Orange County Grand Jury
2017-2018
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (21)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
29 findings
F1:
Meals provided to inmates meet the requirements established by the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
Related Recommendations (6)
R2:
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F2:
Food storage areas are clean and neatly maintained by the Food Service Unit in the manner required by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
F3:
All dairy, produce and meat items are fresh and edible, and stored at the correct temperatures and in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F4:
Food is properly sealed so as not to contaminate or be contaminated by other foods according to the standards set forth by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
F5:
Inmates are not allowed sufficient time to eat their meals in violation of the Orange County Sheriff’s Food Service Manual and the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Title 15. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Food – Reservation Required Jail Food – Reservation Required FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Jail Food – Reservation Required,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: Based on its investigation titled “Jail Food – Reservation Required,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orange County Community Resources should add an appropriate number of additional positions to the Housing and Community Development Department beyond the two currently budgeted to be optimally positioned for the increased Permanent Supportive Housing development that will likely arise. (F5)
F6:
Service Planning Area meetings have successfully brought together city, county and non- profit entities to share information on homeless issues, but have not fostered decision- making or action.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
F7:
NIMBYism has impeded the creation of housing for the homeless, including Permanent Supportive Housing, in the County of Orange.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Cities should collaborate with, and leverage the work done by, United Way on their “United to End Homelessness” public awareness campaign. (F7) To be completed by June 30, 2019 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RECOMMENDATIONS
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
F8:
Orange County cities and the County have engaged in blaming and finger-pointing, hampering the collaborative efforts needed to site, finance, and maintain Permanent Supportive Housing. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way The Grand Jury identified issues within each of the four components listed above, including the following: cities at odds over whether to allow homeless housing, disagreements over who FINDINGS should lead development efforts for homeless housing, and even conflicts over whether PSH is In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury the best solution for the chronically homeless. requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in Officials in many cities have not reached consensus among themselves on the value of PSH, this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. making it difficult to create compelling arguments and a unified front to overcome resident Based on its investigation titled “Where There’s Will, There’s a Way: Housing Orange County’s opposition to siting these units within their communities. County officials only recently Chronically Homeless,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at ten principal acknowledged they hold lead responsibility for homeless housing in Orange County. Until findings, as follows: consensus is achieved on these issues, the County and cities will not be able to overcome the many roadblocks to building more PSH in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (5)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F9:
Cities have taken a silo approach to developing Permanent Supportive Housing, resulting in inefficient leveraging and pooling of funds across municipal borders. In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (5)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F10:
There is no established, independent leadership body in the County empowered to address requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations regional homeless issues in an effective manner. presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Where There’s Will, There’s a Way: Housing Orange County’s Chronically Homeless,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F11:
Several nearby counties have gained efficiencies by successfully consolidating their sheriffs' and fire agencies’ air support units into one organization within each county. Based on its investigation titled “Competition or Collaboration – Orange County’s Public Agency Helicopters,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following seven
F12:
Orange County Waste & Recycling, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, May 15, 2013. Findings:
F13:
Prima Deshecha Landfill, Amended, 2001 General Development Plan, January 1, 2006.
F14:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Report, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 Order No RB-2009-0012, August 28, 2009. City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 15. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), dated Dec. 2001. REPORT 5 16. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Update 2007, dated Nov. 2007.
F15:
Orange County Fire Authority, Land and Buildings in the City of Irvine, April 2013 REPORT 1
F16:
Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), 5 Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Update 2007, dated Nov. 2007.
F17:
Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County And Olinda Alpha Landfill Expansion Planning for Informational Meetings, City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1 Tool 7b,
F18:
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Olinda Alpha Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0035, May 27, 2015.
F19:
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Frank R. Bowerman Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0360, September 22, 2013.
F20:
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Prima Deshecha Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0019, November 8 2016.
F21:
Cooperative Agreement between the City of Brea and the County of Orange regarding Olinda Alpha Landfill dated July 2009.
F22:
Orange County Waste and Recycling. “Prima Deshecha Landfill”. Accessed April 6, 2018 www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha/ 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six REFERENCES 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 therefor. 1. Center for Demographic Research, 2017 Orange County Progress Report. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or 2. Orange County Waste & Recycling, Strategic Plan, November 22, 2016. personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 3. Orange County Waste & Recycling, Waste Importation Overview and Analysis, Waste agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand Management Commission Meeting, March 13, 2014 jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or 4. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Meeting Agenda, March 8, 2018. personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the 5. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Agenda Item 2, Attachment 2, March 8, elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations 2018. affecting his or her agency or department.” 6. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Meeting Agenda, December 14, 2017.
F23:
Tita, Bob. “Recycling, Once Embraced by Businesses and Environmentalists, Now Under APPENDIX – GLOSSARY Siege.” The Wall Street Journal. May 14, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2018. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/recycling-once-embraced-by-businesses-and- environmentalists-now-under-siege/ar-AAxclAb?ocid=ientp. Hazardous Waste - Speaking in general terms, hazardous wastes are solid wastes that are toxic,
F24:
Ward, Morris A. September 16, 2015. “The Principal Greenhouse Gases and Their Sources.” ignitable, reactive, or corrosive according to Chapter 11 of Division 4.5 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. National Environmental Education Foundation. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and-climate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases- and-their-sources. Household Hazardous - Waste includes paint, antifreeze, used motor oil, batteries, pesticides,
F25:
CalRecycle. “California State Laws and Regulations concerning Landfills and Recycling.” caustic cleaners, needles, fluorescent light bulbs, medications, and other items that may present Accessed May 16, 2016. handling problems or other hazards if they are left in the solid waste stream. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/.
F26:
Source: CA Code of Regulations – Title 14 (Natural Resources) – Division 7, Section 18720 Integrated Waste Management - Managing waste by multiple techniques to achieve solid
F27:
CalRecycle. “Local Government Central Glossary of Terms.” Accessed May 16, 2018. waste and resource conservation goals. The techniques may include waste reduction, reuse, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Glossary/default.htm#lo recycling, composting, transformation, disposal to landfills, and other means.
F28:
Staub, Colin. “China ban collides with Calif. diversion requirements.” Resource Recycling. Posted on May 15, 2018. Accessed on May 16, 2018. Municipal solid waste or MSW - "Municipal solid waste" or "MSW" means all solid wastes https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/05/15/china-ban-collides-with-calif-diversion- generated by residential, commercial, and industrial sources, and all solid waste generated at requirements/ construction and demolition sites, at food-processing facilities, and at treatment works for water
F29:
Orange County Executive Office Press Release, “Trash Importation Approvals Will Assure and waste water, which are collected and transported under the authorization of a jurisdiction or are self-hauled. Municipal solid waste does not include agricultural crop residues (SIC Codes Final Debt Repayment”, April 26, 2016 071 through 0724, 0751), animal manures (SIC Code 0751), mining waste and fuel extraction waste (SIC Codes 101 through 1499), forestry wastes (SIC Codes 081 through 0851, 2411 and 2421), and ash from industrial boilers, furnaces and incinerators. REPORT 5 Organic waste - "Organic waste" means solid wastes originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, and from petroleum, which contain naturally produced organic compounds, and which are biologically decomposable by microbial and fungal action into the constituent compounds of water, carbon dioxide, and other simpler organic compounds. Sometimes called biodegradable waste. Recycling - Using waste as material to manufacture a new product. Recycling involves altering the physical form of an object or material and making a new object from the altered material. Solid wastes - Discarded or abandoned materials. Solid wastes can be solid, liquid, semi-solid or containerized gaseous material. For regulatory purposes, hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste. Waste - Objects or materials for which no use or reuse is intended. Source: CalRecycle 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff must ensure that each inmate is provided at least fifteen REPORT minutes for meal consumption. (F5.) 3
R10:
Orange County Fire Authority Agenda Staff Report, 2016 Long Term Liability Study & Expedited Pension Payment Plan, November 17, 2016
R11:
Orange County Fire Authority Agenda Staff Report, 2017 Long Term Liability Study & Accelerated Pension Paydown Plan, October 26, 2017
R12:
Orange County Fire Authority, OCFA 2017 Liability Study-OCFA’s Long Term Liabilities, 6,12
R13:
Orange County Fire Authority, Agenda Staff Report FY2014/15 Mid-year Financial Report
R14:
Final Equity Share Calculation Simplified Option 2A-One Region Updated FY 2010/2011 Taxes, 3 FY Average Use, AV, POP, December 11, 2017
R15:
Orange County Fire Authority, Land and Buildings in the City of Irvine, April 2013 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY – FINANCIAL FLAMES ON THE HORIZON? ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY – FINANCIAL FLAMES ON THE HORIZON? Recommendations:
R16:
Orange County Fire Authority, Allocations to Structural Fire Fund Entitlement Fund 5. Orange County Fire Authority Service Area, accessed August 8, 2017 REPORT FY 2010/11 – FY 2016/17 http://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/Departments/Operations.aspx 1
R17:
Orange County Fire Authority, FY2017/18 OCFA Adopted Budget, 78
R18:
Orange County Auditor-Controller Property Tax Section, Tax Equity Allocation July 3, 2017 Explanation, January 2, 2018 http://alcl.assembly.ca.gov/sites/alcl.assembly.ca.gov/files/SB%20302%20analysis.pdf
R19:
Orange County Fire Authority, 2016 Statistical Annual Report
R20:
Shinn, Gregory A., 2014, The Cost of Long-Term Homelessness in Central Florida, 8. “Measure H, Los Angeles County Plan to Prevent and Combat Homelessness.” Central Florida Commission on Homelessness. https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_County,_California,_Sales_Tax_for_Homeless_Services_an
R21:
Snow, David A., and Goldberg, Rachel, June 2017, Homelessness in Orange County: d_Prevention,_Measure_H_(March_2017). Accessed April 27, 2018. The Costs to our Community. 9. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. 2017.“Don’t Count on It: How the HUD Point-in-Time Count underestimates the Homelessness Crisis in America.” 2017. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/HUD-PIT-report2017. Accessed April 27, 2018.
R22:
Orange County Waste and Recycling. “Prima Deshecha Landfill”. Accessed April 6, 2018 www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha/ 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six
R23:
Tita, Bob. “Recycling, Once Embraced by Businesses and Environmentalists, Now Under APPENDIX – GLOSSARY Siege.” The Wall Street Journal. May 14, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2018. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/recycling-once-embraced-by-businesses-and- environmentalists-now-under-siege/ar-AAxclAb?ocid=ientp. Hazardous Waste - Speaking in general terms, hazardous wastes are solid wastes that are toxic,
R24:
Ward, Morris A. September 16, 2015. “The Principal Greenhouse Gases and Their Sources.” ignitable, reactive, or corrosive according to Chapter 11 of Division 4.5 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. National Environmental Education Foundation. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and-climate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases- and-their-sources. Household Hazardous - Waste includes paint, antifreeze, used motor oil, batteries, pesticides,
R25:
CalRecycle. “California State Laws and Regulations concerning Landfills and Recycling.” caustic cleaners, needles, fluorescent light bulbs, medications, and other items that may present Accessed May 16, 2016. handling problems or other hazards if they are left in the solid waste stream. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/.
R26:
Source: CA Code of Regulations – Title 14 (Natural Resources) – Division 7, Section 18720 Integrated Waste Management - Managing waste by multiple techniques to achieve solid
R27:
CalRecycle. “Local Government Central
R28:
Staub, Colin. “China ban collides with Calif. diversion requirements.” Resource Recycling. Posted on May 15, 2018. Accessed on May 16, 2018. Municipal solid waste or MSW - "Municipal solid waste" or "MSW" means all solid wastes https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/05/15/china-ban-collides-with-calif-diversion- generated by residential, commercial, and industrial sources, and all solid waste generated at requirements/ construction and demolition sites, at food-processing facilities, and at treatment works for water
R29:
Orange County Executive Office Press Release, “Trash Importation Approvals Will Assure and waste water, which are collected and transported under the authorization of a jurisdiction or are self-hauled. Municipal solid waste does not include agricultural crop residues (SIC Codes Final Debt Repayment”, April 26, 2016 071 through 0724, 0751), animal manures (SIC Code 0751), mining waste and fuel extraction waste (SIC Codes 101 through 1499), forestry wastes (SIC Codes 081 through 0851, 2411 and 2421), and ash from industrial boilers, furnaces and incinerators. REPORT 5 Organic waste - "Organic waste" means solid wastes originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, and from petroleum, which contain naturally produced organic compounds, and which are biologically decomposable by microbial and fungal action into the constituent compounds of water, carbon dioxide, and other simpler organic compounds. Sometimes called biodegradable waste. Recycling - Using waste as material to manufacture a new product. Recycling involves altering the physical form of an object or material and making a new object from the altered material. Solid wastes - Discarded or abandoned materials. Solid wastes can be solid, liquid, semi-solid or containerized gaseous material. For regulatory purposes, hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste. Waste - Objects or materials for which no use or reuse is intended. Source: CalRecycle 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash
R11-12:
12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 Source: Waste Management Commission Meeting Agenda of March 8, 2018 Imported Trash The 1994 Orange County bankruptcy resulted in a fiscal emergency that required extreme measures. Accepting trash from outside Orange County and collecting associated disposal fees was selected as an additional source of revenue for the County to be used toward payment of the bankruptcy debt. In 1995, county landfills began to accept trash from Riverside, Los Angeles 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury noilliM $ Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash and San Bernardino counties for a fee. Currently, importation is 37% of the total annual waste in the landfills and contributes 30% of the total annual revenue. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the County of Orange received $45.5 million from the imported trash fees. OCWR received about 25% of that money for landfill support. About 7% was retained by the County and 5% was used to compensate the host cities. The great majority, 63% or $28.7 million, was used to retire the bankruptcy bonds and to pay other bankruptcy-related expenses. The bankruptcy bonds were discharged by July 1, 2017, but the County continues to import trash and collect fees, with contracts running until 2025. Most of these fees will be used to pay the $33.3 million owed to a handful of cities, special districts and internal county accounts that elected not to be repaid out of bond proceeds. A surplus, estimated to be between $5-8 million annually, remains beyond that. TOTAL TRASH REVENUE Figure 3: Imported Trash Revenue and Tonnage 50 2 1.8 45 1.6 40 1.4 35 1.2 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY 17-18 is estimated 30 1 0.8 25 0.6 20 0.4 15 0.2 10 0
R17-18:
$ Million FISCAL YEAR TOTAL TRASH REVENUE Note: FY 17-18 is estimated
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
30 findings
F1:
Meals provided to inmates meet the requirements established by the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
Related Recommendations (6)
R2:
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F2:
Food storage areas are clean and neatly maintained by the Food Service Unit in the manner required by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
F3:
All dairy, produce and meat items are fresh and edible, and stored at the correct temperatures and in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F4:
Food is properly sealed so as not to contaminate or be contaminated by other foods according to the standards set forth by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
Related Recommendations (4)
R2:
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
F5:
Inmates are not allowed sufficient time to eat their meals in violation of the Orange County Sheriff’s Food Service Manual and the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Title 15. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Jail Food – Reservation Required Jail Food – Reservation Required FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Jail Food – Reservation Required,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: Based on its investigation titled “Jail Food – Reservation Required,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orange County Community Resources should add an appropriate number of additional positions to the Housing and Community Development Department beyond the two currently budgeted to be optimally positioned for the increased Permanent Supportive Housing development that will likely arise. (F5)
F6:
Service Planning Area meetings have successfully brought together city, county and non- profit entities to share information on homeless issues, but have not fostered decision- making or action.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
F7:
NIMBYism has impeded the creation of housing for the homeless, including Permanent Supportive Housing, in the County of Orange.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
Cities should collaborate with, and leverage the work done by, United Way on their “United to End Homelessness” public awareness campaign. (F7) To be completed by June 30, 2019 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RECOMMENDATIONS
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
F8:
Orange County cities and the County have engaged in blaming and finger-pointing, hampering the collaborative efforts needed to site, finance, and maintain Permanent Supportive Housing. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way The Grand Jury identified issues within each of the four components listed above, including the following: cities at odds over whether to allow homeless housing, disagreements over who FINDINGS should lead development efforts for homeless housing, and even conflicts over whether PSH is In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury the best solution for the chronically homeless. requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in Officials in many cities have not reached consensus among themselves on the value of PSH, this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. making it difficult to create compelling arguments and a unified front to overcome resident Based on its investigation titled “Where There’s Will, There’s a Way: Housing Orange County’s opposition to siting these units within their communities. County officials only recently Chronically Homeless,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at ten principal acknowledged they hold lead responsibility for homeless housing in Orange County. Until findings, as follows: consensus is achieved on these issues, the County and cities will not be able to overcome the many roadblocks to building more PSH in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (5)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F9:
Cities have taken a silo approach to developing Permanent Supportive Housing, resulting in inefficient leveraging and pooling of funds across municipal borders. In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (5)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F10:
There is no established, independent leadership body in the County empowered to address requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations regional homeless issues in an effective manner. presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Where There’s Will, There’s a Way: Housing Orange County’s Chronically Homeless,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing §933(c) business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10) comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand REPORT 4 jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way RESPONSES
F11:
Several nearby counties have gained efficiencies by successfully consolidating their sheriffs' and fire agencies’ air support units into one organization within each county. Based on its investigation titled “Competition or Collaboration – Orange County’s Public Agency Helicopters,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following seven
F12:
The Orange County Correctional Health Services’ performance is not accredited by inmate’s medical condition. (F1, F2) any peer review agency; consequently, it lacks the benefits of accreditation as a process improvement tool.
F13:
Prima Deshecha Landfill, Amended, 2001 General Development Plan, January 1, 2006.
F14:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Report, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 Order No RB-2009-0012, August 28, 2009. City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 15. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), dated Dec. 2001. REPORT 5 16. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Update 2007, dated Nov. 2007.
F15:
Anaheim Air Support, Standard Operation Procedure Manual, 4.42 – 4.5 – 4.5.1. July 15,
F16:
Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), 5 Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Update 2007, dated Nov. 2007.
F17:
Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County And Olinda Alpha Landfill Expansion Planning for Informational Meetings, City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1 Tool 7b,
F18:
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Olinda Alpha Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0035, May 27, 2015.
F19:
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Frank R. Bowerman Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0360, September 22, 2013.
F20:
County of Orange Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Facility Permit (for Prima Deshecha Landfill) Facility Number: 30-AB-0019, November 8 2016.
F21:
Cooperative Agreement between the City of Brea and the County of Orange regarding Olinda Alpha Landfill dated July 2009.
F22:
Orange County Waste and Recycling. “Prima Deshecha Landfill”. Accessed April 6, 2018 www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha/ 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six REFERENCES 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 therefor. 1. Center for Demographic Research, 2017 Orange County Progress Report. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or 2. Orange County Waste & Recycling, Strategic Plan, November 22, 2016. personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 3. Orange County Waste & Recycling, Waste Importation Overview and Analysis, Waste agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand Management Commission Meeting, March 13, 2014 jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or 4. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Meeting Agenda, March 8, 2018. personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the 5. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Agenda Item 2, Attachment 2, March 8, elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations 2018. affecting his or her agency or department.” 6. Orange County Waste Management Commission, Meeting Agenda, December 14, 2017.
F23:
Tita, Bob. “Recycling, Once Embraced by Businesses and Environmentalists, Now Under APPENDIX – GLOSSARY Siege.” The Wall Street Journal. May 14, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2018. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/recycling-once-embraced-by-businesses-and- environmentalists-now-under-siege/ar-AAxclAb?ocid=ientp. Hazardous Waste - Speaking in general terms, hazardous wastes are solid wastes that are toxic,
F24:
Ward, Morris A. September 16, 2015. “The Principal Greenhouse Gases and Their Sources.” ignitable, reactive, or corrosive according to Chapter 11 of Division 4.5 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. National Environmental Education Foundation. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and-climate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases- and-their-sources. Household Hazardous - Waste includes paint, antifreeze, used motor oil, batteries, pesticides,
F25:
CalRecycle. “California State Laws and Regulations concerning Landfills and Recycling.” caustic cleaners, needles, fluorescent light bulbs, medications, and other items that may present Accessed May 16, 2016. handling problems or other hazards if they are left in the solid waste stream. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/.
F26:
Source: CA Code of Regulations – Title 14 (Natural Resources) – Division 7, Section 18720 Integrated Waste Management - Managing waste by multiple techniques to achieve solid
F27:
CalRecycle. “Local Government Central Glossary of Terms.” Accessed May 16, 2018. waste and resource conservation goals. The techniques may include waste reduction, reuse, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Glossary/default.htm#lo recycling, composting, transformation, disposal to landfills, and other means.
F28:
Staub, Colin. “China ban collides with Calif. diversion requirements.” Resource Recycling. Posted on May 15, 2018. Accessed on May 16, 2018. Municipal solid waste or MSW - "Municipal solid waste" or "MSW" means all solid wastes https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/05/15/china-ban-collides-with-calif-diversion- generated by residential, commercial, and industrial sources, and all solid waste generated at requirements/ construction and demolition sites, at food-processing facilities, and at treatment works for water
F29:
Orange County Executive Office Press Release, “Trash Importation Approvals Will Assure and waste water, which are collected and transported under the authorization of a jurisdiction or are self-hauled. Municipal solid waste does not include agricultural crop residues (SIC Codes Final Debt Repayment”, April 26, 2016 071 through 0724, 0751), animal manures (SIC Code 0751), mining waste and fuel extraction waste (SIC Codes 101 through 1499), forestry wastes (SIC Codes 081 through 0851, 2411 and 2421), and ash from industrial boilers, furnaces and incinerators. REPORT 5 Organic waste - "Organic waste" means solid wastes originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, and from petroleum, which contain naturally produced organic compounds, and which are biologically decomposable by microbial and fungal action into the constituent compounds of water, carbon dioxide, and other simpler organic compounds. Sometimes called biodegradable waste. Recycling - Using waste as material to manufacture a new product. Recycling involves altering the physical form of an object or material and making a new object from the altered material. Solid wastes - Discarded or abandoned materials. Solid wastes can be solid, liquid, semi-solid or containerized gaseous material. For regulatory purposes, hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste. Waste - Objects or materials for which no use or reuse is intended. Source: CalRecycle 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash
F30:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department Long Reach of the Law: “How Duke helps nab criminals, save citizens”. November 3, 2016. Accessed September 14, 2017. http://behingthebadgeoc.com/cities/ocsd-long-reach-law-duke
Additional Recommendations
24
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff must ensure that each inmate is provided at least fifteen REPORT minutes for meal consumption. (F5.) 3
R10:
Office staff will process the visitor out of the system. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Comprehensive School Safety Initiative
R11:
Once the visitor has been signed out of the system, the badge must be torn thoroughly so it cannot be Report. May 2014. Accessed on March 21, 2018 (www.ncjrs.gov/pdfiles1/nij/247757.pdf) reused. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Safer Schools – What Can We Do? Safer Schools – What Can We Do? REFERENCES APPENDICES
R12:
Operational Area Fire/Law Memorandum of Understanding – Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 (OCFA) and Orange County Sheriff’s Department. March 2016. Jointly Authored by San Anaheim City Council: R1, R6, R7 Diego Sheriff’s Department and San Diego City Fire-Rescue Department. Huntington Beach City Council: R1, R6, R7
R13:
HUD Exchange, Housing First in Permanent Supportive Housing, 2014. City Council of Orange F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of San Clemente F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 14. National Alliance to End Homelessness, Housing First, April, 2016. City Council of Santa Ana F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 15. National Health Care for the Homeless Council, Homelessness & Health: What’s the City Council of Tustin F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 Connection, June, 2011.
R14:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Report, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 Order No RB-2009-0012, August 28, 2009. City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 15. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), dated Dec. 2001. REPORT 5 16. Orange County Waste & Recycling (formerly Integrated Waste Management Department), Regional Landfill Options for Orange County (RELOOC), Update 2007, dated Nov. 2007. Recommendations:
R15:
Anaheim Air Support, Standard Operation Procedure Manual, 4.42 – 4.5 – 4.5.1. July 15,
R16:
Office of Community Planning and Development, Defining Chronic Homelessness: A Technical Guide for HUD Programs, September 2007. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.(c)
R17:
Orange County Commission to End Homelessness Bylaws, January 23, 2018. are requested from:
R18:
Price, Susan, 2016, An Assessment of Homeless Services in Orange County, Orange County Executive Office F5, F6 R3, R5 County Executive Office.
R19:
Reaser, Lynn, PhD, 2015, Project 25: Housing the Most Frequent Users of Public Services among the Homeless, Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at PLNU. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Where There’s Will, There’s a Way Where There’s Will, There’s a Way governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six
R20:
Shinn, Gregory A., 2014, The Cost of Long-Term Homelessness in Central Florida, 8. “Measure H, Los Angeles County Plan to Prevent and Combat Homelessness.” Central Florida Commission on Homelessness. https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_County,_California,_Sales_Tax_for_Homeless_Services_an
R21:
Snow, David A., and Goldberg, Rachel, June 2017, Homelessness in Orange County: d_Prevention,_Measure_H_(March_2017). Accessed April 27, 2018. The Costs to our Community. 9. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. 2017.“Don’t Count on It: How the HUD Point-in-Time Count underestimates the Homelessness Crisis in America.” 2017. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/HUD-PIT-report2017. Accessed April 27, 2018.
R22:
Orange County Waste and Recycling. “Prima Deshecha Landfill”. Accessed April 6, 2018 www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha/ 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six
R23:
Tita, Bob. “Recycling, Once Embraced by Businesses and Environmentalists, Now Under APPENDIX – GLOSSARY Siege.” The Wall Street Journal. May 14, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2018. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/recycling-once-embraced-by-businesses-and- environmentalists-now-under-siege/ar-AAxclAb?ocid=ientp. Hazardous Waste - Speaking in general terms, hazardous wastes are solid wastes that are toxic,
R24:
Ward, Morris A. September 16, 2015. “The Principal Greenhouse Gases and Their Sources.” ignitable, reactive, or corrosive according to Chapter 11 of Division 4.5 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. National Environmental Education Foundation. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and-climate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases- and-their-sources. Household Hazardous - Waste includes paint, antifreeze, used motor oil, batteries, pesticides,
R25:
CalRecycle. “California State Laws and Regulations concerning Landfills and Recycling.” caustic cleaners, needles, fluorescent light bulbs, medications, and other items that may present Accessed May 16, 2016. handling problems or other hazards if they are left in the solid waste stream. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/.
R26:
Source: CA Code of Regulations – Title 14 (Natural Resources) – Division 7, Section 18720 Integrated Waste Management - Managing waste by multiple techniques to achieve solid
R27:
CalRecycle. “Local Government Central
R28:
Staub, Colin. “China ban collides with Calif. diversion requirements.” Resource Recycling. Posted on May 15, 2018. Accessed on May 16, 2018. Municipal solid waste or MSW - "Municipal solid waste" or "MSW" means all solid wastes https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/05/15/china-ban-collides-with-calif-diversion- generated by residential, commercial, and industrial sources, and all solid waste generated at requirements/ construction and demolition sites, at food-processing facilities, and at treatment works for water
R29:
Orange County Executive Office Press Release, “Trash Importation Approvals Will Assure and waste water, which are collected and transported under the authorization of a jurisdiction or are self-hauled. Municipal solid waste does not include agricultural crop residues (SIC Codes Final Debt Repayment”, April 26, 2016 071 through 0724, 0751), animal manures (SIC Code 0751), mining waste and fuel extraction waste (SIC Codes 101 through 1499), forestry wastes (SIC Codes 081 through 0851, 2411 and 2421), and ash from industrial boilers, furnaces and incinerators. REPORT 5 Organic waste - "Organic waste" means solid wastes originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, and from petroleum, which contain naturally produced organic compounds, and which are biologically decomposable by microbial and fungal action into the constituent compounds of water, carbon dioxide, and other simpler organic compounds. Sometimes called biodegradable waste. Recycling - Using waste as material to manufacture a new product. Recycling involves altering the physical form of an object or material and making a new object from the altered material. Solid wastes - Discarded or abandoned materials. Solid wastes can be solid, liquid, semi-solid or containerized gaseous material. For regulatory purposes, hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste. Waste - Objects or materials for which no use or reuse is intended. Source: CalRecycle 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash
R30:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department Long Reach of the Law: “How Duke helps nab criminals, save citizens”. November 3, 2016. Accessed September 14, 2017. http://behingthebadgeoc.com/cities/ocsd-long-reach-law-duke
R11-12:
12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 Source: Waste Management Commission Meeting Agenda of March 8, 2018 Imported Trash The 1994 Orange County bankruptcy resulted in a fiscal emergency that required extreme measures. Accepting trash from outside Orange County and collecting associated disposal fees was selected as an additional source of revenue for the County to be used toward payment of the bankruptcy debt. In 1995, county landfills began to accept trash from Riverside, Los Angeles 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury noilliM $ Orange County Landfills: Talking Trash and San Bernardino counties for a fee. Currently, importation is 37% of the total annual waste in the landfills and contributes 30% of the total annual revenue. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the County of Orange received $45.5 million from the imported trash fees. OCWR received about 25% of that money for landfill support. About 7% was retained by the County and 5% was used to compensate the host cities. The great majority, 63% or $28.7 million, was used to retire the bankruptcy bonds and to pay other bankruptcy-related expenses. The bankruptcy bonds were discharged by July 1, 2017, but the County continues to import trash and collect fees, with contracts running until 2025. Most of these fees will be used to pay the $33.3 million owed to a handful of cities, special districts and internal county accounts that elected not to be repaid out of bond proceeds. A surplus, estimated to be between $5-8 million annually, remains beyond that. TOTAL TRASH REVENUE Figure 3: Imported Trash Revenue and Tonnage 50 2 1.8 45 1.6 40 1.4 35 1.2 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY 17-18 is estimated 30 1 0.8 25 0.6 20 0.4 15 0.2 10 0
R17-18:
$ Million FISCAL YEAR TOTAL TRASH REVENUE Note: FY 17-18 is estimated
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Health Encyclopedia, University of Rochester Medical Center, Amphetamine Screen (Blood). Accessed June 1, 2018. Documents (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/) 1. 2016 California Code Title 2, Division 3, Part 2, Section 12525 2. Miller, Steve, Deaths in Police Custody Up, Half Attributed to Natural Causes, February
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4) or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy
F2:
ACLU SoCal’s Jails Project. June 2017 Orange County Jails. 23, 2016. Accessed June 1, 2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4) or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy
F3:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections (Adult and (http://www.CalWatchdog.com) Juvenile Health Services) 3. SAFE – Strategy, Accountability, Focus, Evaluation. Accessed June 1, 2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4) or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy
F4:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections § 1046. (http://www.ocsd.org/divisions/prof/safe) Death in Custody 4. Replogle, Jill, Inmate Death is Latest Black Mark for OC Sheriff's Department, July 26,
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4) or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy
F5:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections §1207. 2017. Accessed June 1, 2018. Medical Receiving Screening (http://www.scpr.org.news/2017/07/74110/inmate-death-is-latest-black-mark-for-oc-
F6:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA); Section 45CFR sheriff-s/) 164.521(f)(1)(ii)(A)-(B) 5. Officer-Involved Shooting and Custodial Death Letters. Accessed June 1, 2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By October 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should require all RESPONSES outside law enforcement agencies’ drug and alcohol test results to accompany the arrestee The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public to the Intake Release Center. (F6) agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report:
F7:
McCrary, Justin, School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, Raphael, Steven, (http://www.orangecountyda.org/reports/officerletters.asp) Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Deaths in Custody 6. Highlights of the 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for CPR and ECC. in California: 2005 through 2014, September 9, 2015. Accessed June 1, 2018.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should develop a plan to receive §933(c) the medical records, diagnoses, and treatment plans from hospitals when an inmate “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any returns to the Intake Release Center. (F7) public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations
F8:
Mitchell et al. Deaths In Custody Position Paper. Academic Forensic Pathology: The (http://www.heart.org ) official Publication of the National Association of Medical Examiners, 2007.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
By January 1, 2019, the Orange County Sheriff’s and Correctional Health Services jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the staff should ensure pink slips are responded to within twenty-four hours. (F8) public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ”
R12:
By January 1, 2019, a nurse practitioner or physician should be on site for weekends and holidays, even if on a limited schedule, to address inmates’ urgent care §933.05 needs. (F8) “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
F9:
National Association of Medical Examiners, August 12, 2005. Forensic Autopsy Performance Standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By January 1, 2019, Correctional Health Services and the Orange County Sheriff’s sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters Department should consider allowing the Medical Observation Unit to dispense under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also intravenous fluids. (F9) comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
F10:
Olsen, Lise. In Texas and California, police fail to report use-of-force fatalities from 2005-2015, Study: Hundreds of cases were not submitted in Texas, California (Houston Chronicle; October 9, 2016)
Related Recommendations (2)
R13:
By October 1, 2018, the Orange County District Attorney’s office should require (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response the forensic pathologist’s report to follow the standards of the National Association of shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the Medical Examiners (NAME) for custodial death autopsies. (F10) reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
R14:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should review the autopsy, responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: toxicology, and pathologist’s reports, as soon as they are available, for ways to improve (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. healthcare processes. (F10, F11) (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
F11:
Orange County District Attorney and Orange County Sheriff's Department, Operational and Procedural Protocol for Custodial Heath Investigations, February 10, 2010
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should review the autopsy, responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: toxicology, and pathologist’s reports, as soon as they are available, for ways to improve (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. healthcare processes. (F10, F11) (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
F12:
/2016 Report. Our Brothers Keeper: A Look at the Care and Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates in Orange County Jails.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By June 30, 2019, Correctional Health Services should seek accreditation from the with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (F12) parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe shall not exceed six REPORT months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. 8 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Preventable Deaths in Orange County Jails Preventable Deaths in Orange County Jails
F13:
Puente, Kelly. Family Seeks Answers In Death of Westminster Man Who Shared Jail Cell With Inmate Accused of Murder. (Orange County Register, July 25, 2017)
F14:
Schwebke, Scott. DA Determined Orange County Jail Staff Not at Fault in Death of Inmate. (Orange County Register, October 5, 2017)
F15:
Schwebke, Scott. Family Sues County Following Inmate’s Death. (Orange County Register, April 11, 2018)
F16:
Sforza, Teri. Deadly Custody: Violent Crime Plummets in California, but Prison Deaths Double, (Orange County Register, October 5, 2016) REPORT 8 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Preventable Deaths in Orange County Jails Preventable Deaths in Orange County Jails REFERENCES Websites
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Health Encyclopedia, University of Rochester Medical Center, Amphetamine Screen (Blood). Accessed June 1, 2018. Documents (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/)
R2:
ACLU SoCal’s Jails Project. June 2017 Orange County Jails. 23, 2016. Accessed June 1, 2018.
R3:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections (Adult and (http://www.CalWatchdog.com) Juvenile Health Services) 3. SAFE – Strategy, Accountability, Focus, Evaluation. Accessed June 1, 2018.
R4:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections § 1046. (http://www.ocsd.org/divisions/prof/safe) Death in Custody 4. Replogle, Jill, Inmate Death is Latest Black Mark for OC Sheriff's Department, July 26,
R5:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections §1207. 2017. Accessed June 1, 2018. Medical Receiving Screening (http://www.scpr.org.news/2017/07/74110/inmate-death-is-latest-black-mark-for-oc-
R6:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA); Section 45CFR sheriff-s/) 164.521(f)(1)(ii)(A)-(B) 5. Officer-Involved Shooting and Custodial Death Letters. Accessed June 1, 2018.
R16:
Sforza, Teri. Deadly Custody: Violent Crime Plummets in California, but Prison Deaths Double, (Orange County Register, October 5, 2016) REPORT 8 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Preventable Deaths in Orange County Jails Preventable Deaths in Orange County Jails REFERENCES Websites
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Failure to identify health threats at the Intake Release Center may lead to subsequent medical challenges that could be avoided.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should use a urine drug screen test for all inmates at the time of intake to obtain a more accurate assessment of the inmate’s medical condition. (F1, F2)
R2:
By June 30, 2019, Correctional Health Services should perform universal Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV tests at the Intake Release Center and make an appropriate decision for treatment, vaccination, and housing. (F1, F4)
R3:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should require the radiologist to examine the Intake Release Center x-rays for any abnormalities in addition to tuberculosis to improve the inmate’s diagnosis and care. All x-ray test findings, including normal, should be recorded on the inmate’s health record. (F1, F5)
R4:
By January 1, 2019, the Intake Release Center health assessment should require the inmate to disrobe for a brief visual medical examination by a nurse practitioner or doctor. (F1)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F2:
Because the Intake Release Center health assessment does not screen for drug or alcohol intoxication, some inmates have not been appropriately assigned to the Medical Observation Unit to monitor for potential overdose events.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should use a urine drug screen test for all inmates at the time of intake to obtain a more accurate assessment of the inmate’s medical condition. (F1, F2)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F3:
Failure to screen for mental illness at the Intake Release Center exposes other inmates to potential risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F4:
Failure to detect Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV at the Intake Release Center puts the jail population and staff at risk for these diseases.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By June 30, 2019, Correctional Health Services should perform universal Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV tests at the Intake Release Center and make an appropriate decision for treatment, vaccination, and housing. (F1, F4)
R9:
By October 1, 2018, the results of the intake health assessment should be included in making appropriate housing assignments. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F5:
Inmate health care is compromised when the Intake Release Center x-ray screening is limited to the detection of tuberculosis and not used to identify other significant abnormalities, such as artificial heart valves and aortic aneurysms.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should require the radiologist to examine the Intake Release Center x-rays for any abnormalities in addition to tuberculosis to improve the inmate’s diagnosis and care. All x-ray test findings, including normal, should be recorded on the inmate’s health record. (F1, F5)
R5:
By January 1, 2019, an improved Intake Release Center health assessment should be used to identify any condition requiring assignment to the Medical Observation Unit. (F1,
F6:
Appropriate health care may be delayed when drug and alcohol screening test results collected by outside law enforcement agencies are not provided to the Intake Release Center with the arrestee.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6:
By January 1, 2019, the medical intake form should include a summary section and a written plan of action to highlight the health conditions needing attention. (F1, F2, F3,
R7:
By October 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should require all outside law enforcement agencies’ drug and alcohol test results to accompany the arrestee to the Intake Release Center. (F6)
F7:
Appropriate health care is compromised when medical records, diagnoses and treatment plans are not provided by the hospital when the inmate returns to the Intake Release Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should develop a plan to receive the medical records, diagnoses, and treatment plans from hospitals when an inmate returns to the Intake Release Center. (F7)
F8:
Inmate care may be compromised because of the lack of a timely referral to a healthcare professional. This is especially problematic on weekends and holidays.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
By January 1, 2019, the Orange County Sheriff’s and Correctional Health Services staff should ensure pink slips are responded to within twenty-four hours. (F8)
R12:
By January 1, 2019, a nurse practitioner or physician should be on site for weekends and holidays, even if on a limited schedule, to address inmates’ urgent care needs. (F8)
F9:
There is no provision to administer intravenous fluids in the Medical Observation Unit, potentially subjecting patients to dehydration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
By January 1, 2019, Correctional Health Services and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should consider allowing the Medical Observation Unit to dispense intravenous fluids. (F9)
F10:
The Orange County District Attorney does not require its forensic pathologists to comply with national standards, limiting potentially valuable information on cause and manner of death.
Related Recommendations (2)
R13:
By October 1, 2018, the Orange County District Attorney’s office should require the forensic pathologist’s report to follow the standards of the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) for custodial death autopsies. (F10)
R14:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should review the autopsy, toxicology, and pathologist’s reports, as soon as they are available, for ways to improve healthcare processes. (F10, F11)
F11:
Timely receipt of autopsy and toxicology reports provides important information that could assist Correctional Health Services in implementing needed changes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
By October 1, 2018, Correctional Health Services should review the autopsy, toxicology, and pathologist’s reports, as soon as they are available, for ways to improve healthcare processes. (F10, F11)
F12:
The Orange County Correctional Health Services’ performance is not accredited by any peer review agency; consequently, it lacks the benefits of accreditation as a process improvement tool.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
By June 30, 2019, Correctional Health Services should seek accreditation from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (F12) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Operating fifteen public agency helicopters in a busy and compressed airspace necessitates close cooperation and communication.
Related Recommendations (6)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider forming and implementing an Orange County air operations safety council under the direction of the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9)
R2:
By September 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should implement the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCFA to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8)
R3:
By September 1, 2018, Orange County Fire Authority management should develop and present its board with proposed procedures for how to work cooperatively with Orange County Sheriff’s Department as OCSD implements the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCSD to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F9)
R5:
By December 15, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County Fire Authority should evaluate potential costs and operational benefits of colocating their air units at the Fullerton Airport. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should plan on presenting this evaluation to the Board of Supervisors and publicly post. The Orange County Fire Authority should prepare and present this evaluation to their board and publicly post it. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
By January 15, 2019, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority and the cities of Huntington Beach and Anaheim air support units should consider the benefits of a leadership plan that brings a manager with pilot experience into positions above the unit level. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
F2:
While responding to search and rescue events, Orange County Sheriff’s Department and Orange County Fire Authority helicopters have flown too close to each other without adequate communication or coordination, which behavior could result in flight safety issues.
Related Recommendations (6)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider forming and implementing an Orange County air operations safety council under the direction of the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9)
R2:
By September 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should implement the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCFA to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8)
R3:
By September 1, 2018, Orange County Fire Authority management should develop and present its board with proposed procedures for how to work cooperatively with Orange County Sheriff’s Department as OCSD implements the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCSD to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F9)
R5:
By December 15, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County Fire Authority should evaluate potential costs and operational benefits of colocating their air units at the Fullerton Airport. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should plan on presenting this evaluation to the Board of Supervisors and publicly post. The Orange County Fire Authority should prepare and present this evaluation to their board and publicly post it. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
By January 15, 2019, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority and the cities of Huntington Beach and Anaheim air support units should consider the benefits of a leadership plan that brings a manager with pilot experience into positions above the unit level. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
F3:
Some air crew members and management personnel of the Orange County Fire Authority and Orange County law enforcement air support units have expressed serious concerns regarding each other’s flight safety and aerial rescue operations.
Related Recommendations (7)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider forming and implementing an Orange County air operations safety council under the direction of the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9)
R2:
By September 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should implement the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCFA to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8)
R3:
By September 1, 2018, Orange County Fire Authority management should develop and present its board with proposed procedures for how to work cooperatively with Orange County Sheriff’s Department as OCSD implements the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCSD to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F9)
R4:
By January 15, 2019, the Orange County Fire Authority in collaboration with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should identify and implement methods for its paramedics to operate jointly with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department Air Support Unit in its search and rescue operations to the maximum extent practical. (F3, F6, F11).
R5:
By December 15, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County Fire Authority should evaluate potential costs and operational benefits of colocating their air units at the Fullerton Airport. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should plan on presenting this evaluation to the Board of Supervisors and publicly post. The Orange County Fire Authority should prepare and present this evaluation to their board and publicly post it. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
By January 15, 2019, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority and the cities of Huntington Beach and Anaheim air support units should consider the benefits of a leadership plan that brings a manager with pilot experience into positions above the unit level. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
F4:
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department has sufficient staffing, equipment, and training to implement the Board of Supervisors’ resolution that the Sheriff should be the lead agency for remote/off-road search and rescues.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By September 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should implement the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCFA to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8)
R3:
By September 1, 2018, Orange County Fire Authority management should develop and present its board with proposed procedures for how to work cooperatively with Orange County Sheriff’s Department as OCSD implements the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCSD to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F9)
F5:
Orange County public agencies have substantially more helicopters per square mile than any county in southern California, which provides opportunity for further cost- benefit analysis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
F6:
Sheriff’s helicopters and pilots with fire department paramedics onboard are used in many other California counties, including San Bernardino, San Diego, and Santa Barbara and have proven to be an effective combination.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
By January 15, 2019, the Orange County Fire Authority in collaboration with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should identify and implement methods for its paramedics to operate jointly with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department Air Support Unit in its search and rescue operations to the maximum extent practical. (F3, F6, F11).
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
F7:
Orange County’s public aviation units lack inter-agency coordination, inhibiting efficient and cost-effective resource utilization.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider forming and implementing an Orange County air operations safety council under the direction of the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9)
R5:
By December 15, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County Fire Authority should evaluate potential costs and operational benefits of colocating their air units at the Fullerton Airport. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should plan on presenting this evaluation to the Board of Supervisors and publicly post. The Orange County Fire Authority should prepare and present this evaluation to their board and publicly post it. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
By January 15, 2019, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority and the cities of Huntington Beach and Anaheim air support units should consider the benefits of a leadership plan that brings a manager with pilot experience into positions above the unit level. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
F8:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department does not have mid- to senior-level leadership with prior pilot experience who can provide appropriate oversight for flight operations and help resolve interagency issues.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider forming and implementing an Orange County air operations safety council under the direction of the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9)
R2:
By September 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should implement the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCFA to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
By January 15, 2019, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority and the cities of Huntington Beach and Anaheim air support units should consider the benefits of a leadership plan that brings a manager with pilot experience into positions above the unit level. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
F9:
Orange County Fire Authority does not have mid- to senior-level leadership with prior pilot experience who can provide appropriate oversight for flight operations and help resolve interagency issues.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
By October 1, 2018, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider forming and implementing an Orange County air operations safety council under the direction of the Board of Supervisors. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9)
R3:
By September 1, 2018, Orange County Fire Authority management should develop and present its board with proposed procedures for how to work cooperatively with Orange County Sheriff’s Department as OCSD implements the Board of Supervisors’ resolution identifying OCSD as the lead agency for wilderness, remote/off-road Search and Rescue and work with OCSD to establish procedures for communications while either party is providing assistance or backup. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F9)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
By January 15, 2019, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority and the cities of Huntington Beach and Anaheim air support units should consider the benefits of a leadership plan that brings a manager with pilot experience into positions above the unit level. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
F10:
Orange County air support units could benefit from colocating at Fullerton Airport where they can leverage existing facilities.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
By December 15, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County Fire Authority should evaluate potential costs and operational benefits of colocating their air units at the Fullerton Airport. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should plan on presenting this evaluation to the Board of Supervisors and publicly post. The Orange County Fire Authority should prepare and present this evaluation to their board and publicly post it. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
R7:
By January 15, 2019, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Authority and the cities of Huntington Beach and Anaheim air support units should consider the benefits of a leadership plan that brings a manager with pilot experience into positions above the unit level. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
F11:
Several nearby counties have gained efficiencies by successfully consolidating their sheriffs' and fire agencies’ air support units into one organization within each county.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
By January 15, 2019, the Orange County Fire Authority in collaboration with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should identify and implement methods for its paramedics to operate jointly with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department Air Support Unit in its search and rescue operations to the maximum extent practical. (F3, F6, F11).
R5:
By December 15, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County Fire Authority should evaluate potential costs and operational benefits of colocating their air units at the Fullerton Airport. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should plan on presenting this evaluation to the Board of Supervisors and publicly post. The Orange County Fire Authority should prepare and present this evaluation to their board and publicly post it. (F1, F2, F3, F7, F10, F11)
R6:
By January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors, in coordination with the affected agencies, should consider a plan for a centralized approach to public agency air support including colocating and eventually consolidating the various Orange County city and county aerial support units. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The only access road to the Emergency Operations Center is narrow, with a number of dangerous winding turns, imperiling safe vehicle passage.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By September 1, 2018, the County should consider assigning responsibility for maintaining the land around the Emergency Operations Center, as well as the road to the facility, to the Orange County Public Works Department, which has staff with expertise in this field. (F1, F3, F4)
R2:
By December 1, 2018, the County should have plans in place to repair and widen the current access road, enhance and add turnouts, or add a new access road to provide safe travel to and from the Emergency Operations Center. (F1)
F2:
The only alternative exit is an unpaved jeep trail that is narrower and more dangerous than the main access road and is unsuitable for vehicle passage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2019, the County of Orange and the Sheriff’s Department should initiate a study regarding the ability to use the Loma Ridge Jeep Trail as an emergency exit route from the Emergency Operations Center. (F2)
F3:
The failure to properly maintain the area around the Emergency Operations Center and eradicate the overgrowth of weeds impairs visibility and presents a major fire hazard.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By September 1, 2018, the County should consider assigning responsibility for maintaining the land around the Emergency Operations Center, as well as the road to the facility, to the Orange County Public Works Department, which has staff with expertise in this field. (F1, F3, F4)
R3:
By December 1, 2018, the County of Orange should have a contract in place to ensure regular weed abatement around the Emergency Operations Center and along Loma Ridge Road. (F3, F4)
F4:
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department has been unable to fulfill the County’s responsibility to maintain the Emergency Operations Center’s access road, including weed abatement and road repairs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By September 1, 2018, the County should consider assigning responsibility for maintaining the land around the Emergency Operations Center, as well as the road to the facility, to the Orange County Public Works Department, which has staff with expertise in this field. (F1, F3, F4)
R3:
By December 1, 2018, the County of Orange should have a contract in place to ensure regular weed abatement around the Emergency Operations Center and along Loma Ridge Road. (F3, F4)
F5:
Office equipment, bookcases, and file cabinets are not properly secured and present a risk of injury and facility damage in a major earthquake.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By September 1, 2018, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department should ensure that all office furniture and equipment is properly secured to prevent damage or personal injury in a major earthquake. (F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
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.
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Homelessness in Orange County is a regional problem requiring regional approaches and solutions.
Related Recommendations (7)
R1:
Orange County cities and the County should develop a Permanent Supportive Housing development plan, and should consider a plan structure similar to the proposal put forth by Association of California Cities – Orange County, that proportionally allocates sites among the cities. (F1, F2, F4, F7, F8)
R2:
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: RESPONDENT FINDING RECOMMENDATION Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F5, F6,F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Anaheim F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Brea F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Buena Park F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Costa Mesa F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Dana Point F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fountain Valley F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fullerton F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Garden Grove F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Huntington Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Irvine F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Laguna Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Mission Viejo F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Orange F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of San Clemente F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Santa Ana F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Tustin F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.(c) are requested from: County Executive Office F5, F6 R3, R5
F2:
The lack of a regional plan designating specific development goals for Permanent Supportive Housing contributes to an insufficient number of available units to house the chronically homeless.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Orange County cities and the County should develop a Permanent Supportive Housing development plan, and should consider a plan structure similar to the proposal put forth by Association of California Cities – Orange County, that proportionally allocates sites among the cities. (F1, F2, F4, F7, F8)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
F3:
The County’s overreliance on unpredictable and inconsistent federal and state funding risks funds being unavailable for future Permanent Supportive Housing development and supportive services.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: RESPONDENT FINDING RECOMMENDATION Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F5, F6,F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Anaheim F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Brea F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Buena Park F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Costa Mesa F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Dana Point F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fountain Valley F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fullerton F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Garden Grove F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Huntington Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Irvine F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Laguna Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Mission Viejo F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Orange F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of San Clemente F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Santa Ana F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Tustin F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.(c) are requested from: County Executive Office F5, F6 R3, R5
F4:
Cities’ reluctance to provide sites for Permanent Supportive Housing development has contributed to overcrowded emergency shelters and an increased unsheltered homeless population.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1:
Orange County cities and the County should develop a Permanent Supportive Housing development plan, and should consider a plan structure similar to the proposal put forth by Association of California Cities – Orange County, that proportionally allocates sites among the cities. (F1, F2, F4, F7, F8)
R2:
Each Service Planning Area should identify sites for Permanent Supportive Housing proportional to the allocation suggested in the Association of California Cities – Orange County proposal. (F1, F4)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
F5:
A staffing shortage exists within the County Housing and Community Development Department impeding Permanent Supportive Housing development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orange County Community Resources should add an appropriate number of additional positions to the Housing and Community Development Department beyond the two currently budgeted to be optimally positioned for the increased Permanent Supportive Housing development that will likely arise. (F5)
F6:
Service Planning Area meetings have successfully brought together city, county and non- profit entities to share information on homeless issues, but have not fostered decision- making or action.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
F7:
NIMBYism has impeded the creation of housing for the homeless, including Permanent Supportive Housing, in the County of Orange.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Orange County cities and the County should develop a Permanent Supportive Housing development plan, and should consider a plan structure similar to the proposal put forth by Association of California Cities – Orange County, that proportionally allocates sites among the cities. (F1, F2, F4, F7, F8)
R6:
Cities should collaborate with, and leverage the work done by, United Way on their “United to End Homelessness” public awareness campaign. (F7) To be completed by June 30, 2019
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
F8:
Orange County cities and the County have engaged in blaming and finger-pointing, hampering the collaborative efforts needed to site, finance, and maintain Permanent Supportive Housing.
Related Recommendations (6)
R1:
Orange County cities and the County should develop a Permanent Supportive Housing development plan, and should consider a plan structure similar to the proposal put forth by Association of California Cities – Orange County, that proportionally allocates sites among the cities. (F1, F2, F4, F7, F8)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: RESPONDENT FINDING RECOMMENDATION Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F5, F6,F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Anaheim F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Brea F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Buena Park F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Costa Mesa F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Dana Point F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fountain Valley F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fullerton F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Garden Grove F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Huntington Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Irvine F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Laguna Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Mission Viejo F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Orange F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of San Clemente F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Santa Ana F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Tustin F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.(c) are requested from: County Executive Office F5, F6 R3, R5
F9:
Cities have taken a silo approach to developing Permanent Supportive Housing, resulting in inefficient leveraging and pooling of funds across municipal borders.
Related Recommendations (5)
R3:
The County Executive Office should organize the agenda and content of the Service Planning Area meetings to promote collaboration between cities on Permanent Supportive Housing and other housing development. (F1, F4, F6, F8, F9)
R4:
Cities should ensure decision-makers fully participate in their region’s Service Planning Area meetings. (F1, F6, F8, F9)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: RESPONDENT FINDING RECOMMENDATION Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F5, F6,F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Anaheim F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Brea F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Buena Park F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Costa Mesa F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Dana Point F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fountain Valley F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fullerton F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Garden Grove F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Huntington Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Irvine F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Laguna Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Mission Viejo F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Orange F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of San Clemente F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Santa Ana F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Tustin F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.(c) are requested from: County Executive Office F5, F6 R3, R5
F10:
There is no established, independent leadership body in the County empowered to address regional homeless issues in an effective manner.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
To streamline shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing development, the County and its cities should establish a decision-making body, such as a Joint Powers Authority, that is empowered to identify and allocate sites and pool funding associated with housing and supportive services for the homeless. (F1, F3, F4, F7, F8, F9, F10)
R8:
Such a decision-making body should develop a comprehensive, regional housing business plan that identifies both the number of Permanent Supportive Housing units needed as well as the associated costs of renovating existing units or building new ones. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8, F9, F10)
R9:
Such a decision-making body should propose a plan for securing local, supplemental sources of funding for both Permanent Supportive Housing development and associated support services. (F1, F3, F8, F9, F10) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: RESPONDENT FINDING RECOMMENDATION Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F5, F6,F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Anaheim F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Brea F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Buena Park F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Costa Mesa F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Dana Point F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fountain Valley F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Fullerton F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Garden Grove F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Huntington Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Irvine F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Laguna Beach F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Mission Viejo F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Orange F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of San Clemente F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Santa Ana F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Tustin F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10 R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.(c) are requested from: County Executive Office F5, F6 R3, R5
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Meals provided to inmates meet the requirements established by the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
F2:
Food storage areas are clean and neatly maintained by the Food Service Unit in the manner required by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
F3:
All dairy, produce and meat items are fresh and edible, and stored at the correct temperatures and in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
F4:
Food is properly sealed so as not to contaminate or be contaminated by other foods according to the standards set forth by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 7.
F5:
Inmates are not allowed sufficient time to eat their meals in violation of the Orange County Sheriff’s Food Service Manual and the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Title 15.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Orange County Sheriff must ensure that each inmate is provided at least fifteen minutes for meal consumption. (F5.) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Orange County Sheriff/Coroner:
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
School safety and security are priorities in every school district in the Orange County public school system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
School districts should explore all possible funding resources that may be available in order to implement desired security measures. (F.2.)
F2:
The implementation of security measures for schools, in many cases, is limited by funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
School districts should re-evaluate the lack of secure fencing on all school campuses and present a report to their respective boards by December 31, 2018, outlining their plans to make campuses more secure. (F.2., F.3.)
F3:
Many Orange County school campuses were constructed to reflect an “open and inviting” atmosphere but are now faced with physical and philosophical security issues that challenge this thinking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
School districts should implement procedures to ensure that all campuses maintain a complete, daily log (electronic or manual) of every visitor and volunteer entering and exiting the campus, excluding program events such as awards ceremonies or stage or musical productions. (F.4.)
F4:
While every Orange County school district reported the use of a campus visitor sign-in process, there is a lack of procedural consistency among school campuses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
School districts should implement procedures to ensure that photo identification is required of all campus visitors and volunteers before a visitor’s badge is issued. (F.4,
F5:
Many districts or school campuses do not require all teachers, staff, and volunteers to wear ID badges while on campus, making identification of authorized personnel difficult for substitute teachers, student teachers, visitors, volunteers, and first responders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
School districts should implement procedures to ensure that all faculty and staff are required to wear visible photo ID badges while on campus. (F.5.)
F6:
Currently, student ID badges, which could easily distinguish students from non-students of similar age, are not required to be worn by Orange County middle and high school students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
All school districts with middle or high school campuses should consider using student ID cards in a format to be worn as student ID badges while on campus. (F.6.)
F7:
Campus personnel and volunteers, while on duty outside the classroom, have an inconsistent usage or availability of communication devices for emergency situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
School districts should evaluate available communication devices and ensure that custodial and supervisory personnel, as well as safety resource officers, playground supervisors and coaches, have two-way radios or equivalent communication devices with them at all times, enabling instant two-way communication with the office. (F.7.)
F8:
There is no documentation or reporting protocol within the districts of individual campus security incidents, making it difficult to track, analyze, and summarize such incidents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
School districts should consider requiring that all campus incidents of unauthorized access be recorded, tracked, and reported to the district office on a quarterly basis. All districts should share these reports with the Orange County Department of Education. (F.8.)
F9:
While every Orange County school develops a school safety plan, few schools have used an individual school security assessment to identify deficiencies or to develop the required plan. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
School districts should evaluate requiring each school to perform a school security assessment to evaluate their current school safety plan. (F.9) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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. Responses Required: Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933(c) are required from: The Orange County Superintendent of Schools - Responses to each of the nine principal findings and recommendations. The governing body of each of the districts below – Responses to the indicated principal findings and recommendations. Anaheim Elementary School District La Habra City School District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3)
R15:
TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system: risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1
F2:
The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3)
R15:
TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system: risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1
F3:
The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3)
R15:
TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system: risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1
F4:
Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
R15:
TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system: risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1
F5:
Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:
R15:
TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY17-18 is estimated Source: 1 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 The distribution of the imported trash is rebalanced among the three landfills periodically. In 2017, 95% of the imported trash was divided between Olinda Alpha and Frank Bowerman Landfills, with the remainder sent to Prima Deshecha. Over the last two years, the imported trash received by OA Landfill has decreased, but it continues to receive nearly half of the total. (See Table 4) Table 4: Distribution of Imported Trash per Landfill FY 2017/18 FY 2016/17 *(1st two quarters) Total Total Tonnage Tonnage Trash Trash (million tons) (million tons) (%) (%) OA Landfill 60 1.06 47 0.43* FB Landfill 35 0.61 47 0.43* PD Landfill 5 0.09 6 0.05* Total 100 1.76 100 0.91* Source: 2 Waste Management Commission Meeting Agency of March 8, 2018 Olinda Alpha: The Crunch Point OA Landfill will reach its permitted capacity before the other two landfills. The amount of space remaining at the OA Landfill is approximately 18%. Both FB and PD retain large available capacity: FB has 67% remaining capacity and PD, 99% remaining capacity (Waste Management Commission, Agenda of December 14, 2017 Meeting). As a result of recycling and other mitigation measures, recent capacity estimates project a closure date of 2028 or later for OA Landfill. However, the MOU between the County and the City of Brea specifies a closure date of 2021. The renewal process, including revision of the specified closure date, is lengthy, involving multiple state and county reviews. Without a renewal agreement, the continued operation of the OA landfill may be jeopardized, even though it is not at permitted capacity. Implications for the City of Brea Half of the total waste truck trips in Orange County, more than quarter of a million per year, travel over Valencia Avenue, the only access road to OA Landfill. Two large Brea master planned communities, Olinda Ranch and Blackstone, border Valencia Avenue. Amenities for these communities include public parks, hiking and equestrian trails and wildlife corridors. In 2009, after lengthy negotiations, the County and the City of Brea implemented a $35 million package of odor, noise, and traffic mitigation measures, as well as landscape upgrades along Valencia Avenue in exchange for continued operation of OA. A further extension of the MOU between the OA Landfill and the City of Brea means continuing the daily stream of large trash trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Although the County has made great strides in addressing community landfill concerns, these remain long term considerations for many of those residents. The negotiations between the County and City of Brea to reauthorize use of OA could be as complicated as in the past. Implications for the Entire County The closure of the OA Landfill would upset the balance of the entire county landfill system, not just north Orange County and the City of Brea. All self-haul vehicles and heavy trash truck traffic to and from the OA Landfill would be diverted to Irvine and south county via existing highways and local streets. OCWR reports that there were 267,000 truck trips to OA Landfill in 2017. Such a large number of heavy truck trips to the FB and PD Landfills would significantly increase freeway and local street traffic, hastening the degradation of the road infrastructure. Adding travel distance and time would increase operating costs, resulting in higher trash bills to Orange County residents and businesses. Conclusion As Orange County’s population continues to grow, so will its waste stream. While the landfills still have capacity, it is in the best interests of residents to keep the Orange County solid waste disposal system intact and extend its life as long as possible. Three major factors affect the system: risk of Olinda Alpha Landfill closure in 2021, which would have major negative impact on the system imported waste, which adds to the burden of the landfills volatility in the market for recyclable material, which could have a negative effect While there is little that can be done at a local level with regard to the recyclables market, managing the other factors is even more crucial to the future growth and quality of life for Orange County. Commendation Orange County Waste and Recycling is to be commended for operating an efficient and cost effective system of landfills and hazardous waste disposal centers that constitutes an important economic asset to Orange County. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at five principal findings, as follows: F1. The Orange County waste disposal system is efficient, well balanced, geographically distributed, and works to mitigate disturbance to nearby neighborhoods. F2. The Orange County landfill system would be disrupted by the closure of any one of the landfills. F3. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is a possible candidate for closure in 2021 if negotiations with City of Brea prove unsuccessful. F4. Importing trash from outside of the County, initiated to help the County survive the 1994 bankruptcy, continues even though the bankruptcy bonds were retired as of July 2017. F5. Continued importation of trash tends to decrease Orange County landfill life. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2017-2018 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 Landfills: Talking Trash,” the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations. R1. By December 30, 2018, the County of Orange and the City of Brea should initiate formal negotiations to ensure identification and resolution of potential issues with the Olinda Alpha Landfill Memorandum of Understanding. (F1, F2, F3) R2. By June 30, 2019, Orange County Waste and Recycling should update and publish a cost/benefit analysis on the imported trash revenue stream surplus and the future costs associated with earlier closures in the landfill system. (F4, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Findings: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 City of Brea City Council Findings: F1, F2, F3 Recommendations: Orange County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations: R1, R2 City of Brea City Council: Recommendations: R1
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R11-12:
12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 FISCAL YEAR Note: FY 17-18 is estimated Source: Waste Management Commission Meeting Agenda of March 8, 2018 Imported Trash The 1994 Orange County bankruptcy resulted in a fiscal emergency that required extreme measures. Accepting trash from outside Orange County and collecting associated disposal fees was selected as an additional source of revenue for the County to be used toward payment of the bankruptcy debt. In 1995, county landfills began to accept trash from Riverside, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties for a fee. Currently, importation is 37% of the total annual waste in the landfills and contributes 30% of the total annual revenue. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the County of Orange received $45.5 million from the imported trash fees. OCWR received about 25% of that money for landfill support. About 7% was retained by the County and 5% was used to compensate the host cities. The great majority, 63% or $28.7 million, was used to retire the bankruptcy bonds and to pay other bankruptcy-related expenses. The bankruptcy bonds were discharged by July 1, 2017, but the County continues to import trash and collect fees, with contracts running until 2025. Most of these fees will be used to pay the $33.3 million owed to a handful of cities, special districts and internal county accounts that elected not to be repaid out of bond proceeds. A surplus, estimated to be between $5-8 million annually, remains beyond that. Figure 3: Imported Trash Revenue and Tonnage IMPORTED TRASH REVENUE AND TONNAGE 50 2 S 45 1.8 S N N 1.6 O O 40 T IL 1.4 N L IM $ 3 3 0 5 1 1.2 O IIL L ,E 0.8 IM U N E V E 2 2 0 5 REVENUE 0 0 . . 4 6 ,E G A N R 15 TONNAGE N 0.2 O T 10 0
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The 1995 OCFA JPA agreement, requiring that all SFF funds be allocated to OCFA, did not anticipate the disproportionate property values and growth in the City of Irvine, resulting in the current inequity issue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R6:
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required:
F2:
The imminent deadline of June 30, 2018, for members to notify OCFA of intent to withdraw leaves insufficient time to finalize a mutually agreeable plan to resolve the inequity issue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R2:
Prior to June 30, 2018, the City of Irvine should adopt a contingency plan to ensure uninterrupted fire and emergency services in the event of the City’s intended withdrawal from OCFA. (F2, F6)
F3:
The bilateral discussions between Irvine and OCFA, without the County’s involvement, have not resolved the inequity concerns and cannot resolve them without joint discussions and mutual agreement among all principal parties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F4:
The disagreement between Irvine and the County regarding the application of Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) funds complicates the resolution of the inequity issue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F5:
In the event of a Structural Fire Fund (SFF) member’s withdrawal from OCFA, the JPA agreement does not clearly address the disposition of that member’s SFF contributions, which may result in litigation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
By June 1, 2018, OCFA and the County of Orange should provisionally define the disposition of a member’s SFF contributions in the event of that member’s withdrawal. (F5)
R6:
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required:
F6:
In the event of Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA, the conflicting positions between the City and OCFA regarding ownership of fire stations and equipment located in Irvine may result in litigation.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
Prior to June 30, 2018, the City of Irvine should adopt a contingency plan to ensure uninterrupted fire and emergency services in the event of the City’s intended withdrawal from OCFA. (F2, F6)
R4:
By June 1, 2018, OCFA and the City of Irvine should resolve ownership of the Division 2 fire stations and associated equipment located in the City of Irvine. (F6)
R6:
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required:
F7:
In the event of a member’s withdrawal from OCFA, the JPA agreement does not define the disposition of that member’s share of OCFA’s unfunded liabilities, which may result in litigation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5:
By June 1, 2018, OCFA should provisionally define the disposition of a member’s share of OCFA unfunded liabilities in the event of that member’s withdrawal. (F7)
R6:
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe 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 therefor. (c) However, 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 §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required: