that applicable policy guidelines and design principles 10 are implemented. Will oversee construction of the Park and will provide recommendations to the City Council for approval of all contracts and change orders. REPORT 11 The Irvine City Council REPORT Must initiate and approve all land use modifications. 12 Has final authority over all financial matters, including contracts for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Park. REPORT Is responsible for the management, dispensation, and investment of funds 13 available for the park. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All of the funds related to Great Park financial activity should be presented as a REPORT separate section in the City’s CAFR to allow for greater transparency (F4; F9). 5
R3:
The City of Irvine should create and consider adopting an ordinance similar to that adopted in other cities, such as Mission Viejo8, that limits the interference REPORT and influence of City Council members with the operational aspects of the city. 7 (F1; F2; F4).
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Orange County has nine “inactive” Joint Powers Authorities that have no viable REPORT activity, revenue, expenditure, assets, or liabilities. The Grand Jury determined 13 that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds. REPORT
F2:
Horizontal Joint Powers Authorities among peer organizations appear to meet 14 the intent of State laws to delegate a common service for a city or other legal entity for the purpose of reducing cost on behalf of the taxpayers. REPORT 15 F.3. Orange County has 18 vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its redevelopment agency that no longer exists. The Grand Jury determined REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers 2 and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds.
F4:
Vertical Joint Powers Authorities with a single controlling entity, such as a city REPORT council, have the potential to use this organizational structure as a shell company 3 to avoid other legal constraints on the controlling entity and to obfuscate taxpayer visibility. REPORT 4
F5:
Vertical Joint Powers Authorities in which the controlling entity transfers assets from itself to a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of obtaining additional funding, or signs a long-term lease to a Joint Powers Authority to obtain assets, REPORT are avoiding transparency and are not acting in the best financial interest of the 5 taxpayers. REPORT
F6:
32 of the Joint Powers Authorities identified in Orange County are not complying 6 with the California State reporting requirements in code Section 6500 and SB 282 according to the latest information available from the year 2013. REPORT
F7:
The Orange County Auditor-Controller knows of the Joint Powers Authorities in 7 which the County is a member, but does not have a list of all of the Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County and cannot confirm compliance of their submittal REPORT for public access. The Orange County Auditor-Controller does not provide easy- 8 to-use online access to the data submitted to it by the Joint Powers Authorities that are compliant with the requirement to submit. REPORT
F8:
The Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Transportation 9 Corridor Agency have a joint debt level of over $4.5 billion. The Grand Jury has determined that this debt level is excessive based on their revenues, and it REPORT threatens to render them insolvent. 10
F9:
The Orange County Fire Authority has an off-the-books unfunded debt liability of REPORT $577 million which the Grand Jury has determined to be of concern since it is a 11 real liability on the County taxpayers.
F10:
The Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority has a debt exposure of $1.2 billion which REPORT the Grand Jury has determined to be excessive in light of the fact that it was 12 incurred without voter approval. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 13 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 14 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County,” the REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations: 15
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All Orange County Joint Powers Authorities that are “inactive” should submit the REPORT official paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT existence or provide at the next public meeting the justification for continuing the 2 Joint Powers Authority. (F.1.) REPORT R.2. All Vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its 3 redevelopment agency should submit the necessary paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their existence. (F.3.) REPORT
R3:
All Joint Powers Authorities should take the following actions to insure 4 transparency to the taxpayers: (1) have an annual outside audit, (2) post the complete audit on their city website as a separate Joint Powers Authority entity, REPORT (3) send the audit to the County Controller and the State Auditor, and (4) ensure 5 the required reports are filed annually to the County and the State. (F.4., F.5.)
R4:
The 32 Joint Powers Authorities that are not complying with the California State REPORT Law requiring annual reporting should become compliant by submitting their 6 2014 report by December 31, 2015, and submitting the required reports annually thereafter. (F.6.) REPORT 7 R.5. The Orange County Auditor-Controller should maintain a current list of all of the Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County, confirm that reports have been submitted annually, and post the completed reports with all the details on an REPORT easy-to-use Internet public access website. (F.7.) 8
R6:
The Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Transportation REPORT Corridor Agency should address their solvency by an aggressive plan to reduce 9 their public debt. (F.8.)
R7:
The Orange County Fire Authority should address their lack of transparency by REPORT providing public disclosure of their off-the-books unfunded public liability in their 10 financial statements and address their solvency by an aggressive plan to reduce their unfunded liabilities. (F.9.) REPORT 11 R.8. The City of Anaheim City Council should redress the debt incurred by the Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority under its direction by an aggressive plan to REPORT reduce their public debt. (F.10.) 12 REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 13 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 14 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 15 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to REPORT the Board of Supervisors. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), 2 provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 3 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case 4 the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 5 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the 6 implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 7 in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 8 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 9 the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or REPORT is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 10 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel REPORT matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 11 agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 12 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal 13 Code section 933.05 and Penal Code 933(c) are required from the respondents listed in the following two Response Matrices (one for cities and County and one for Joint REPORT Powers Authorities): 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT Matrix 1 REQUIRED RESPONDENTS (Cities & County) 2 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations REPORT F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 City of Anaheim REPORT 1 X X X X Mayor & City Council 4 City of Brea Mayor & 2 X X City Council REPORT City of Buena Park 5 3 X X X X Mayor & City Council City of Costa Mesa 4 X X REPORT Mayor & City Council 6 City of Fullerton 5 X X X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Fountain 7 6 Valley Mayor & City X X Council City of Garden REPORT 7 Grove Mayor & City X X X X 8 Council City of Huntington REPORT 8 Beach Mayor & City X X 9 Council City of La Habra 9 X X REPORT Mayor & City Council 10 City of Lake Forest 10 X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Mission Viejo 11 X X 11 Mayor & City Council City of San REPORT 12 Clemente Mayor & X X 12 City Council City of San Juan 13 Capistrano Mayor & X X REPORT City Council 13 City of Santa Ana 14 X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Seal Beach 14 15 X X Mayor & City Council City of Stanton 16 X X X X REPORT Mayor & City Council 15 City of Tustin Mayor 17 X X X X & City Council REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT Required Respondents Findings Recommendations 2 F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REPORT 0 3 City of Westminster 18 X X X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Yorba Linda 19 X X 4 Mayor & City Council Orange County 20 X X REPORT Auditor-Controller 5 Matrix 2 REQUIRED RESPONDENTS (Joint Powers Authorities) REPORT 6 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 0 1 Anaheim Community X X X Center Authority REPORT 2 Anaheim Housing and 8 X X X Public Improve. Auth. Anaheim Public X X X X X X X REPORT Financing Authority 9 4 Big Independent Cities X X X Excess Pool 5 Bonita Canyon Public REPORT X X X Facilities Fin. Auth. 10 6 Brea Community X X X Benefits Financing Auth. REPORT 7 Brea Public Financing X X X X X 11 Authority 8 Buena Park Public Financing Authority X X X X X X X REPORT 9 California Insurance Pool 12 X X X Authority 10 Capistrano Unified Public REPORT X X X X X X X Financing Auth. 13 11 Central Net Operations X X X X X Authority REPORT 12 City of Brea Midbury X X X X X X 14 Assessment Auth. City of Fullerton Public X X X X X X X Financing Auth. REPORT 14 City of San Clemente 15 X X X X X X X Public Fin. Auth. Coastal Animal Services REPORT X X X X X Authority 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT 2 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 0 16 Coastal District X X X Financing Authority REPORT 17 Co-Op- Org. Develop. Employee Selec.Proced. X X X 18 Costa Mesa Public X X X X X REPORT Finance Authority 5 19 Countywide Public X X X X X X X X Finance Authority 20 Fountain Valley REPORT X X X X X X X Financing Authority 6 21 Fullerton Arboretum X X X Authority REPORT 22 Fullerton Library Building X X X X X X X 7 Authority 23 Fullerton School District X X X X X REPORT Financing Auth. 8 24 Garden Grove Public X X X X X X X X X Financing Authority 25 Huntington Beach Public REPORT X X X X X Financing Auth. 9 26 Independent Cities Risk X X X X X Management Auth. REPORT 27 Integrated Law and X X X X X 10 Justice Agency for OC 28 Irvine Child Care Project X X X X X REPORT 29 Irvine Unified School 11 X X X District Financing Auth. Joint Powers Employee REPORT Benefit Authority X X X 12 31 La Habra Civic X X X X X X X Improvement Authority REPORT 32 Metro Cities Fire X X X X X 13 Authority 33 Mission Viejo Commu. X X X X X X X Devel. Fin. Auth. REPORT 34 National Water Research 14 X X X X X Institute 35 Newport-Mesa United X X X X X X X REPORT School Fin. Auth. 15 36 North Net Joint Powers X X X X X Training Agree. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT Required Respondents Findings Recommendations 2 F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REPORT 0 3 37 Northern OC Self- Funded Workers X X X Comp..Auth. REPORT 38 Northern OC Lia. & 4 X X X Property Self-Insu.Auth. Orange County Cities X X X REPORT Airport Authority 5 40 Orange County Civic X X X X X Center Authority REPORT 41 Orange County Council X X X X X of Governments 6 42 Orange County Fire X X X X X Authority REPORT 43 Orange County Fringe X X X 7 Benefits Agreement 44 Orange County Public X X X Financing Authority REPORT 45 Orange County-City X X X 8 Hazardous Matl. Auth. Orange Uni. School X X X X X Distr. Public Fin. Auth. REPORT 47 Public Cable Television 9 X X X Authority 48 Rancho Canada X X X X X Financing Authority REPORT 49 Rancho Santa Margarita 10 X X X X X Public Fin. Auth 50 Saddleback Valley X X X REPORT Unified Sch. Fin. Auth. San Joaquin Trans. X X X X X Corridor Agency 52 San Juan Basin Authority X X X REPORT 53 Santa Ana Financing 12 X X X X X X X Authority 54 Santa Ana River Flood X X X Protection Agency REPORT 55 Santa Margarita-Dana 13 X X X Point Authority 56 Santiago Aqueduct X X X REPORT Commission 57 School Employers 14 X X X Association of California 58 Seal Beach Public X X X X X X X REPORT Financing Authority 15 59 South Coast Water X X X District Financing Auth. South Orange County X X X REPORT Public Financing Auth. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT 2 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 0 61 South Orange County X X X Wastewater Auth. REPORT 62 Southern Orange County X X X 4 Prop/Lia. Self Insu. Stanton Public Financing X X X X X X X X X Authority REPORT 64 The Foothill Trans. X X X X X 5 Corridor Agency 65 Trabuco Canyon Public X X X Financing Authority REPORT 66 Tustin Public Financing 6 X X X X X X X X X Authority 67 Tustin Unified School X X X X X District Fin. Auth. REPORT 68 West Cities Commun. X X X X X Cntr. Joint Powers Auth. Western Orange County X X X REPORT Self-Funded Comp 70 Westminster Public 8 X X X X X X X X X Finance Authority 71 Yorba Linda Public X X X X X X X REPORT Finance Authority 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT REFERENCES 2 Cypher, T. & Grinnell, C. (2007). Governments Working Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements. California State Legislature, Senate Local REPORT Government Committee Report. State of California Constitution. Article XVI. Section 18. “Debt”. REPORT State of California Government Code Section 6500. Joint Exercise of Powers Act 4 State of California Senate Bill No. 282. (2001). Chapter 288, Amended Section REPORT 12463.1 [Government Code]. REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
There is a lack of transparency to homeowners relative to how CFD funds are 3 being used. REPORT
F2:
There does not seem to be appropriate oversight and auditing of CFDs and 4 special tax expenditures within the County of Orange.
F3:
While the assumption is that the CFD debt would be repaid in a finite period of REPORT time, there is a mechanism available to controlling entities to extend debt 5 obligations and thereby extend the CFD special tax in perpetuity. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 6 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency REPORT affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be 7 submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Community Facilities Districts (Mello-Roos): REPORT Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation”, the 2014-2015 Orange 8 County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations: REPORT
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Each local agency that established the CFD should create an oversight 9 committee and an audit committee to provide for an independent, transparent view of the manner in which CFD funds are being expended. (F.1, F.2) REPORT
R2:
Audit report information, as delineated in California Government Code, 1982 § 10 53343.1, should be made available to the CFD taxpayers on a website after each fiscal year for each CFD number. (F.1, F.2) REPORT 11 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code § 933 requires the governing body of any public REPORT agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, 12 to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 13 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 14 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT 15 Furthermore, California Penal Code § 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report REPORT one of the following actions: 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT 6 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being REPORT investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when 8 applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 11 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required for Findings F.1, F.2 and F.3 and for REPORT Recommendations R.1 and R.2 from the following organizations: 13 Orange County Board of Supervisors REPORT The mayors and city councils of the following cities: 14 City of Anaheim REPORT City of Brea 15 City of Buena Park REPORT City of Cypress 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT City of Dana Point 2 City of Fullerton REPORT City of Hunting Beach 3 City of Irvine REPORT City of Mission Viejo 4 City of Orange REPORT City of Placentia 5 City of San Clemente REPORT 6 City of Seal Beach City of Tustin REPORT 7 Public Agencies: Bonita Public Facilities Financing Authority– REPORT 8 A Joint Powers Authority under the Newport Mesa Unified School District and the City of Newport Beach REPORT Brea Olinda Unified School District 9 Capistrano Unified School District REPORT 10 Fullerton Joint Union High School District Fullerton School District REPORT 11 Irvine Unified School District La Habra Redevelopment Agency – REPORT 12 A Redevelopment Agency under the City of La Habra Laguna Beach Unified School District REPORT 13 Los Alamitos Unified School District REPORT Newport-Mesa Unified School District 14 Orange Unified School District REPORT Placentia – Yorba Linda Unified School District 15 Saddleback Unified School District REPORT Tustin Unified School District 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT REFERENCES 2 California Government Code (1982). Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. Sacramento, CA. REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT APPENDIX: ORANGE COUNTY CFDS LONG TERM DEBT 2 Community Name/ REPORT Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD 3 Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number Roos REPORT 4 Multiple capital Aliso Viejo improvements,public 2005-01 $34,070,000 $33,945,000 REPORT works (Glenwood) 5 Multiple capital REPORT improvements,public 6 06-2 $9,060,000 $8,250,000 works (Platinum Triangle) REPORT 7 Multiple capital improvements, public 08-1 $28,630,000 $27,095,000 REPORT works (Platinum 8 Triangle) Multiple capital REPORT Anaheim improvements, public 1989-1 $4,220,000 $1,045,000 9 works((Sycamore Canyon) REPORT Multiple capital 10 improvements, public 1989-2 $6,990,000 $1,725,000 works((The Highlands) REPORT 11 Multiple capital improvements, public 1989-3 $9,085,000 $1,530,000 REPORT works((The Summit) 12 REPORT 13 Bonita Canyon Public Facilities K-12 School Facility 98-1 $38,330,000 $37,735,000 REPORT Financing 14 Authority REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 1988-1 $2,580,000 $1,900,000 works((Fairway Ctr) REPORT Multiple capital 5 improvements, public 1990-1 $1,478,000 $158,000 works(Imperial Ctr REPORT East) 6 Multiple capital Brea improvements, public 1996-1 $3,235,000 $1,765,000 REPORT works(Downtown) 7 Multiple capital improvements, public 1997-1 $6,665,000 $5,165,000 REPORT works(Olinda Heights) 8 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 2008-2 $8,145,000 $8,095,000 9 works(Brea Plaza area) REPORT 10 K-12 School Facility 95-1 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 Brea Olinda Unified School K-12 School Facility ( REPORT District Olinda 95-1 $6,440,444 $4,995,000 11 Height)Refunding REPORT Multiple capital 12 Buena Park improvements, public 2001-1 $7,655,000 $6,655,000 works(Mall) REPORT 13 K-12 School Facility 87-1 $71,810,000 $41,025,000 REPORT (Refunding) 14 Capistrano Unified School K-12 School Facility 88-1 $12,755,000 $2,570,000 District (Refunding) REPORT 15 K-12 School Facility 90-2 $49,675,000 $47,335,000 (Talega) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT K-12 School Facility 90-2 $44,980,000 $40,820,000 4 (Talega)Refunding K-12 School Facility REPORT 92-1 $31,360,000 $18,410,000 (Las Flores) 5 K-12 School Facility 98-2 $119,099,491 $107,499,491 (Ladera) REPORT 6 K-12 School Facility (Rancho Madrina Sch. 2004-1 $7,085,000 $6,725,000 Facs & Cap Imp) REPORT 7 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public Cypress 1 $9,705,000 $3,785,000 8 works (Sorrento Homes) REPORT 9 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT Dana Point 2006-1 $8,710,000 $0 works (Headlands Rev 10 Dev.) Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 11 2006-1 $17,885,000 $17,885,000 works (Headlands Rev Dev)(Refunding) REPORT 12 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 1 $21,375,000 $0 13 works (Amerige Heights) Fullerton REPORT Multiple capital 14 improvements, public 1 $19,040,000 $19,040,000 works (Amerige Heights) (Refunding) REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT 4 Fullerton Joint K-12 School Facility Union High (District & Buena Park 2005-1 $2,050,000 $1,785,000 School District Sch. Facs ) REPORT 5 Other, multiple REPORT 2000-1 $1,195,000 $960,000 educational use 6 Fullerton School District K-12 School Facility 2001-1 $9,725,000 $7,757,500 REPORT Parks, open space 2001-1 $9,725,000 $3,878,750 7 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 8 works 1990-1 $2,155,000 $1,145,000 (Goldenwest/Ellis REPORT Area)(Refunding) 9 Multiple capital improvements, public 2000-1 $16,000,000 $13,330,000 REPORT works(Grand Coast 10 Resort) Huntington Beach Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 11 2002-1 $4,900,000 $4,670,000 works(McDonnell Centre Business PK) REPORT 12 Multiple capital improvements, public 2003-1 $25,000,000 $21,595,000 REPORT works(Huntington Ctr 13 Bella Terra) REPORT 14 Multiple capital improvements, public Irvine 2005-2 $24,375,000 $21,540,000 works(Columbus REPORT Grove) 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 4 2005-2 $16,975,000 $16,975,000 works(Columbus Grove) Refunding REPORT 5 K-12School facility 86-1 $96,565,000 $73,685,000 REPORT (Bond) Refunding 6 K-12School facility (S Irvine Communities) 01-1 $103,475,000 $99,715,000 REPORT Refunding 7 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT works(Northwood 04-1 $9,000,000 $8,745,000 8 Master Planned Community) REPORT Multiple capital 9 improvements, public works (Woodbury 04-2 $38,000,000 $35,903,130 REPORT Master IA A Planned 10 Irvine Unified Community) School District REPORT Multiple capital 11 improvements, public works (Woodbury 04-2 $23,935,000 $21,610,000 Master IA B Planned REPORT Community) 12 K-12 School facility (Portola Springs) 06-1 $13,075,000 $6,715,000 REPORT (Refunding) 13 K-12 school facility (Qualified School 09-1 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 REPORT Construction Bond ) 14 K-12 school facility 09-1 $63,640,000 $63,640,000 REPORT (Series A) 15 K-12 school facility 09-1 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 (Series B) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital La Habra 4 improvements, public Redevelopment 1990-1 $3,185,000 $154,000 works (Marketplace) Agency REPORT (Refunding) 5 K-12 school facility REPORT 98-1 $9,970,000 $0 (Refunding) 6 Laguna Beach Multiple capital Unified School improvements, public District 98-1 $9,330,000 $9,330,000 REPORT works (Crystal Cove) 7 (Refunding) REPORT K-12School facility 90-1 $3,240,000 $0 8 Los Alamitos Refunding Unified School K-12School facility REPORT District 90-1 $3,240,000 $0 Refunding Measure K 9 REPORT Flood Control, Storm 10 Mission Viejo Drainage(LaPaz 92-1 $2,060,000 $1,670,000 channel) (Refunding) REPORT 11 K-12School facility REPORT Newport-Mesa 90-1 $20,735,000 $0 Refunding 12 Unified School K-12School facility District 90-1 $9,720,000 $9,720,000 Refunding REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 4 works(Serrano 91-2 $35,330,000 $0 Heights Pub Imp) REPORT (Series A) Refund 5 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT works (Serrano 91-2 $2,200,000 $0 6 Heights Pub Imp) Orange (Series B) Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 7 works (Serrano 91-2 $28,810,000 $28,810,000 Heights Pub Imp) REPORT Refund 8 Multiple capital improvements, public 06-1 $24,975,000 $24,945,000 REPORT works (Del Rio) 9 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 10 86-1 $32,335,000 $11,665,000 works (Rancho Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT 11 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT works(Rancho Santa 86-2 $10,975,000 $598,000 12 Margarita/Saddleback) Refund REPORT Orange County Bridges and 13 Highways(Rancho 86-2 $8,005,000 $1,100,000 Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT Commercial 14 development Bus Pk 87-1 $762,808 $743,414 (Refunding) REPORT Multiple capital 15 improvements, public 87-2 $24,080,000 $4,530,000 works(Portola Hills) REPORT Refund 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 87-3 $49,697,035 $10,988,000 works(Mission Viejo) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 5 improvements, public 87-4 $71,435,333 $25,179,820 works(Foothill Ranch) REPORT Refund 6 K-12 School 87-4 $10,815,000 $5,865,000 facility(Foothill Ranch) REPORT 7 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-5A $8,863,770 $924,268 REPORT works(Rancho Santa 8 Margarita) Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 9 87-5B $27,396,720 $7,639,334 works(Rancho Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT 10 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-5C $15,221,979 $5,363,907 works(Rancho Santa REPORT Margarita) Refund 11 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 87-5D $12,042,509 $4,746,180 12 works(Rancho Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 13 improvements, public 87-5E $12,780,000 $5,385,000 works(Rancho Santa REPORT Margarita) Refund 14 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-6 $9,330,000 $1,860,000 REPORT works(Baker Ranch) 15 Refund REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 4 87-7 $17,425,000 $3,475,000 works(Los Alisos) Refund REPORT Street construction 5 and improvement 87-8 $30,412,976 $10,894,283 (Coto de Caza) REPORT Refunding 6 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-9 $4,050,000 $805,000 works(Los Alisos) REPORT Refund 7 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 87-9 $2,335,000 $475,000 8 works(Santa Teresita) Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 88-1 $207,845,000 $31,455,000 9 works(Aliso Viejo) Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 10 88-2 $1,775,000 $340,000 works(Lomas Laguna) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 11 improvements, public 99-1 $22,560,000 $19,505,000 works(Lomas Laguna) REPORT Refund 12 Multiple capital improvements, public 2001-1 $28,890,000 $25,130,000 REPORT works(Ladera Ranch) 13 Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 2001-1 $32,565,000 $29,315,000 14 works(Ladera Ranch) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 15 improvements, public 2002-1 $68,280,000 $64,495,000 works(Ladera Ranch) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 2003-1 $57,185,000 $54,825,000 works(Ladera Ranch) REPORT Multiple capital 5 improvements, public 2004-1 $75,645,000 $71,745,000 works(Ladera Ranch) REPORT 6 K-12 school facility REPORT (Santiago Hills) 88-1 $4,625,000 $900,000 7 Refunding K-12 school facility (Sycamore Canyon) 89-1 $4,250,000 $740,000 REPORT Refunding 8 K-12 school facility Orange Unified 89-2 $9,095,000 $1,780,000 Refunding REPORT School District K-12 school facility 9 Tremont School & City 2005-1 $654,000 $6,385,000 Facs REPORT K-12 school facility 10 (Del Rio Riverbend) 2005-2 $5,920,000 $5,785,000 Refunding REPORT 11 Placentia 89-1 $0 REPORT 12 Placentia - K-12 school facility 1 $5,505,000 $0 Yorba Linda K-12 school facility REPORT Unified School 1 $6,730,000 $6,730,000 Refunding 13 District REPORT K-12 school facility 88-1 $2,365,000 $1,490,000 14 K-12 school facility Saddleback 88-1 $8,635,000 $5,280,000 (Town Center) Valley Unified REPORT K-12 school facility School District 15 (Rancho Cielo) 88-2 $3,525,000 $1,270,000 Refunding REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos K-12 school facility REPORT (Robinson Ranch) 89-1 $8,250,000 $3,190,000 4 Refunding K-12 school facility 89-2 $15,686,602 $6,731,602 REPORT Refunding 5 K-12 school facility (Rancho Trabuco) 89-2 $3,208,398 $1,890,000 REPORT Refunding 6 K-12 school facility 89-3 $12,213,718 $5,238,718 Refunding REPORT K-12 school facility 7 (Rancho Trabuco) 89-3 $891,282 $525,000 Refunding K-12 school facility REPORT (Dove Canyon) 89-4 $4,465,000 $535,000 8 Refunding K-12 school facility REPORT (Dove Canyon) 89-4 $970,000 $955,000 9 Refunding REPORT Multiple capital 10 San Clemente improvements, public 99-1 $5,005,000 $4,850,000 works Refund REPORT 11 K-12 school facility Santa Ana Central Park(School REPORT Unified School Facs, Irvine Ranch 2004-1 $11,785,000 $11,355,000 12 District WD & Orange County Fire Authority) REPORT 13 Water supply, storage, REPORT 99-1 $63,480,000 $58,290,000 distribution (Talega) 14 Santa Refunding Margarita Multiple capital REPORT Water District improvements, public 99-1 $38,710,000 $37,920,000 15 works(Talega A&B) Refund REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 2002-01 $3,985,000 $3,610,000 works(Heron Point) REPORT Seal Beach Multiple capital 5 improvements, public works(Pacific 2005-01 $8,800,000 $8,595,000 REPORT Gateway Business 6 Ctr.) REPORT Flood control, storm 7 drainage (Tustin 04-1 $11,415,000 $9,845,000 Legacy/ john Laing REPORT Homes) 8 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT 04-1 $9,350,000 $9,350,000 works (Tustin Legacy/ 9 john Laing Homes)Refunding REPORT Multiple capital 10 improvements, public 06-1 $53,570,000 $52,580,000 Tustin works (Legacy & REPORT Columbia Villages 11 Zones 1&2) Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 12 06-1 $1,675,000 $1,600,000 works (Legacy & Columbia Villages REPORT Zones 1&2) 13 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 07-1 $13,680,000 $13,550,000 14 works (Legacy/Retail Center) REPORT 15 K-12 Schools Facility- Tustin Unified (Tustin 88-1 $64,615,000 $47,955,000 School District Ranch)Refunding REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT K-12 Schools Facility- 97-1 $87,697,675 $83,332,675 4 Sr Series A Refunding REPORT K-12 Schools Facility- 97-1 $14,090,000 $13,220,000 5 Sr Series B Refunding K-12 Schools Facility- REPORT Elementary, Middle, 06-1 $13,560,000 $13,545,000 6 High (Columbus Square) K-12 school facility REPORT 07-1 $90,500,000 $90,500,000 Refunding 7 Total Total Original Bond Principal REPORT Districts CFDs Value Outstanding 8 32 119 $2,701,562,740 $1,909,301,072 (Grand Jury, 2014-2015) REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that all previous recommendations by prior Grand Juries 13 concerning the physical status of the primary Emergency Operations Center have been adequately addressed. REPORT 14 F.2. The Grand Jury finds that the backup system for Internet data communications at the Loma Ridge Emergency Operations Center is a limited capability satellite link, which is far less capable than the primary system and may prove to be REPORT inadequate. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Emergency Operations 1
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that a comprehensive, feasible alternate Emergency REPORT Operations Center plan with multiple site options and activation instructions has 2 not been developed. REPORT
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that a mock exercise to test the alternate plan and to teach 3 participants what to do in the event of a loss of the primary Emergency Operations Center at Loma Ridge has not been held in over ten years. REPORT 4 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013- REPORT 2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected 5 by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT Based on its investigation of Orange County Emergency Operations in Orange 6 County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations: REPORT 7
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that an additional high-speed network connection to Loma Ridge be installed to provide Internet redundancy to mitigate risk of degraded communications. Consider installing a separate underground fiber REPORT optic cable feed to the Emergency Operations Center. (F.2.) 8
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that a comprehensive, feasible alternate REPORT Emergency Operations Center plan be developed, with multiple site options and 9 activation instructions. (F.3.)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that regularly scheduled exercise drills be held to REPORT test the alternate Emergency Operations Center backup plan and train all 10 participants in the procedures to be followed in the event of loss of the primary Emergency Operations Center at Loma Ridge. (F.4.) REPORT 11 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public REPORT agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, 12 to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 13 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 14 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT 15 Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Emergency Operations REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall REPORT include an explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 6 in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department REPORT being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency 8 when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 11 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Responses Required: 13
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
OC LAFCO’s has failed to effectively fulfill its legislative mandate to proactively pursue efficiency of local governmental organizations by restructuring them and reshaping their boundaries in a logical, orderly, and timely manner.
F2:
OC LAFCO has failed to use its latent power to initiate, let alone obtain, a single consolidation since the Legislature delegated this authority to it 22 years ago.
F3:
OC LAFCO discontinued its Unincorporated Islands Program, Unincorporated Islands Incentive Program, and Stakeholder Plan, all of which enabled it to streamline and fast-track the annexation process.
F4:
The County of Orange has withdrawn assistance to OC LAFCO in its effort to annex unincorporated islands by terminating its robust Unincorporated Islands Revitalization and Annexation Strategy and by withdrawing the assigned analyst who previously was on loan to OC LAFCO to provide fiscal analysis and data in support of island annexations.
F5:
The County of Orange has failed to facilitate and assist OC LAFCO in its annexation efforts by not offering greater incentives to both the annexing cities and the islands to be annexed, such as infrastructure improvements, property-tax exchange, and cost-sharing agreements, through memoranda of understanding and pre-annexation agreements.
F6:
By requiring staff to check with the Orange County supervisor in whose district an island lies before commencing an annexation proposal OC LAFCO is risking a loss of independence and objectivity. .
F7:
OC LAFCO discontinued the Islands Community Task Force, which has impacted its annexation efforts. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014-2015 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 17 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Orange County LAFCO should proceed to identify and prioritize special district consolidations and mergers, commence the necessary studies, and then initiate the appropriate petitions or proposals. (F.1., F.2.)
R2:
Orange County LAFCO should revive and reinstate its Unincorporated Islands Program and Community Islands Task Force, and it should expand its Unincorporated Islands Incentive Program and Stakeholder Plan to streamline and fast-track the annexation effort. (F.3.)
R3:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should revive and reinstate its Community Revitalization and Annexation Strategy and dedicate an analyst from the County Finance Office, whose sole duties would be to assist Orange County LAFCO with its efforts to promote annexation of the remaining unincorporated islands. (F.4.)
R4:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors should assist OC LAFCO in facilitating and expediting the annexation effort by offering greater incentives to both the annexing cities and the islands to be annexed, such as infrastructure improvements, fiscal subsidies, MOUs, and cost-sharing agreements. In addition, the County should consider imposing a special assessment on the island property to help defray the County’s costs of providing municipal services to those islands. (F.5.)
R5:
Orange County LAFCO’s practice of deferring to the Orange County Supervisor in whose district an island lies should be changed to better allow OC LAFCO to fulfill its role independently and objectively. (F.6.)
R6:
Orange County LAFCO should revive and reconstitute the Unincorporated Islands Community Task Force and set specific goals to expedite annexations of all remaining small islands by a certain date and annexations of all large islands by another date certain. (F.7.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 17 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: The Orange County LAFCO Board of Commissioners is required to respond to Findings F.1, F.2., F.3., F.6., and F.7.; and Recommendations R.1., R.2., R.5., and R.6. The Orange County Board of Supervisors is required to respond to Findings F.4. and F.5.; and Recommendations R.3., and R.4. REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 17 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F2:
The current need and demand for involuntary psychiatric emergency services in South Orange County is not being met. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs 1 REPORT
F3:
The County has an insufficient number of psychiatric beds to provide in-patient 2 care to mentally ill clients who are not able to be referred to less restrictive treatment. REPORT
F4:
Although a plan is in place at CHOC for an 18-bed unit to open in 2017, there are 3 currently no psychiatric beds in Orange County for children under the age of 12.
F5:
The Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee has no direct representation REPORT from local designated private hospitals. 4
F6:
Given the language in the California Code of Regulations and the Welfare and REPORT Institutions Code regarding funding for involuntary treatment, the issue of using 5 Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary psychiatric clients who are gravely disabled or a danger to self or others, is unclear. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 6 In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 7 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Mental Health: Crisis 8 Intervention Programs”, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations: REPORT
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue with the planned expansion of the Evaluation Treatment Services 9 facility in Santa Ana and convert it to a Psychiatric Evaluation Services model of care that includes basic medical services currently provided 5150 clients by REPORT private hospital emergency departments. (F.1.) 10
R2:
Add an additional Evaluation Treatment Services facility to be located in South Orange County and initiate substantive, concrete efforts to do so in Fiscal Year REPORT 2015-2016. (F.2.) 11
R3:
Continue efforts to locate and secure commitments for additional psychiatric beds in Orange County and nearby adjacent counties in order to increase the REPORT number of beds available for County use. (F.3.) 12
R4:
Follow-up on the planned children’s psychiatric unit at CHOC and continue to REPORT work with appropriate private hospitals in Orange County in an effort to provide 13 additional psychiatric beds for children in Orange County. (F.4.)
R5:
Add Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee representation from REPORT designated private hospitals that have demonstrated effectiveness in evaluating 14 and treating Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 clients in crisis situations. (F.5.)
R6:
Request an opinion from County Counsel regarding the purported restrictions on REPORT using Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary mental health programs. 15 (F.6.) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 2 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 3 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 4 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 5 official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as 6 follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 7 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case 8 the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 9 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the 10 implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented REPORT in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 11 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 12 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of REPORT the Grand Jury report. 13 (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or REPORT is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 14 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the REPORT agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by 15 the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs 1 REPORT response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the 2 findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal REPORT Code section 933.05 are required from: 3 Responses Required: REPORT Responses to Findings F.1. through F.6. and Recommendations R.1. through 4
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
While the Board of Supervisors has officially recognized the need to have REPORT comprehensive management of County real estate, there does not appear to 14 exist any sense of priority or urgency in the County relative to the development of a complete, up-to-date database. REPORT
F2:
Management of County real estate assets is decentralized, and individual 15 departments track property under their purview. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? REPORT
F3:
The County does not have a single, comprehensive, accurate real estate 2 database with information that can be used by the County departments.
F4:
Having a comprehensive County real estate database would be beneficial in REPORT managing County real estate assets and support prudent decision making. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 4 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted REPORT to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Real Estate in Orange County, the 2014-2015 REPORT Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations: 6
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should create a regularly updated database that includes information that will improve the stewardship of County real estate. This database should REPORT include a comprehensive, uniform list of data elements so that all County 7 departments can benefit from its use. The Grand Jury recommends the following data items be included at a minimum: REPORT 8 1. Building address 2. Assessor’s Parcel Number 3. Description of property REPORT 4. Date of acquisition 9 5. Building Number 6. Relationship to other properties, if appropriate REPORT 7. Property size: 10 a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage REPORT c. Land square footage or acres 11 8. Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space) REPORT 9. Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage 12 10. Non-occupied space by square footage 11. Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned REPORT b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) 13 c. Leased to County by private owner d. Leased to OCFCD by private owner REPORT e. Leased to private party by the County of Orange 14 f. Leased to private party by the OCFCD 12. Contract terms for County income-generating property REPORT 13. Maintenance information, including responsibility 15 14. Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates REPORT b. Monthly lease payments 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? 1 REPORT c. Cost per square foot 2 d. Restrictions e. Options 15. Is the property vacant land or open space? REPORT 16. Is the property not available for use? If so, why? 3 17. Transaction Value 18. Depreciated Value REPORT 19. Information on upgrades, remodeling 4 20. Insurance coverage 21. Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil REPORT contamination 5 22. Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.) REPORT 6
R2:
The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider REPORT the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County’s real estate to 7 help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.)
R3:
The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to REPORT create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should 8 include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 9 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 10 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 11 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s REPORT control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board 12 of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as 13 follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate REPORT one of the following: 14 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which 15 case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? REPORT (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall 2 report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding REPORT the implemented action. 3 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be REPORT implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 4 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for REPORT the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the 5 agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame REPORT shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury 6 report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted 7 or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or REPORT personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected 8 officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board REPORT of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over 9 which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 10 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT 11 Responses Required: Board of Supervisors (BOS): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. REPORT 12 Responses Requested: REPORT 13 County Executive Officer (CEO): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. REPORT Chief Real Estate Officer (CREO): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? 1 REPORT REFERENCES 2 Alliant Insurance Services. (n.d.). CSAC-EIA property schedule: Orange County. Newport Beach, CA: Author. REPORT Flock, E. (2012, June 15). Thousands of costly federal buildings lie unused-And 3 problem could be worse than we thought. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from of-costly-federal-buildings-lie-unused--and-problem-could-be-worse-than- REPORT we-thought. Ingraham, C. (2014, March 14). The U.S. government owns thousands of unused REPORT buildings it doesn’t know what to do with. Washington Post. Retrieved from 5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/14/the-u-s- government-owns-thousands-of-unused-buildings-it-doesnt-know-what-to-do- with/ REPORT 6 LA Consulting. (2012, May). Orange County Public Works: OC Facilities & Real Estate: Operations. Final report. Manhattan Beach, CA: Author. REPORT 7 Orange County Executive Office. (2014, September 24). Organizational chart (Budget control & position unit no. 017-6050). Santa Ana, CA. Author REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
R4:
Date of acquisition 9
R6:
Relationship to other properties, if appropriate REPORT
R7:
Property size: 10 a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage REPORT c. Land square footage or acres 11 8. Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space) REPORT 9. Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage 12 10. Non-occupied space by square footage
R11:
Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned REPORT b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) 13 c. Leased to County by private owner d. Leased to OCFCD by private owner REPORT e. Leased to private party by the County of Orange 14 f. Leased to private party by the OCFCD
R12:
Contract terms for County income-generating property REPORT 13. Maintenance information, including responsibility 15 14. Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates REPORT b. Monthly lease payments 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? 1 REPORT c. Cost per square foot 2 d. Restrictions e. Options
R15:
Is the property vacant land or open space? REPORT
R16:
Is the property not available for use? If so, why? 3
R18:
Depreciated Value REPORT
R19:
Information on upgrades, remodeling 4
R21:
Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil REPORT contamination 5
R22:
Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.) REPORT 6 R.2. The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider REPORT the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County’s real estate to 7 help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.) R.3. The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to REPORT create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should 8 include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.) REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Numerous provisions contained in the Memorandum of Understanding are 12 ambiguous as they relate to medical insurance coverage for Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs active and retiree members. REPORT 13 F.2. There are no limitations in the Memorandum of Understanding on how the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust’s reserves are to be used, REPORT what should be done if the reserve is over-funded, or what would happen to the 14 funds in the Blue Cross Stabilization Fund when the agreement between the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust and Blue Cross is terminated. REPORT 15
F3:
The County has not insisted that the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust have a formal anti-fraud program, accounting policy and procedure REPORT manuals, or disaster recovery plan. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT
F4:
The jointly retained auditor selection process does not guarantee that the three 2 auditor candidates are qualified, willing to do the work if selected, and will actually do the work if selected. REPORT
F5:
The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust has subsidized retirees’ 3 health benefits. REPORT
F6:
Contrary to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Association of 4 Orange County Deputy Sheriffs employees are receiving health care coverage from the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust. REPORT
F7:
Auditors have noted a number of internal control deficiencies related to the 5 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust. REPORT
F8:
Allowing only one Reserve study and one Administrative fee study during the 6 entire term of the Memorandum of Understanding is inadequate.
F9:
There is a general lack of transparency in the Memorandum of Understanding REPORT negotiation and approval process. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 8 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted REPORT to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: Transparency Problems Abound,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the REPORT 10 following ten recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should retain a qualified, experienced, and independent negotiator to REPORT assist in the next negotiations between Orange County and the Association of 11 Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and require that entity to prepare an internally consistent Memorandum of Understanding that, for example, makes it clear REPORT whether the Orange County contributions are to be used only for active 12 employees. (F.1.)
R2:
The County should retain a qualified, experienced, and independent negotiator to REPORT incorporate clear terms in the Memorandum Of Understanding that define 13 limitations on the use of Orange County contributions that become reserve funds, specify how to deal with over-funding, and resolve what is to become of the funds REPORT in the Premium Stabilization Fund if the Trust’s agreement with Blue Cross is 14 terminated. (F.2.)
R3:
The County should ensure that an anti-fraud program, accounting policies and REPORT procedures manuals, and a disaster recovery plan are developed, implemented, 15 and maintained by the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust. (F.3.) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT 2
R4:
The County should require the County and the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust to have each of the three-candidate auditor firms sign a REPORT firm commitment that the nominees meet specified qualifications, want the 3 business, and will do the business, if selected. (F.4.)
R5:
If the County is convinced that Sheriff retirees should not be benefiting from REPORT monthly County contributions to the Trust, the County should seek 4 reimbursement from the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust for funds that the County believes are inappropriately used, e.g., Trust funds used to REPORT subsidize retirees medical insurance premiums. (F.5) 5
R6:
The County should seek reimbursement from the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust for funds that the County believes are inappropriately used, REPORT e.g., Trust funds used to pay for Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs 6 employees’ medical insurance. (F.6) REPORT
R7:
The County should seek to include terms in the next Orange County and 7 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Memorandum of Understanding that require that the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust have REPORT specific additional appropriate and necessary controls in place, and require that 8 the Trust fully implement and maintain the Memorandum of Understanding controls the Trust currently has. (F.7.) REPORT
R8:
The County should seek to include provisions in the next Orange County and 9 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Memorandum of Understanding, requiring that Administrative Fees Assessments and Reserve Studies be REPORT performed more often than once a term and contain specifications and 10 guarantees of active, equal control/access/involvement by Orange County. (F.8.)
R9:
The County should support and take full advantage of Orange County’s Civic REPORT Openness in Negotiations - “COIN” ordinance in future Orange County and 11 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriff’s Memorandum of Understanding negotiations and approval processes. (F.9.) REPORT 12 R.10. The County, at the conclusion of the term of the current Memorandum of Understanding, should seriously consider discontinuing its agreement with the REPORT Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and instead take back its rightful 13 responsibility for administering the medical insurance program(s) for all qualified County of Orange employees. (F.1. through F.9.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 14 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 15 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 16 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 2
R10:
The County, at the conclusion of the term of the current Memorandum of (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 12 Understanding, should seriously consider discontinuing its agreement with the matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and instead take back its rightful agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT responsibility for administering the medical insurance program(s) for all qualified the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 13 County of Orange employees. (F.1. through F.9.) budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT section 933.05 are required from: to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 15 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such Responses Required: comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 16 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT Responses to Findings F.1. through F.9. and to Recommendations R.1. through 2
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All of the funds related to Great Park financial activity should be presented as a separate section in the City’s CAFR to allow for greater transparency (F4; F9).
R3:
The City of Irvine should create and consider adopting an ordinance similar to that adopted in other cities, such as Mission Viejo8, that limits the interference and influence of City Council members with the operational aspects of the city. (F1; F2; F4).
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F2:
Deputy Sheriffs and police officers receive insufficient training regarding Laura’s 6 Law.
F3:
Orange County’s Centralized Assessment Team is inadequate in that it takes too REPORT long for them to respond to the scene to assist police officers in their evaluations 7 of the mentally ill. REPORT F.4. Orange County’s mental illness triage system is inadequate in that there are no 8 field screening protocols that would allow medical clearance in the field by law enforcement personnel or paramedics. REPORT
F5:
Orange County’s mental illness triage system is inadequate in that the police 9 agencies either do not have a triage desk to advise and assist officers in the field or do not have psychiatric crisis mobile response teams at their disposal. REPORT 10 F.6. Orange County’s Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team clinicians are insufficient in number to meet the needs of police agencies in Orange County. REPORT
F7:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Services facility is inadequate in that 11 its capacity is insufficient to permit police officers to take all the mentally ill to it and drop them off at the facility, instead of transporting the patient to a hospital REPORT emergency room. 12
F8:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Service facility is inadequate in that the County does not permit medical triage or medical clearance in the field, and REPORT therefore directs police officers to obtain medical screening for even minor health 13 conditions that could easily be treated at the facility. REPORT
F9:
Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Service facility is inadequate in that it 14 directs police officers to take the mentally ill who may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a hospital emergency room rather than to a psychiatric REPORT emergency facility. 15
F10:
Orange County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is only one Evaluation and Treatment Service facility for the entire County. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT
F11:
The County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that it does not provide 2 strategically located, stand-alone, drop-off psychiatric emergency stabilization facilities with medical treatment capability at convenient locations throughout the REPORT County. 3
F12:
The County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is no real-time, empty-bed registry to enable officers and clinicians in the field to determine bed- REPORT availability at the Evaluation and Treatment Service facility and at designated 4 hospitals. REPORT
F13:
The County’s crisis intervention system is inadequate in that there is no 5150, 5 case management, and conservatorship database in place to assist officers and clinicians in the field to triage the mentally ill who do not qualify for a 5150 hold. REPORT
F14:
The Health Care Agency has not established benchmarks and a complete 6 performance-measurement system with which to track the success and cost effectiveness of Laura’s law, as directed by the Board of Supervisors in May REPORT 2014. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 8 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted REPORT to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency,” the 2014-2015 Orange County REPORT Grand Jury makes the following 14 recommendations: 10
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All law enforcement officers should receive at least 40 hours of comprehensive REPORT Crisis Intervention Training on how to handle and evaluate the mentally ill in the 11 field with periodic refresher training. (F.1.)
R2:
All law enforcement officers should receive mandatory and specific training REPORT regarding Laura’s Law. (F.2.) 12
R3:
Orange County’s Centralized Assessment Team’s response time should be improved significantly with a goal of eventually reducing its maximum response REPORT time to less than 20 minutes. (F.3.) 13
R4:
The Orange County Health Care Agency should adopt field screening protocols REPORT to allow (a) medical clearance in the field by law enforcement personnel and/or 14 paramedics; and (b) transport by paramedics rather than police officers. (F.4.)
R5:
All law enforcement agencies should either have a psychiatric triage desk to REPORT advise and assist officers in the field or a psychiatric crisis mobile response team. 15 (F.5.) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT
R6:
The Orange County Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team staff should be 2 increased significantly so that an embedded clinician can be placed with each law enforcement agency and can provide service 24/7 if requested. (F.6.) REPORT 3 R.7. Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities should be expanded to easily accommodate all 5150 walk-ins and all 5150s dropped off by REPORT police, paramedic, or ambulance. (F.7.) 4
R8:
Orange County Evaluation and Treatment Services should acquire the capability of conducting limited medical screening for minor health problems and cease REPORT from directing police officers to obtain medical screening for 5150s with minor 5 health conditions that could easily be treated at Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities. (F.8.) REPORT 6 R.9. Orange County’s Evaluation and Treatment Services facilities should acquire the capability of handling 5150s who may have ingested alcohol or drugs, but who are not under the influence to such an extent that it inhibits stabilization or REPORT requires medical clearance at a hospital. (F.9.) 7
R10:
The Orange County Health Care Agency’s crisis intervention system should be REPORT expanded so as to provide a minimum of four Psychiatric Emergency Service 8 facilities—one in South County, one in Central County, one in West County, and one in North County. (F.10.) REPORT
R11:
The County’s Health Care Agency should provide strategically located, stand- 9 alone, drop-off psychiatric emergency stabilization facilities with medical treatment capability at convenient locations throughout the County. (F.11.) REPORT 10 R.12. The County’s Health Care Agency should provide a real-time, empty-bed registry to enable officers and clinicians in the field to determine immediately and accurately the current bed availability at Evaluation and Treatment Services REPORT facilities and at designated hospitals. (F.12.) 11
R13:
The County’s Health Care Agency should create and maintain a 5150, case REPORT management, and conservatorship database in place to assist officers and 12 clinicians in the field to triage the mentally ill in the field who do not qualify for a 5150 hold, but who may qualify for Laura’s Law. (F.13.) REPORT
R14:
The Health Care Agency should establish benchmarks and a complete 13 performance-measurement system with which to track the success and cost effectiveness of Laura’s law, as directed by the Board of Supervisors in May REPORT 2014. REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 15 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and REPORT recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 2 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 3 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT 4 Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 5 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 6 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case REPORT the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an 7 explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report REPORT one of the following actions: 8 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT 9 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT 10 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being REPORT investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when 11 applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT 12 (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 13 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 14 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code 2 section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Responses are required for Findings F.3 through F.14. and for 3 Recommendations R.3 through R.14. from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. REPORT Responses are required for Findings F.1 and F.2. and for Recommendations R.1. 4 and R.2.from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code 5 section 933.05 are requested from: Responses are requested for Findings F.3 through F.14. and for REPORT Recommendations R.3. through R.14.from the OC Health Care Agency. Responses are requested for Findings F.1 and F.2. and for Recommendations REPORT R.1. and R.2.from the Police Chiefs of the following cities: 7 1. Anaheim 2. Brea REPORT 3. Buena Park 8 4. Costa Mesa 5. Cypress REPORT 6. Fountain Valley 9 7. Fullerton 8. Garden Grove REPORT 9. Huntington Bch 10 10. Irvine 11. La Habra 12. La Palma REPORT 13. Laguna Beach 11 14. Los Alamitos 15. Newport Beach REPORT 16. Orange 12 17. Placentia 18. Santa Ana REPORT 19. Seal Beach 13 20. Tustin 21. Westminster REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT COMMENDATIONS 2 The Grand Jury commends the Police Department of the City of Orange, the Santa Ana Police Department, the Hospital Association of Southern California, and St. REPORT Joseph Hospital for collaborating on and producing a set of training videos for use by 3 police officers and deputy sheriffs in CIT training. The Grand Jury commends the Director of the John George Psychiatric Hospital in San Leandro, California and the REPORT Director of Behavioral Health for Alameda County for their valuable assistance. The 4 Grand Jury also commends Golden West College for developing and expanding its CIT course to 24 hours. REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT END NOTES 2 1. The Memphis Model REPORT The first CIT was established in Memphis in 1988 after the tragic shooting by a 3 police officer of a man with a serious mental illness. This tragedy stimulated a collaboration between the police, the Memphis chapter of the National Alliance on REPORT Mental Illness, the University of Tennessee Medical School, and the University of 4 Memphis to improve police training and procedures in response to mental illness. The so-called Memphis model has achieved remarkable success, having been adopted by REPORT more than 2000 communities in more than 40 states and having been implemented 5 statewide in several states. The Memphis Model of CIT has several key components: REPORT 6 A community collaboration between mental health providers, law enforcement, and family/consumer advocates, which determines the best REPORT way to transfer the mentally ill into the mental health system 7 A community coalition to ensure that there are adequate facilities for mental health triage REPORT A curriculum of specialized training to teach police officers how to interact 8 with persons experiencing a psychiatric crisis Special training to respond safely and quickly to people with serious mental illness in crisis REPORT Focused training on how to recognize the signs of psychiatric distress and 9 how to de-escalate a crisis Materials on how to link people with appropriate treatment, which has a REPORT positive impact on fostering recovery and reducing recidivism 10 The benefits of the Memphis Model of CIT are as follows: REPORT 11 Helps keep the severely mentally ill out of jail and gets them into treatment Reduces stigma and prejudice toward the severely mentally ill Reduces officer injuries and SWAT team emergencies REPORT Reduces the amount of time officers spend on the disposition of mental 12 disturbance calls REPORT 2. Defense of Laura’s Law 13 On January 3, 1999, Kendra Webdale was pushed to her death before an oncoming subway train beneath the streets of Manhattan by a man diagnosed with REPORT paranoid schizophrenia and with a history of mental illness and hospitalizations who had 14 neglected to take his prescribed medication. Responding to this tragedy, the Legislature enacted Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60 (Kendra’s Law) (L. 1999, ch. 408), thereby joining REPORT nearly 40 other states in adopting a system of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) 15 pursuant to which psychiatric patients unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision may avoid hospitalization by complying with court-ordered mental health REPORT treatment. In enacting the law, the Legislature found that there are mentally ill persons 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT who are capable of living in the community with the help of family, friends, and mental 2 health professionals, but who, without routine care and treatment, may relapse and become violent or suicidal, or require hospitalization. (L 1999, ch. 408, § 2.) In addition, REPORT in mandating that certain patients comply with essential treatment pursuant to a court- 3 ordered written treatment plan, the Legislature further found that some mentally ill persons, because of their illness, have great difficulty taking responsibility for their own care and often reject the outpatient treatment offered to them on a voluntary basis. (Id.) REPORT 4 It did not take long for the law’s constitutionality to be challenged. The question was whether the law achieved its goal of creating a mechanism to ensure that REPORT individuals who met the criteria remained treatment-compliant while in the community, in 5 a way that was consistent with the Constitutional rights of those individuals. In the Matter of K.L., 500748/00 (Sp. Ct., Queens County, 2000), the Mental Hygiene Legal REPORT Service (MHLS) moved for dismissal of a petition, arguing that the statute was 6 unconstitutional on two grounds: that it unconstitutionally deprived patients of the fundamental right to determine their own course of treatment, and that the statutory provisions concerning removal for observation following non-compliance with the AOT REPORT order are facially unconstitutional. The Attorney General of the State of New York 7 intervened to support the constitutionality of the statute. REPORT The Supreme Court rejected each of the arguments advanced by the MHLS, 8 upheld the constitutionality of Kendra’s Law, and found that it comported with due process, noting that Kendra’s Law does not permit forced medication or treatment . The REPORT Court reasoned that the restriction on a patient’s freedom affected by a court order 9 authorizing AOT is minimal, inasmuch as the coercive force of the order lies solely in the compulsion generally felt by law-abiding citizens to comply with court directives. The Court observed that although the existence of such an order and its attendant REPORT supervision increases the likelihood of voluntary compliance with necessary treatment, 10 a violation of the order, standing alone, ultimately carries no sanction. REPORT 3. The Sequential Intercept Model 11 The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and REPORT mental health systems as they address concerns about criminalization of people with 12 mental illness. The model envisions a series of points of interception at which an intervention can be made to prevent individuals from entering or penetrating deeper into REPORT the criminal justice system. The concept is that most people will be intercepted at early 13 points, with decreasing numbers at each subsequent point. The interception points are law enforcement and emergency services; initial detention and initial hearings; jail, REPORT courts, forensic evaluations, and forensic commitments; reentry from jails, state prisons, 14 and forensic hospitalization; and community corrections and community support. The model provides an organizing tool for a discussion of diversion and linkage alternatives and for systematically addressing criminalization. Using the model, a community can REPORT develop targeted strategies that evolve over time to increase diversion of people with 15 mental illness from the criminal justice system and to link them with community mental health treatment. (Munetz & Griffin, 2006) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT Although many communities are interested in addressing the overrepresentation of 2 people with mental illness in local courts and jails, the task can seem daunting and the various program options confusing. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a workable REPORT framework for collaboration between criminal justice and treatment systems to 3 systematically address and reduce the criminalization of people with mental illness in their community REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT REFERENCES 2 About Laura’s Law. (n.d.). In Ten years after murders: law meant to prevent tragedies remains overlooked and unused. Retrieved from REPORT http://www.lauraslawoc.org./about.html 3 Assisted Outpatient Treatment (2014, June 13). The Nevada County Experience. REPORT Retrieved from: http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/hhsa/bh/Pages/Assisted- 4 Outpatient-Treatment.aspx Bekiempis, V. (2014, February 28). New study on mental illness. Newsweek. REPORT 5 Carpinello, S. (2005, March) Kendra’s Law: Report on the Status of Assisted Outpatient Treatment. New York State, Office of Mental Health. Albany, New REPORT York. Cost Savings for AOT (2012, June 12). Mental Illness Policy Organization, found at http://lauras-law.org. REPORT 7 Dupont, R. Cochran, S, & Pillsbury, S. (2007, September). Crisis Intervention Team Core Elements. University of Memphis. Memphis TN. REPORT Emmanuel, A. & McBride, S. (2015, April 30). Police face choice of handcuffs or 8 helping hand for mentally ill. Chicago Reporter. Chicago, Ill. REPORT Exodus Recovery, Inc. (2015). Mental Health Urgent Care Center at MLK Medical 9 Center by Exodus, found at www.exodusrecoveryinc.com/MLK_UCC.html. Gerda, N. (2014, May 14). Orange County adopts Laura’s Law. Voice of OC. Retrieved REPORT from http:// voiceofoc.org. Holt, W., & Adams, A. (2013). Mental health in California: Painting a picture. California REPORT Healthcare Foundation. Oakland, CA. Retrieved from 11 http://www.chcf.org/publicaations/2013/07/mental-health-california. King, S. (2015, April 5) American tragedy: A staggering percentage of police shooting REPORT victims struggled with mental illness Daily KOS. Retrieved from: 12 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/05/1375335 Miller, J. (2013, March 5) Patients as prisoners, jails new mental health institutions, REPORT CBS News.. Retrieved from: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/patients-as- 13 prisoners-jails-new-mental-health-institutions/. REPORT Munetz, M. & Griffin, P. (2006, April). Use of the sequential intercept model as an 14 approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services. Retrieved from http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/library/document- REPORT library/ofo%20%20sim%20article%20munetz%20%20griffin%202006.pdf. National Alliance on Mental Illness (n.d.). CIT toolkit; CIT facts. Retrieved from http://www2.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Policy/CIT/CIT_Facts_4.11.12.pdf REPORT . 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT Orange County Board of Supervisors. (2015, May 19). Adoption of stepping up 2 initiative resolution (Agenda Staff Report). Santa Ana, CA. REPORT Orange County Health Care Agency and Hospital Association of Southern California. . 3 (2013, December 17). Triage grant application, Vol XII (27).Santa Ana, Ca. Orange County Health Info. (n.d.). Full Service Partnership Homepage. Retrieved from REPORT http//www.ocgov.com/gov/health/bhs. Santa Ana, CA. Pelley, S. (2014, September 14). The shortcomings of mental health care. CBS 60 REPORT Minutes (Television news program). New York, NY. Quanbeck, T, Tsai, G, & Szabo K. (n.d.) Cost-effectiveness analysis of assisted outpatient treatment implementation in California’s civil sector. Retrieved from: REPORT http://dhmh.maryland.gov/bhd/Documents/ 6 Sewell, A. (2014, July 15,). D.A. Jackie Lacey calls jailing of mentally ill a moral REPORT question. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Sewell, A. (2014, November 12). In push to keep mentally ill out of jail, county to expand crisis centers, Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. REPORT 8 Shabo, H. (2014, August 20). Governor Davis signs Laura’s Law: AB1421 will help those with severe mental illnesses who are too sick to help themselves. REPORT Retrieved from: http://oceanpark.com/notes/ab1421_background.html. Simon, R. (2015, January 25). Crisis Stabilization of the Mentally Ill. CBS 60 Minutes (Television news program). New York, NY. REPORT 10 Superior Court of Orange County (2014). Annual Report, Collaborative Courts, p. 23, Santa Ana, CA. REPORT Swartz, M., Steadman, H. & Monahan, J (June 30, 2009). Program Evaluation: New 11 York State Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program Evaluation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. REPORT 12 Wolfson, B. J. (2014, October 25,). Psychiatric treatment in Orange County. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, CA. REPORT Zeller, S. (2013, September 16). Psychiatric boarding: Averting long waits in 13 emergency rooms. Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT APPENDIX: ACRONYM LIST 2 AAOAPOD Adult and Older Adult Performance Outcome Department REPORT AOT Assisted Outpatient Treatment 3 BHS Behavioral Health Services REPORT CAT Centralized Assessment Team 4 CIT Crisis Intervention Training REPORT COPS Community Oriented Policing Services 5 CRT Crisis Response Team REPORT EPU Emergency Psychiatric Unit 6 ETS Evaluation and Treatment Services REPORT 7 FSP Full Service Partnership HCA Health Care Agency REPORT 8 LPS Lanterman-Petris-Short Act NAMI National Alliance on Mental Illness REPORT 9 PERT Psychiatric Evaluation and Response Team PES Psychiatric Emergency Services REPORT 10 PET Psychiatric Evaluation Team REPORT POST Peace Officers Standards and Training 11 TACT Time, Atmosphere, Communication, and Tone: A method of talking to the mentally ill REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
R15:
Newport Beach REPORT
R18:
Santa Ana REPORT 19. Seal Beach 13 20. Tustin
R21:
Westminster REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 The Mental Illness Revolving Door: A Problem for Police, Hospitals, and the Health Care Agency REPORT
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
The 18 cities that contract with Orange County Animal Care for shelter services REPORT have not had an opportunity to contribute to capital costs for a new Animal 6 Shelter facility, or facilities, because they have not been shown any conceptual plans or drawings of planned projects with cost estimates. REPORT
F3:
The County has not developed any viable conceptual plan for a new animal 7 shelter facility at the Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin, or at any other location, for presentation to the 18 contracting cities despite the cities’ need to see plans REPORT before committing to support the project. 8
F4:
Multiple county animal shelters are the standard throughout California counties of REPORT similar geographic size and population. In the event of a shutdown at the Orange 9 County Animal Shelter because of quarantine, earthquake, or other disaster, animal-care services in the unincorporated areas of Orange County and the contract cities would cease. REPORT 10 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014-15 REPORT Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations 11 presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT 12 Based on its investigation of Orange County Animal Care, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations: REPORT
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, and Director 13 of Community Resources should place a high priority on the design and construction of new, adequately sized, staffed, and funded animal shelter REPORT facilities; and should pursue this long overdue project until such time that 14 construction is completed. (F-1, F-4) REPORT R-2 The Orange County Board of Supervisors should investigate and analyze the 15 advisability and feasibility of selecting two or three sites for construction of animal care shelters to provide services accessible to all parts of the County. (F-4) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1
R3:
The Orange County Executive Officer should seriously evaluate designating a REPORT staff member with the assignment of facilitating the construction of a new Animal 2 Shelter. This individual’s tasks should include negotiating with the contracting cities for their capital contributions, release of requests for proposals for building REPORT and site designs, coordination with the Board of Supervisors for the County to 3 self-finance the project, and any other project-manager tasks needed for the successful creation of a new shelter or shelters. (F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4) REPORT 4
R4:
The 18 contracting cities need to review their long-term commitment to be part of Orange County Animal Care as opposed to pursuing animal-care opportunities on their own or joining with neighboring cities that have shelters. The contracting REPORT cities need to demand that the County provide them a viable plan with cost and 5 schedule estimates for a new facility or facilities to evaluate as part of their commitment review. (F-4) REPORT 6 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires any public agency which the REPORT Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to 7 the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no REPORT later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the 8 Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District REPORT Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding 9 Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as REPORT follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: 10 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate REPORT one of the following: 11 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which 12 case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall 13 report one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding 14 the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be REPORT implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 15 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and REPORT the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REPORT the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the 2 agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame REPORT shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury 3 report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted REPORT or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 4 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected REPORT officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors 5 shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over REPORT which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or 6 recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal 7 Code section 933.05 are required from: Requested Responses: REPORT 8 Responses to F-1 and F-4 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4 are requested from the Director of Orange REPORT County Community Resources. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-3 are requested from the County REPORT Executive Officer. Required Responses: REPORT Response to F-4 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-2 are required from the County Board of Supervisors. REPORT 12 Responses to Recommendation R-4 are required from the Mayors of the 18 Animal Shelter contract cities (listed below): REPORT 13 The City of Anaheim The City of Brea REPORT 14 The City of Cypress The City of Fountain Valley REPORT 15 The City of Fullerton REPORT The City of Garden Grove 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 The City of Huntington Beach REPORT 2 The City of Laguna Hills REPORT The City of Lake Forest 3 The City of Orange REPORT The City of Placentia 4 The City of Rancho Santa Margarita REPORT The City of San Juan Capistrano 5 The City of Santa Ana REPORT The City of Stanton 6 The City of Tustin REPORT The City of Villa Park 7 The City of Yorba Linda REPORT 8 See also Response Matrix below for summary of required responses. REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: The Facility, The Function, The Future 2 RESPONSE MATRIX REPORT 3 Findings Recommendations REPORT RESPONDENTS F1 F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 4 1 County Chief Executive Officer X X X X REPORT 2 Director of Orange County Community Resources X X X X 5 3 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X REPORT 4 Mayor City of Anaheim X 6 5 Mayor City of Brea X REPORT 6 Mayor City of Cypress X 7 7 Mayor City of Fountain Valley X REPORT 8 Mayor City of Fullerton X 8 9 Mayor City of Garden Grove X REPORT 10 Mayor City of Huntington Beach X 9 11 Mayor City of Laguna Hills X REPORT 12 Mayor City of Lake Forest X 10 13 Mayor City of Orange X REPORT 14 Mayor City of Placentia X 11 15 Mayor City of Rancho Santa Margarita X 16 Mayor City of San Juan Capistrano X REPORT 12 17 Mayor City of Santa Ana X 18 Mayor City of Stanton X REPORT 13 19 Mayor City of Tustin X 20 Mayor City of Villa Park X REPORT 14 21 Mayor City of Yorba Linda X REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REFERENCES REPORT 2 Alphabetical List of California Counties. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from: REPORT http://www.alphalists.com 3 Orange County Grand Jury (2000). We Can Do Better…Improving Animal Care In Orange County. Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 4 Orange County Grand Jury (2004). The Orange County Animal Shelter—Are Improvements Needed? Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 5 Orange County Grand Jury (2008). Is Orange County Going To The Dogs? Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 6 Robertson, J., Aziz, C., Butler, V.(2014, June 16). Orange County Animal Care Shelter Consultation Summary June 16, 2014. JVR Shelter Strategies, LLC. REPORT 7 UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine (2007, February 2). The UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program: Orange County Animal Care Services Division REPORT U.S. Census Bureau (2010, 2013). Retrieved from: www.census.gov 2010 and 8 www.census.gov 2010 REPORT U.S. Census State & County Quick Facts (2013). Retrieved from: 9 www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The Irvine City Council originally had a vision of a metropolitan park that would rival Central Park in New York, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Balboa Park in San Diego but neglected to follow standard industry practices in managing such a large project.
F2:
From the outset, with the City of Irvine assuming a land developer role, the project was poorly managed and did not follow conventional program management principles. There was excessive political control, influence, and interference over the Great Park project. The City allowed individuals, including some elected officials to make technical decisions without ensuring that these individuals were qualified or experienced to make such decisions. Basically, the City abandoned sound project management principles. 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris
F3:
The organizational structure established by the Irvine City Council was such that total control over the project rested with the City Council and the Orange County Great Park Corporation was relegated to an advisory role.
F4:
Many California communities, including Mission Viejo, Belmont, Watsonville, and Norwalk have ordinances restricting elected officials from interfering in operational activities under a city manager.
F5:
Appropriate transparency over the project was lacking. The City Council and the OCGPC did not publicly reveal the estimated true costs to build the park as originally designed as well as other non-capital expenditures.
F6:
There were serious questions about the ability of the City to implement the original design based on the City’s available financing and U.S. Navy constraints.
F7:
Many of the contracts of the Great Park were open-ended and without defined deliverables, minor oversight, or safeguards. There seemingly was no effective oversight over invoices, contract compliance, or quality control.
F8:
There seemed to be over-use of no-bid and sole source contracts without full justification which possibly violates the City’s processes and procedures. There are also questions of clarity relative to terms and conditions of current contracts.
F9:
Orange County Great Park financial statements indicated that less than 50% of expenses incurred were spent on capital, i.e., on the actual design and construction of the Great Park, which is well outside industry standards. The remaining expenses were on salaries, overhead, and contract services.
F10:
The complexity of financial transactions relative to the Great Park made it difficult to understand the flow of funds relative to sources and uses of monies. The lack of clarity on such basic issues as the number of units authorized to be constructed raises concerns about other issues in the contract that are unclear. This was a major flaw in the reporting system.
F11:
An inordinate amount of funds were spent on public relations and lobbying, “free” public events, exhibitions, food, and a balloon whose benefits did not justify its costs.
F12:
The current plan for the construction of the Great Park will require less funding than the original plan but will still require a high cost of construction and operations and maintenance that will be passed on to home buyers.
F13:
There was no explanation by the City Council as to where the tax increment of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized.
F14:
The OCGPC has become a “shell” corporation and serves no intrinsic function as members of the Board of Directors are the same as members of the Irvine City Council. 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 REPORT 20 Lake Forest x x 4 21 Los Alamitos x x x x x x REPORT 22 Mission Viejo x x x x 5 23 Newport Beach x x x x 24 Orange x x x x x x REPORT 6 25 Orange County Fire Authority x x x x 26 Placentia x x x x x x REPORT 27 Rancho Santa Margarita x x x x x x 7 28 San Clemente x x x x x x 29 San Juan Capistrano x x x x x x REPORT 8 30 Santa Ana x x x x x x 31 Seal Beach x x x x REPORT 32 Stanton x x 9 33 Tustin x x x x x x REPORT 34 Villa Park x x 10 35 Westminster x x x x x x 36 Yorba Linda x x x x x x REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT REFERENCES 2 California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. OPEBs &GASB 45, A Question and Answer Guide CDIAC # 06-09(2009) REPORT 3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY 2012-13, as retrieved from the following city/agency web sites: REPORT Aliso Viejo 4 Anaheim Brea REPORT Buena Park 5 Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point REPORT Fountain Valley 6 Fullerton Garden Grove REPORT Huntington Beach 7 Irvine Laguna Beach REPORT Laguna Hills 8 Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods REPORT La Habra 9 Lake Forest La Palma Los Alamitos REPORT Mission Viejo 10 Newport Beach Orange REPORT Placentia 11 Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente REPORT San Juan Capistrano 12 Santa Ana Seal Beach REPORT Stanton 13 Tustin Villa Park Westminster REPORT Yorba Linda 14 County of Orange Orange County Fire Authority REPORT 15 Governmental Accounting Standards Board GASB (2004). Summary of Statement No.45, as retrieved from : REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT http://www.gasb.org/jsp/GASB/Pronouncement_C/GASBSummaryPage&cid=117 2 6156700943 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)(2004). GASB Statement 45 on REPORT OPEB accounting by governments, A few basic questions and answers as 3 retrieved from: http://www.gasb.org/project_pages/gasb_st45_basic_q&a.pdf REPORT 4 Legislative Analyst Office. Consider phasing out retiree health care. (2015): as retrieved from: http://calpensions.com/2015/03/23/lao-consider-phasing-out-retiree-health- care. REPORT 5 New Reports Detail Pension Fund Finances(2015) as retrieved from: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/new-report- REPORT fund-finances.xml 6 Torres, Zahira (2015, March 7). Health benefits are a promise school districts find hard REPORT to keep. Los Angeles Times. REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT APPENDIX: GLOSSARY OF TERMS 2 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB): GASB is the source of REPORT generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) used by state and local governments 3 in the United States. As with most of the entities involved in creating GAAP in the United States, it is a private, non-governmental organization. REPORT 4 The GASB is subject to oversight by the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF), which selects the members of the GASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board and funds both organizations. REPORT 5 The mission of the GASB is to establish and improve standards of state and local governmental accounting and financial reporting that will result in useful information for REPORT users of financial reports and guide and educate the public, including issuers, auditors, 6 and users of those financial reports. REPORT The GASB has issued Statements, Interpretations, Technical Bulletins, and Concept 7 Statements, defining GAAP for state and local governments since 1984. GAAP for the Federal government is defined by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. REPORT 8 Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB): are part of total compensation offered by employers to attract and retain employees. OPEB includes postemployment health care, as well as other postemployment benefits e.g. life insurance when provided REPORT separately from a Pension Plan. The applicable GASB statements are: REPORT 10 Statement No. 25, Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans REPORT Statement No. 26, Financial Reporting for Post-employment Healthcare Plans 11 Administered by Defined Benefit Pension Plans Statement No. 43, Financial Reporting for Post-employment Benefit Plans, Other REPORT Than Pension Plans 12 Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post- employment Benefits, Other Than Pensions REPORT GASB pronouncements apply to governmental entities, public benefit entities, public 13 employee retirement systems, and public utilities, hospitals and other healthcare providers, and colleges and universities. REPORT 14 Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability (UAAL) is the amount of retirement benefits that are owed to employees in future years that exceed current assets and their REPORT projected growth. Annual Required Contribution (ARC)is the employer’s required contributions for the REPORT year, calculated in accordance with certain parameters and includes (a) the normal cost 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT for the year and (b) a component for amortization of total unfunded actuarial accrued 2 liabilities(or funding excess) of the plan over a period not to exceed thirty years. REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury
F3:
Anaheim, Buena Park, County of Orange, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, and REPORT Stanton were in compliance with the requirement to contribute a full 100% or 9 more of their Annual Required Contribution in the FY 2012-13. The remaining 26 agencies were not in compliance. REPORT
F4:
All agencies surveyed (except Anaheim) do not disclose retiree health benefits 10 as part of employee compensation per GAAP standards. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 11 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 12 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A REPORT Problem for Public Agencies?,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the 13 following four recommendations: REPORT R.1. The cities of Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Laguna Hills, Villa Park, and Laguna Woods 14 should measure and disclose their liability in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45. (F.1.) REPORT
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The 21 agencies that have not contributed into an irrevocable trust fund to 15 finance their retiree health obligations should begin to put aside monies to fund this obligation and reduce their unfunded public liabilities (F.2.) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT
R3:
The 26 agencies that are not recognizing the full amount of their Annual 2 Required Contribution as expense in the current period and should comply with the requirement to do so. (F.3.) REPORT
R4:
All agencies surveyed should recognize retiree health care benefits in employee 3 compensation in conformity with GAAP. (F.4.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 4 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 5 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 6 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 7 official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), 8 provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 9 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 10 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 11 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 12 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 13 in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 14 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 15 the Grand Jury report. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 2 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 3 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 4 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 5 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from Orange County, the Orange County Fire Authority, and REPORT the Mayors of the cities as denoted in the following Response Matrix: 6 RESPONSE MATRIX REPORT 7 Findings Recommendations REPORT 8 F1 F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 1 Aliso Viejo x x REPORT 2 Anaheim 9 3 Brea x x x x x x REPORT 4 Buena Park x x 10 5 Costa Mesa x x x x x x 6 County of Orange (BOS) x x REPORT 7 Cypress x x x x x x 11 8 Dana Point x x REPORT 9 Fountain Valley x x x x 12 10 Fullerton x x x x x x 11 Garden Grove x x x x x x REPORT 13 12 Huntington Beach x x 13 Irvine x x x x x x REPORT 14 La Habra x x x x x x 14 15 La Palma x x x x x x 16 Laguna Beach x x x x x x REPORT 15 17 Laguna Hills x x 18 Laguna Niguel x x x x x x REPORT 19 Laguna Woods x x x x x x x x 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT RESPONSE MATRIX 2 REPORT Findings Recommendations 3 F1 F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 REPORT 20 Lake Forest x x 4 21 Los Alamitos x x x x x x REPORT 22 Mission Viejo x x x x 5 23 Newport Beach x x x x 24 Orange x x x x x x REPORT 6 25 Orange County Fire Authority x x x x 26 Placentia x x x x x x REPORT 27 Rancho Santa Margarita x x x x x x 7 28 San Clemente x x x x x x 29 San Juan Capistrano x x x x x x REPORT 8 30 Santa Ana x x x x x x 31 Seal Beach x x x x REPORT 32 Stanton x x 9 33 Tustin x x x x x x REPORT 34 Villa Park x x 10 35 Westminster x x x x x x 36 Yorba Linda x x x x x x REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT REFERENCES 2 California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. OPEBs &GASB 45, A Question and Answer Guide CDIAC # 06-09(2009) REPORT 3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY 2012-13, as retrieved from the following city/agency web sites: REPORT Aliso Viejo 4 Anaheim Brea REPORT Buena Park 5 Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point REPORT Fountain Valley 6 Fullerton Garden Grove REPORT Huntington Beach 7 Irvine Laguna Beach REPORT Laguna Hills 8 Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods REPORT La Habra 9 Lake Forest La Palma Los Alamitos REPORT Mission Viejo 10 Newport Beach Orange REPORT Placentia 11 Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente REPORT San Juan Capistrano 12 Santa Ana Seal Beach REPORT Stanton 13 Tustin Villa Park Westminster REPORT Yorba Linda 14 County of Orange Orange County Fire Authority REPORT 15 Governmental Accounting Standards Board GASB (2004). Summary of Statement No.45, as retrieved from : REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT http://www.gasb.org/jsp/GASB/Pronouncement_C/GASBSummaryPage&cid=117 2 6156700943 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)(2004). GASB Statement 45 on REPORT OPEB accounting by governments, A few basic questions and answers as 3 retrieved from: http://www.gasb.org/project_pages/gasb_st45_basic_q&a.pdf REPORT 4 Legislative Analyst Office. Consider phasing out retiree health care. (2015): as retrieved from: http://calpensions.com/2015/03/23/lao-consider-phasing-out-retiree-health- care. REPORT 5 New Reports Detail Pension Fund Finances(2015) as retrieved from: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/new-report- REPORT fund-finances.xml 6 Torres, Zahira (2015, March 7). Health benefits are a promise school districts find hard REPORT to keep. Los Angeles Times. REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT APPENDIX:
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.