Orange County 2024-2025 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (6)

June 27, 2025 — Orange County Should Have More Respect for Its Elders! Grand Jury

29 páginas 12 hallazgos 10 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 12 hallazgos

F1: Orange County Office on Aging is not currently prepared to serve the future wave of older adults in this County.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should work with the Office on Aging’s Agency Director to determine the staffing and financial needs of the OOA for the next decade, due to demographics projecting a sizable increase in the older adult population in the County. This determination should occur by December 31, 2025, and be reviewed annually thereafter. (F1, F2)

F2: Based on the limited general funds allocated by the County for the Office on Aging, the well-being of older adults is not reflected as a County priority.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F3: The Office on Aging does not have its own dedicated Event Coordinator to manage outreach, resulting in missed opportunities to engage and educate older adults and their caregivers about the services provided.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Office on Aging put forth more effort on outreach to older adults and their caretakers about the services and benefits available to them. This would include, but is not limited to, employing its own Event Coordinator dedicated to managing outreach to this population. The Event Coordinator should be retained by December 31, 2025. (F3)

F4: The Office on Aging does not have its own dedicated employee responsible for website design and modernization as well as for updating information and events; as a result, the Office on Aging website and mobile application (app) have outdated information and are difficult to navigate.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Office on Aging secure its own reliable and experienced employee to modernize and update the Office on Aging website and mobile application (app) by September 30, 2025, and review the effectiveness of those updates annually thereafter. (F4)

F5: The Office on Aging suffers from limited resources and staffing and is therefore reactive rather than proactive to the needs of Orange County older adults.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Office on Aging prepare a written plan to submit to the Board of Supervisors identifying the additional staffing necessary to enable it to become proactive in the Orange County older adult community. Being proactive includes, but is not limited to, attending senior events in the County, reaching out to senior community centers to ascertain needs, and educating the target population on the services and benefits available through the Office on Aging. This shall occur by December 31, 2025, and the plan shall be reviewed annually thereafter. (F5)

F6: The Administrative Unit of the Orange County Community Services agency is at times slow to respond to requests from the Office on Aging, causing unnecessary delays to older adult services.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Administrative Unit of the Orange County Community Services respond in a timely manner to reasonable and relevant information requests made by the Office on Aging staff. (F6)

F7: The Administrative Unit of the Orange County Community Services agency does not pursue sufficient feedback, input, or discussion with the Office on Aging and non-profit providers before implementing changes affecting the non-profit providers who are serving older adults.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Orange County Community Services Administrative Unit collaborate with the Office on Aging staff and non-profit providers to secure their input before implementing changes affecting non-profit providers. (F7)

F8: The new invoicing system launched on July 1, 2024, by Orange County Community Services for the Office on Aging has caused certain non-profit providers difficulty in understanding how to implement the new system due to insufficient information and training provided, thereby causing a delay in payment for services to some non-profit providers.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: The Grand Jury recommends that the Orange County Community Services and Office on Aging jointly collaborate with those non-profit providers having continuing problems implementing the new invoice system. The basis of the collaboration is to determine what additional training, documentation, and materials are needed to get the new invoicing system to function effectively for these non-profits and to get their outstanding invoices for services paid immediately. This collaboration shall occur within thirty days of the publication of this report/investigation of the Office on Aging. (F8)

F9: It takes the Office on Aging an estimated six to nine months to fill a vacancy, due to the County hiring process. With the Office on Aging having roughly twenty employees (based on their most recent organization chart), any long-term vacancies have an outsized impact on the quality of services provided to Orange County older adults.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: The Grand Jury recommends that the Office on Aging collaborate with Orange County Human Resources Services as soon as the Office on Aging is aware of any vacancy that will need to be filled. With the growing older adult population in Orange County, it is imperative that the Office on Aging be fully staffed at all times. (F9)

F10: The Orange County Older Adults Advisory Commission advises the Office on Aging but is frustrated at the OOA’s current outreach activities, website revisions, marketing program, and the time it took to create a new brochure for the senior centers.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R9: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider providing the Orange County Older Adults Advisory Commission with more authority by requiring the Office on Aging to respond in writing within fourteen days of any requests made by the Advisory Commission. The written response should include whether, how, and when the request will be implemented. If a request is denied, the Office on Aging shall provide a written response explaining why it was denied. This recommendation is to be implemented effective as of September 30, 2025. (F10)

F11: The Office on Aging has to rely on the Orange County Community Services Administrative Unit as well as the Contracts Monitoring and Program Compliance Unit for decision making affecting older adult services. The inherent delays with this type of system, as well as a lack of timely collaboration between the Office on Aging and Orange County Community Services, causes unnecessary delays in decision making affecting services to older adults.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R10: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider making the Office on Aging its own independent agency, which would include internalizing the functions currently provided by the Orange County Community Services Administrative Unit and Contract Monitoring and Program Compliance Unit. This would allow the Office on Aging to better serve older adults in the County, which exceeds 675,000 people and is the fastest growing demographic in the County. If this recommendation is implemented by the Board of Supervisors, then the Office on Aging shall become its own independent agency by July 1, 2026. (F11) 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 and 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. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 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. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)

F12: The human services administrators, analysts, and staff specialists at the Office on Aging provide quality oversight of the non-profit providers and are making good faith efforts to advocate for the non-profit providers in getting paid for providing their services.

June 18, 2025 — Hate: What is Orange County Doing About It? Grand Jury

26 páginas 13 hallazgos 12 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 13 hallazgos

F1: In June 2024, the Orange County Board of Supervisors abruptly ended the County’s partnership with Groundswell and significantly reduced the size, membership, and meeting frequency of the County Human Relations Commission—including the elimination of members representing cities and law enforcement—raising serious concerns about the County’s commitment to addressing systemic bias, hate crimes, and discrimination.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R3: The Orange County Board of Supervisors should restore the Human Relations Commission to its original eleven-member makeup that includes representatives from cities, and should reinstate their monthly meetings. This should be done by September 30, 2025. (F1)

R4: By August 31, 2025, and semiannually thereafter, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should request a status report from the Human Relations Commission on its activities and plans since the termination of its contract with Groundswell. (F1)

R5: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Human Relations Commission to form a Hate Prevention and Response Coalition modeled after the former Groundswell effort. To avoid duplication, boost impact, and gather better data, it should include representatives from cities, Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney, schools, community groups, and affected residents. The coalition should create countywide hate crime protocols, support victims, promote inclusive education, and host public events. This should be done by September 30, 2025. (F1, F2, F4)

F2: The Orange County Human Relations Commission’s current methodology for compiling hate crime and incident statistics—relying only on reports from local law enforcement agencies—contributes to data incompleteness.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F3: While the California Department of Justice has already defined hate incidents, the Orange County Human Relations Commission has established an ad hoc committee to develop its own definition, which makes for data inconsistency and a diversion from the Commission’s purpose.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R7: To ensure consistency and better understanding of what constitutes a hate incident, the Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Human Relations Commission to adopt definitions as defined by the California Justice Department. This should be done by September 30, 2025. (F3)

F4: Orange County lacks a centralized, coordinated, county-led system that unites all stakeholders to prevent and respond to hate crimes and incidents.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R10: The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should collaborate with local law enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations that receive reports of hate crimes and incidents to develop a centralized portal or reporting mechanism. This would streamline the process, improve data capture, and make it easier to track and address hate crimes and incidents. This should be done by December 31, 2025. (F4, F7, F10)

F5: Despite County and private efforts to combat hate activity, the African American and Jewish communities, two of the least populous demographics in Orange County, experience the highest number of hate crimes and incidents.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: The Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) and local police departments should establish formal collaborations with Black- and Jewish-led organizations. Such partnerships would enable law enforcement to focus more effectively on the needs of these communities and enhance their efforts in combating hate crimes and incidents in these populations. (F5)

F6: Over the past three years, the Orange County Asian Pacific Islanders Community Alliance has implemented the State of California’s Department of Social Services’ “No Place for Hate” initiative. However, this grant funding expires in 2026, which will terminate this successful program.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: The Orange County Board of Supervisors should allocate funding to ensure that the Orange County Asian Pacific Islanders Community Alliance efforts continue uninterrupted. This should be done by December 31, 2025, and yearly thereafter. (F6)

F7: Local law enforcement agencies have undergone required Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) hate crime and incident training, updated their policies, and implemented standardized support for victims to align with AB449. However, the impact of these changes will take years to fully materialize.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F8: The Orange County Sheriff's Department's outreach to the faith-based community through its Interfaith Council has fostered a more inclusive and respectful environment in the county. However, there are still several faith-based organizations that are unaware of or not included in the Interfaith Council.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should expand representation within each faith, including multiple congregations, to ensure a broader and more inclusive interfaith collaborative. This should be done by December 31, 2025. (F8)

F9: Many Orange County residents are hesitant to report hate crimes and incidents due to distrust of law enforcement, fear of retaliation, immigration status concerns, language barriers, cultural stigma, and lack of awareness, resulting in incomplete data.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R9: The Orange County Sheriff’s Department should collaborate with local police departments to increase outreach efforts that encourage the public to report hate crimes and incidents, even if the reports are anonymous. Anonymous reports should be tabulated separately. This should be done by December 31, 2025. (F9, F10)

F10: Although hate crimes and incidents can be reported through various platforms—including community organizations and online portals—not all these channels transmit reports to law enforcement, leading to gaps in official tracking, investigation, and response.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

F11: Orange County school districts have no centralized database of available materials, resources, and programs for addressing hate crimes and incidents, limiting their ability to effectively combat hate.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R11: The Orange County Department of Education should create a centralized database of up-to- date materials, resources, and programs designed to address hate crimes and incidents in K-12 schools. This should be done by December 31, 2025. (F11, F12)

F12: Hate is a learned behavior. Early intervention (before sixth grade) is essential for promoting tolerance and respect.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R12: The Orange County Department of Education should implement and expand the current age-appropriate curriculum on tolerance and respect for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, including education programs for parents and caregivers. This should be done by December 31, 2025. (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 and 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. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 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. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)

F13: The grant from the U.S. Department of Justice secured by the Orange County District Attorney’s office aims to address and prevent hate crimes and incidents. This funding is scheduled to end on September 30, 2027, endangering this important program.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: The Orange County Board of Supervisors should provide sufficient funding to the OCDA’s office to continue its anti-hate crime and incident programs beyond its federal grant expiration date. This should be done by October 31, 2027, when the grant funding is scheduled to end, and yearly thereafter. (F13)

June 06, 2025 — Photos credit: Octa Octa: It Takes a Lot to Keep Us Moving Grand Jury

27 páginas 14 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 14 hallazgos

F1: There is no consensus on the causes of environmental disruptions resulting in track closures on the San Clemente Railroad corridor, which significantly hinders Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) from finding an agreed-upon solution.

F2: Orange County Transportation Authority has made good faith efforts to listen to input from all interested parties in San Clemente on the railroad and beach environmental issues and has made substantial adjustments in its proposed solutions based on these discussions.

F3: Experts agree that there is abundant sand available for replenishment from inland sources, as well as offshore sources; both could help with track stabilization.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: Despite significant obstacles to sand replenishment, OCTA should dedicate sufficient assets to investigating solutions whereby sand can be sourced and transported more quickly so that it can be a larger component of railroad track fortification. This investigation should begin by September 30, 2025. (F3)

F4: The California Coastal Commission (CCC) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) determine what is classified as an “emergency.” OCTA must abide by their decisions. As a result, it is very challenging for OCTA to proactively address future environmental disruptions, which are almost certain to occur.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Orange County Transportation Authority should prioritize its lobbying of State and federal agencies to create an intermediate-level environmental permit designed specifically for public infrastructure that is between “Standard Coastal Development” and “Emergency.” (F4, F5, F6) OC Streetcar Project

F5: There are only two types of permits for projects within the coastal zone: Emergency and Standard Coastal Development. Limited to these categories, it is extremely difficult for OCTA to be proactive in addressing impending environmental disruption to rail service.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F6: The Standard Coastal Development permit does not differentiate between public infrastructure and private development. Therefore, projects that impact public transport and safety are not afforded an expedited process over hotels or other private development. OC Streetcar Project

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F7: The Grand Jury cannot determine Santa Ana residents’ and merchants’ level of support and enthusiasm for the OC Streetcar when it was first proposed, or even currently.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R3: Projects of the financial magnitude of the OC Streetcar (now over $600,000,000.00 and counting) should be planned and executed to benefit a significantly larger portion of Orange County. This should begin with all projects currently underway. (F7, F10)

R4: For major transportation projects such as the OC Streetcar, OCTA should improve public outreach, including education about each project’s origin, need, expected benefit, timeline, cost, and funding sources. This should begin with all projects currently underway. (F7, F8)

F8: Orange County Transportation Authority is relying on outdated OC Streetcar Project ridership analyses from 2015, resulting in unrealistic expectations.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F9: Despite significant cost overruns and delays in the construction of the OC Streetcar Project, OCTA has failed to mitigate significant interruptions and lost revenue experienced by Santa Ana businesses.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: Orange County Transportation Authority should establish a Business Interruption Fund (BIF), through a third party, like that of Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority, to assist business owners whose livelihoods are disrupted by major transportation projects such as the OC Streetcar Project. BIF to be established by December 31, 2025. (F9)

F10: The estimated reduction of 12,500 daily vehicle miles of travel projected to be a benefit of the OC Streetcar Project is a tiny fraction of the daily miles traveled in the entire County. This calls into question the efficacy of the OC Streetcar Project. Other OCTA Topics

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

F11: Orange County Transportation Authority is making a responsible effort to comply with the State-mandated zero emission bus pilot program. It has purchased fuel cell and battery electric buses and related infrastructure to determine which type will be the bus of the future.

F12: Orange County Transportation Authority’s decision to fully self-insure for liability runs the risk that a catastrophic loss could severely deplete its financial reserves.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: Orange County Transportation Authority should consider reentering the liability insurance market to reduce the potential cost of a catastrophic loss. Staff report to OCTA Board about reentering the market by December 31, 2025. (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 and 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. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. 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. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. (Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)

F13: As mitigation for expedited freeway project approvals, OCTA has purchased approximately 1,300 acres of open space, restored 350 acres of habitat, and established an endowment to manage these properties. This benefits the health of wildlife and residents of Orange County.

F14: Measure M2 sales tax (now referred to as OC Go) benefits Orange County by providing significant funding for transportation projects.

May 30, 2025 — Health Care Agency: Providing Care for Orange County

17 páginas 5 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos

F1: The County’s hiring process sometimes limits the HCA’s ability to hire the best-qualified candidates.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the HCA continue to collaborate with County HRS to further streamline the recruitment and processing of applicants through additional job fairs and other recruitment efforts including, but not limited to, one-day hiring events. (F1)

F2: Not all HCA employees fully cooperate with the HCA Office of Compliance.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that all levels of HCA management refresh their knowledge of compliance requirements on a semi-annual basis effective December 31, 2025. (F2)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that whenever any HCA employee has compliance-related questions or concerns, they take those concerns to their supervisor and to the Office of Compliance. This should be reinforced by leadership sharing this recommendation in regular communication channels, such as monthly town halls and weekly senior staff meetings, commencing September 30, 2025. (F2)

F3: Correctional Health has built and maintains a collaborative relationship with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, benefitting the County, its employees, and the incarcerated population.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R4: The Grand Jury commends CHS and the Sheriff’s Department for their excellent working relationship and recommends that this be set forth in a written memorandum of understanding to extend beyond the terms of the current leadership. (F3)

F4: Behavioral Health is undergoing and anticipating major funding changes and prioritizes their services in a reactive manner driven by State mandates.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: The Grand Jury recommends that BHS leadership engage in proactive planning on an annual basis to align their priorities with funding changes by June 30, 2026, and yearly thereafter. (F4)

F5: Public Health Services does not routinely disseminate information to the Orange County public on communicable diseases, if any.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R6: The Grand Jury recommends that PHS generate an informational report to the general public on communicable diseases known to HCA by December 31, 2025, and at least quarterly thereafter. (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: Penal Code Section 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 and 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. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. Penal Code Section 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. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

May 14, 2025 — Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals Grand Jury

22 páginas 12 hallazgos 9 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 12 hallazgos

F1: Despite the increasing media coverage of Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.

F2: The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.

F3: Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city’s statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.

F4: Anaheim’s ordinance requires OBAs to report Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) directly to the city. This has led to the favorable consequence that unpermitted STR income is reported to the city.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R1: Cities should review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter. (F4, F12)

R3: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026. (F4, F12)

F5: Proactive home inspections of new and renewing STRs, which have been implemented in some Orange County cities, improve code enforcement and STR compliance with city ordinances.

F6: Direct remittance of taxes by OBAs does not capture all TOT for an STR because of direct booking practices.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R8: Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)

F7: Some cities in Orange County have outdated systems for tracking short-term rental TOT making the process less effective and more difficult for staff.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)

R4: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026. (F7, F8)

R5: Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025. (F7, F8)

R7: Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10)

R8: Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)

F8: In some cases, STRs are improperly recharacterized as long-term rentals to circumvent the collection of TOT and any applicable penalties.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)

R4: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026. (F7, F8)

R5: Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025. (F7, F8)

R7: Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10)

R8: Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)

F9: Online Booking Agencies in foreign languages are outside the current capabilities of Code Enforcement to monitor and track unpermitted STRs.

F10: Cities that fail to routinely review their STR waiting lists potentially lose TOT revenue and contribute to a greater prevalence of unpermitted STRs.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)

R6: Cities with a permit waiting list should implement strategies to remove non-revenue- generating licenses to allow for fair access by December 31, 2025, and annually thereafter. (F7,

R7: Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10)

F11: Locations that have hosted major events have reported an outsized increase in demand and pricing of STRs, a situation Orange County is likely to experience with the upcoming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R2: Cities should consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter. (F11)

F12: City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)

R3: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026. (F4, F12)

R9: City leaders should have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026. (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: Penal Code Section 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 and 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. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. Penal Code Section 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. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

January 01, 2025 — Is Voting Integrity Alive and Well in Orange County?

25 páginas 3 hallazgos

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos

F1: There was no evidence of fraud or election interference ascertained in the 2024 general election in Orange County.

F2: Voting in Orange County is fair, secure, and transparent.

F3: The ROV communications and outreach programs promote transparency and public confidence in the voting process. Orange County eligible voters can feel secure in knowing that the ROV provided an election of the highest recognized standards.